Panel Day Reflection

I personally feel that we had a very helpful and informed panel but I would have found some debate more interesting. Because all three of them, Beth (Supervisor at DCF), Andie (State Attorney), and Dave (Parole Officer), got along extremely well. This is great for all the juveniles of Vermont because these three work together very often but for us students sitting in chairs for 2 hours it gets a little boring. Andie was able to give great insight on hearings and personal opinions on how he felt about the topic. Although he was not able to reveal details about the cases he worked on he was able to tell us about the cases quite effectively. Beth provided great depth and detail about the actual rehabilitation process that they all greatly supported. To go along with these details and to prove to us that rehabilitation is really possible, Dave told us about the good and bad tales of his job. On more then one occasion he mentioned that many cases go well and the juvenile rehabilitates but this can only happen if they want it to. He told of a young boy who was into things he shouldn’t be into and skipping school. His mom begged Dave to get him to go and to help her but the young boy never did. He found school boring and useless. After a year or so the young man decided to go to school. Dave asked why he had suddenly decided to go. Without hesitation the boy said because he wants to. Dave realized that he finally had a want to go and therefore became content with going. He wasn’t going to do something he didn’t want to do. This is true for so many teenagers and is why this story really stuck out to me. I am a teenager myself and I know for a fact that if we don’t want to do something and don’t see a point, we won’t do it. This boy thought that he could make his own decisions and didn’t want to listen to anyone who told him how to live his life or what to do and not to do.  Once he finally wanted to go to school he went. This was a decision he needed to make himself.

Map of Life Sentences

The sentences of these children are largely dependent on the state.

Interviews

1) Daniel Kronk, Juvenile Expert

2) Gary VonStange, Lawyer

3) Gary Small, Former Police Officer specializing in drug and narcotics

Court Cases

There have been a few court cases involved with life imprisonment without parole of juveniles. One of the Major cases involved in this debate is Graham v Florida. In this case a 16 year old male was convicted of armed burglary and armed robbery. He was found guilty and the judge proceeded to sentence him to 12 months in jail. Six months after he was released from jail, at age 17 and a 1/2,  he was convicted of armed home robbery. The judge didn't hesitate to put him in jail for life without the chance of parole. Graham later argued that his conviction was cruel and unusual and therefore violated the 8th amendment. The state of Florida argued against this for obvious reasons. The Supreme Court, after they considered both the punishment and the class of the punished (juvenile), decided that life in prison was indeed a punishment too cruel and unusual for a non homicide and therefore violated the 8th Amendment. This case has affected the lives of many people both already in jail and sentenced to jail time. It has become that backbone for the cases of many people wishing to relieve themselves of their sentences. People who were sentenced at a young age for life are now having there sentences shortened.  There are many cases that are now being reconsidered because of this one child's strength. 


The backbone for the Graham v Florida case was the Roper v Simmons case. This was one of the original cases protecting juveniles. It was held in 1993 but was not closed until 2002. Christopher Simmons was sentenced to the death penalty at the young innocent age of 17. He wet through a series of appeals and rejections on his case until 2002 when the Supreme Court decided to temporarily delay the case until they had come to a conclusion about the Atkin v Virginia case. Once a conclusion was reached, which stated that because the offender in this case was mentally ill it was against the 8th Amendment to sentence him with the death penalty, the Supreme Court could look at the Roper v Simmons case and provide it with appropriate attention. Studies from 1989 showed that the general public felt that the execution of minors was appropriate. This was first reevaluated when Atkin's case came into public view and yet again when Simmons came into view of the Supreme Court. New studies then found that the general public didn't believe in sentencing a mentally ill or a juvenile with the death penalty. They now felt that the execution of minors is wrong. The Supreme Court later voted on the case and in a 5-4 vote they decided that because of the new public decency standards sentencing a minor with the death penalty is now unconstitutional. It breaks the 8th Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. This case was the first stepping stone towards the appropriate treatment of minors. Cases for years to come used this one case as the backbone of their argument. It had and still has a huge effect on minors around the world. They are no longer allowed to be given the death penalty, everything changed for the better.       

