Reconsidering Life Sentences for Juveniles who Kill

In the 1993 book “Dead Man Walking,” Sister Helen Prejean tells the story of people directly impacted by capital punishment – convicted murderers counting down to their own executions, wardens and guards dutifully operating the machinery of death, and victims who are consumed by rage and grief. Prejean’s book, upon which the popular movie was based, is much more than a memoir. Well-researched and annotated, it carefully explores the legal, ethical and philosophical issues raised by the most controversial form of punishment in the United States. But the power of the book comes from its candor – from the fact that Prejean began her journey without a clear perspective or opinion on the death penalty. I read “Dead Man Walking” when it was first published. I had recently graduated from law school and was clerking for an appellate court judge. Although only vaguely interested in criminal law, I finished it quickly, engrossed by Prejean’s account of her experiences as a spiritual adviser for men on death row and moved by her struggle to find common ground with the families of victims.

I thought of this last weekend after reading Ethan Bronner’s article in The New York Times on reactions to Miller v. Alabama, the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional. With more than 2,000 offenders across the country who may be resentenced as a result of Miller, Bronner focused on a single case – a pregnant teen killed by her 15-year-old boyfriend – and prominently featured an interview with the victim’s sister, Bobbi Jamriska, who is active in the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers. Unlike Prejean’s book, but typical of most coverage of criminal sentencing, the Times article explicitly pits juveniles serving life sentences against victims’ families; it asserts without attribution that the decision in Miller threw “thousands” like Jamriska into “anguished turmoil at the prospect that the killers of their loved ones may walk the streets again.” Such hyperbole only perpetuates the notion that the ideal resolution is always to warehouse young offenders – without opportunity for review of their sentences – forever. I do respect Mr. Bronner’s work, but I don’t agree with the way he handled this piece and I told him so.

Youth Promise Act draws star power

A campaign to get federal funding for youth violence prevention programs in urban centers is gathering steam in the entertainment industry.  Media mogul Russell Simmons has joined the movement to support the Youth Promise Act, H.R. 1064, pending in Congress. Simmons writes about it in his blog for the Huffington Post:

“Every year in America, 600,000 youth are confined in a jail or prison… With the White House ready to address this growing issue, we need a proven cost-effective way of reducing youth violence.”

The Youth Promise Act would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.  Some provisions include:

Local oversight and control of funds. Custom tailored plans created for each community. Creation of a National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices

Celebrities, sports figures, gang experts and politicians are joining the cause on Facebook,  Twitter, and YouTube.  They released a video last week.  Supporters include NFL star and civil rights activist Jim Brown, actress Robin Wright, Baron Davis of the NBA, and Congressional sponsor Bobby Scott (D- Virginia).  On his website Scott says, “The Youth PROMISE Act represents a paradigm shift in the way we address juvenile crime policy in America.  Instead of doing what is politically expedient, we have the opportunity to both reduce crime and save money.”