Skip to main content

The Missouri legislature finished its session last week, amid a firestorm of controversial legislation and scandal that led to resignation of the speaker.  

I was in Jefferson City for the last week of session, watching as the chaos caused a lot of good legislation to die, including a bill that would reform Missouri’s law on the police use of force against civilians.

Prisoners gather at the Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. © 2007 Reuters

But there was one bill I was glad to see die – Senate Bill 200, a cynical attempt by the Missouri Senate to “reform” the state’s juvenile life without parole statute to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings.

In 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life without parole sentences were unconstitutional for offenders who were under 18 at the time of their crime, including those convicted of homicide. The court held that under the US Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments,” judges should never be barred from considering “age-related characteristics and the nature of the crime.” In sentencing youth for even the most serious crimes, judges should be able to consider the unique attributes and histories of youth – their precise role in the offense, family and home environment, and their potential for rehabilitation.

Missouri’s original Senate bill allowed for none of these things. Instead, it gave judges two stark choices: sentence a child convicted of first-degree murder to life without parole, or to a minimum sentence of 50 years.

The Missouri House of Representatives was not comfortable with this language, amending it to lower the minimum sentence to 25 years and allow for parole in all cases. The House amendment required sentencing judges and the parole commission to consider age-related characteristics, including the role of the child in the crime, the wishes of the victim or their family, whether the youth had shown remorse for their crime, and whether they have taken advantage of educational, rehabilitative, or other programs during their time in prison.

When faced with a choice the last day of session to remove this better language and pass the harmful Senate language, or keep the language intact and let the bill die, the House chose to stand firm. 

This principled decision means that next year, Missouri has a chance to get it right. The starting point should be the Miller decision, recognizing the need to treat youth in accordance with their individual characteristics and capacity for change. And it should build upon the resolve of the Missouri House from this year, who chose tough but fair guidelines over cruel and unconstitutional practices.  

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

Region / Country