U.S. Supreme Court to Look at Life Imprisonment for Non-Homicide Juvenile Offenders

The US Supreme Court on Monday will consider whether sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In 2005, SCOTUS decided that it was unconstitutional to execute juveniles who had committed murder. The court will hear two cases from Florida, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida. Florida has locked away far more juveniles than any other state.  Terrance Graham was sentenced at 17 after he violated probation by taking part in a home invasion. A year earlier, he had been convicted of armed robbery. The other case, Joe Harris Sullivan, who is one of only two 13 year olds in the country, sentenced to life without parole for raping an elderly woman. His lawyers have maintained that Sullivan, now 34, never committed the crime.

Florida, joined by 19 other states, said they should retain the right to decide the proper way to sentence those who commit crimes, regardless of age. "There is no consensus against life sentences for juveniles, particularly for heinous crimes such as sexual battery," Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar told the court in the state's brief.

While most states theoretically retain the right to imprison juveniles for life without parole, only a handful do when the crime is not homicide. Across the country, 111 people are serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles that did not result in a death, according to one report. More than 70 percent of those inmates are in Florida, which took a get-tough approach in the 1990s in response to a crime wave that was "compromising the safety of residents, visitors, and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry," Florida's brief to the court states.

Sullivan and Graham are supported by a wide-ranging group of organizations: the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and academics and social scientists who argue that juveniles cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are. For the same reason, they say, younger teenagers are not entrusted with decisions such as voting, marrying or drinking alcohol.

But the states supporting Florida said the penalty is reserved for the worst offenders. "It is a rare and agonizing decision to sentence a juvenile to life-without-parole," said a brief filed by Louisiana and other states. "But rare does not mean unconstitutional. Rather, rarity is an index of mercy -- of reluctance to take this severe step." Source: Washington Post

Life without parole for juveniles may be considered unusual and should be reserved for the most violent juvenile offenders.