In a pair of rulings in 2009 and 2011, the US Supreme Court has curbed the use of life without parole sentences for people below the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. In Graham v. Florida, the Court held that youth convicted of crimes other than murder could not be sentenced to life without parole; in Miller v. Alabama, that youth convicted of murder could not receive mandatory life without parole sentences. The Court held in both cases, backed up by a growing body of scientific research, that youth are constitutionally different from adults – they are more impulsive, less apt to weigh consequences, and more likely to change. In sum, they have “diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform.”
But the Court's decisions have run into resistance in some states, with a number of jurisdictions seeking to mandate minimum terms for juveniles who have committed murder that are so long that they amount to life without parole by another name.
Florida recently considered (but, thankfully, didn't pass) a bill requiring that a child convicted of murder serve 50 years before becoming eligible for parole. In Texas, the minimum number of years to be served in these cases is 40.
And now the state of Massachusetts is mulling a bill under which a juvenile convicted of murder could be considered for parole only after serving 35 years; even then, a parole board could approve release only after deciding that the teenager "had the maturity and sense of responsibility of an adult" at the time of the offense–an absurd requirement, since teenagers by definition lack the maturity of adults, as the US Supreme Court has recognized. Disappointingly, the Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner, Martha Coakley, says she would, like the Republican candidate, sign the bill into law as governor.
It's important to note that in Miller the Court was not saying that children who commit homicide should necessarily get off lightly. It was saying that any sentence a child receives for such an offense should be arrived at through a process in which a judge takes account of the particular circumstances of the case, above all that the offender was a child at the time of the offense. That means no lengthy mandatory sentences, and it means providing a periodic meaningful opportunity for release to youth offenders who have an inherent capacity to mature and change.
Massachusetts, Florida, and other states considering how to apply Graham and Miller should take heed: yes, youth are capable of committing serious crimes and should be held to account for their actions. But they are not miniature adults, and the state should not treat them as such.