Current Interpretations

There hasn't been much decision on how to deal with this topic right now. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the legal age of adulthood varies depending on the state. Some states believe that you should not be tried as an adult until you are eighteen but others believe that with certain crimes you can be tried as an adult at the young age of fourteen. People have also recently started to notice that there is a general trend of increasing juvenile crime every fifteen years or so (Opposing Viewpoints). This means that the topic isn't always around to talk about, it fluctuates and over the years there have been many different attempts at solving this influx of crime rates. Over the years things such as boot camp, harsher sentences and being tried as an adult have all been unsuccessful attempts. More recently, in around 2007, people attempted to send juveniles home and then watch them for years to follow while they underwent intensive therapy. It worked but has not stuck and therefore not been used more recently. In recent years the general feeling has been that juveniles deserve the right to mature and develop. It was stated, in 2005, that "the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity" (Annenberg Classroom). Overall people feel the punishments are too harsh and need to be better controlled. This does not mean that they have come to a conclusion but they are working towards one. More recently they have decided, in the Graham v Florida case, that it is considered cruel and unusual to sentence a juvenile to prison for life without parole.

Constitutional Connection

Very few parts of the constitution apply directly to the debate of whether juveniles being put in jail is appropriate. One of these few areas is the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment states that "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" (FindLaw.com). Determining if putting juveniles in jail for life without parole is classified as cruel and unusual punishment is the debate that is being argued at this time. Many don't know where to draw that line and don't know if that line should be dependent on the crime. The Supreme Court has not come to a final decision yet and has had much trouble solving this. In the case of Roper v Simmons it was decided that the death penalty is cruel and unusual but they don't know if life imprisonment is considered cruel and unusual. This became a problem during the case of Sullivan v Florida. Sullivan argued that the ruling of Ropers case applied in his own case but that was proven wrong by the simple fact that death penalty and life imprisonment are not equals, although some may argue different.
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 states that" all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction therefore, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law" (FindLaw.com). If we look closely at the statement "nor shall any State deprive any person of life or liberty "(FindLaw.com), we can define both life and liberty. Life is protected in our Democratic Ideals. This means that we have a right to our life being considered inviolable unless in extreme circumstances. Some consider a life in prison at a young age violating this. You are stripping them of years of life experience. Our liberty is protected. One of the highlights of our right to liberty is personal freedom. Being put in jail for life can be considered as stripping them of their freedom. As you can see there is much interpretation that still needs to be determined. People have yet to come up with a solution to all of this.

Issue Explanation

People have been unable to come up with a solution to this problem because its not as simple as a yes or no answer and it is not a black and white issue. There is much grey area that needs to be determined by the Supreme Court. One of the basic democratic ideals is life. This ideal states that peoples lives should be valued at all times unless it puts others or there own lives in danger. By putting a young child (juvenile) in jail for life are we taking away there right to life? They still have 80+ years of life experience ahead of them. This question may seem simple but its not we don't know the right answer because we are also told that equality should be applied to all. But is what is equal always fair? Convicting a grown adult, who was legitimately aware of the consequences of his action, to life in prison without parole is not the same as convicting a child,who does not yet have the brain development to be aware of his consequences, to life in prison for the same illegal action. Sure this is equal, as they did commit the same crime, but is it fair? The constitution states that we have a right to justice which translates to: people should be treated fairly in the distribution of the benefits and burdens of society, the correction of wrongs and injustices, and in the gathering of information and making decisions. This directly contradicts with the following ideal of equality. Because once again is what is equal always fair? We can only have both in an idealistic perfect society. We do not live in such a society and therefore are constantly debating topics such as these.      
(All from trial search packet page 12)

What I Know

I know very little about my topic right now. There are many different views on whether juveniles should be allowed to be sentenced to a life in prison. The 8th amendment prohibits "the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments". Many are arguing whether or not a life in prison is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Nothing is specified as to what the line is and that is the heart of the argument. There have been multiple cases of juveniles being sentenced to life in prison without bail on a minor felony. More people believe that if juveniles are sentenced to jail because of murder it is more acceptable than something minor. There were two recent cases where juveniles were sent to jail for life without bail. Both were young African Americans. In one case the sentence was based off poor eye witness evidence only. There was DNA evidence but it was chosen not to be used. The line between cruel and unusual punishment and acceptable punishment is currently being debated. 

I have very little questions. I would like to just learn more general information about the topic. I also want to know how many cases there are like the one stated above. If there are many cases with poor evidence then there is a problem other then the fact that the punishments are extreme. I also want to know what crimes sentence adults to life in jail without parole. I could then easily compare the situations. I also want to learn more about the adolescent brain and its development. We were given one article about how the adolescent brain is not 100% developed and that this directly effects their decision making abilities. I found this interesting and would like to learn more.