21. May 2009 by Rev Young.

We are very hopeful about the possibilities that are being presented with Senator Webb’s proposal for a commission to look into, and make recommendations for, criminal justice reform.  We, as advocates, know that this has been needed for a long time.  We are keenly aware that even if the juveniles we advocate for did not have a history of crime, they have been damaged from their experience and time served in this system of justice. 

I have a friend who’s career has been the department of corrections.  He will tell you very plainly that prison has it’s own society, culture and set of rules.  He calls it “cell block x mentality”.  The fact of the matter is, we place people into a world of violence, intimidation, corruption and greed.  If the person who is incarcerated did not have issues before he/she was sent to prison, they will when they come out. 

My friend and team mate, Mary Ellen Johnson of The Pendulum Foundation, has been advocating to the Colorado Department of Corrections for programs, education and restorative justice.  She has partnered with several organizations to make these available at LITTLE or NO cost to the state.  The state has yet to move to implement any of these programs.  While working on the issue of programs and education, we found out an interesting statistic for the state of Colorado.  If you reduce the recidivism rate by 1%, you save the state 3 million dollars.  You would think that this would be a great motivator in a time of budget crisis.  It has not motivated them this far. 

Even beyond the monetary gain from such rehabilitation programs is the human side.  What an opportunity to see transformation in the lives of so many people.  That is the purpose of this blog.  While I do not normally do this, I am posting a blog from a christian organization, Prison Fellowship Ministries.  This open letter is a shining example of what programs and education can do for individuals, facilities and governments alike.  It is also a testimony to the power of one human being showing care and consideration to another.  These people who have helped to implement these programs have chosen to go into these dark places called prisons and impact the lives of those held there.  Most of you know that I am a Reverend as I sign my blogs that way.  I do not intend to offend anyone and apologize if I do.  What I want everyone to see is the possibility and hope that comes from applying education, rehabilitation and restorative justice.  Prison Fellowship is only one organization with these kinds of programs to offer.  Isn’t it time that we begin to look at the human cost and change the direction of prisons in this country?  Please read on…..

 May 2009Dear Friends,

Two weeks ago, I returned from a four-day trip to Costa Rica and Belize.  Mike Timmis, the Chairman of our board, Ron Nikkel, President of Prison Fellowship International, and I joined six other men from the U.S. to visit Prison Fellowship’s work in these two countries.  Despite the fact that I came back with a mildly “unhappy” stomach, we were astounded at what we saw and heard.

Belize has just one prison.  Its population has doubled in the last few years — now more than 1,500 men and 30 women.  Several years ago the country handed the prison system over to the Kolbe Foundation to manage, since the prison had such a high recidivism rate (70 percent) and frequent escapes and violence.  It was filled with corruption. The Kolbe Foundation, run by followers of Jesus, partners with Prison Fellowship Belize. Prison Fellowship provides the rehabilitation programs in the prison.  Today the prison is clean, well managed, and the recidivism rate is now only 10 to 13 percent.  Perhaps most exciting, the primary residential rehabilitation program is patterned on the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) here in the U.S.

Seven years ago, a retired schoolteacher in Iowa, Jeanne Goematt, felt led to go to Belize and minister to prisoners.  She went to the IFI program in Iowa and asked if they would train her to work with inmates and teach her the IFI model.  For several months she did just that.  Then, armed with her training and experience, she went to Belize.  

Mother Jeanne, as she is now called by the prisoners in Belize, approached the Kolbe Foundation and said, “You need a rehabilitation program.”

They agreed and asked her to do it.  They gave her the most dilapidated building in the prison, and she went to work.  Now the unit, named the Inner Change for Freedom Belize (IFFB), is the nicest in the prison.  Mother Jeanne is retiring once again to return to the states.  We happened to be there on the day they honored her with a going-away celebration.  The men were in tears as they said goodbye to Mother Jeanne.  Over and over, they repeated that she had shown them the love of Jesus and taught them the Scriptures.  One man, who had been in and out of prison five times, was so overcome with tears that he could not finish as he shared how through her Jesus had changed his life.  He is out of prison now and helps run the program.  As Mother Jeanne leaves these men to return to Iowa, she leaves the program in the hands of another former inmate trained and discipled by her — now a laborer in the harvest.

When we arrived in Costa Rica, we visited a Prison Fellowship kitchen that serves street people — many of them drug addicts and former prisoners.  While there, we met Cesar. Cesar has now been drug free for 12 years, is married to a college professor, and has five children.  He owns his own business and is part of the Prison Fellowship Costa Rica outreach.  But that was not always the case.  His father spent 30 years in prison, and his mother died at a young age from substance abuse.  Cesar grew up homeless on the streets, a drug addict himself, stealing to survive.  Then one day he heard about some free food at the Prison Fellowship center.  When he arrived, they were out of food for the day, and he was angry.  But Jeannette Incera, one of Prison Fellowship’s leaders there, took him aside and told him to come back the next day, hugged him, and gave him a kiss on the cheek.  The kiss changed his life forever!  As he told us, no one had ever kissed him before because he smelled so bad from not bathing for months.  He said from that day on, he was never the same.  Days later he returned and the rest is history.  He is now walking with Christ and advancing His kingdom.

Costa Rica also has an IFI-related program.  Since the program began three years ago, the recidivism rate is 0 percent.  The Minister of Justice of Costa Rica, who joined us on the visit, said he wants at least four more.  In his words, “If we do not believe in this program, it is like saying we do not believe in man.”  I could not agree with him more.  Not believing in a program that helps men find Jesus and introduces them to mentors who are willing to love them and disciple them, is indeed giving up on man and saying you want nothing to do with mankind.

What we saw and heard in Belize and in Costa Rica is not unlike what we see and hear in the U.S. every day — men and women who never thought their lives could change until they met a follower of Jesus who loved them, invested time in them, and shared the Good News of Jesus with them.  It is universal.  And when it hits the prison cells of this world, it is very dramatic.  Because of the darkness, the light of Jesus shines ever brighter, and the change He brings in men and women is so sharply visible!

Would you pray that Jeanne Goematt’s desire to continue to work with inmates in Iowa after she returns from Belize will be fulfilled?  We can’t afford to lose her!!

Would you pray for Inner Change for Freedom Belize and the former inmate who has now assumed responsibilities for the program?

Pray for Prison Fellowship Costa Rica and that the Minister of Justice’s dream of four more IFI programs would come to pass!

Pray for Jeannette Incera in Costa Rica and the young man she kissed 12 years ago – Cesar.  Ask God to raise up more men and women for Jesus who would powerfully impact the prisons of that country with the Gospel.

We are humbled by our inadequacy and depend upon Jesus to supply all we need.  Thank you for praying with us and for us so faithfully!  It gives us great strength and comfort.

In His Grace,

Mark L. Earley
1 Corinthians 1:9

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

21. May 2009 by Rev Young.

I am very pleased to announce that HR2289 (formerly HR4300) has been re-introduced to congress.  The language of the bill has changed.  I believe that the bill is much strong and more comprehensive.  The intent of this legislation remains the same.  The goal is to give those juvenile offenders who committed a crime before the age of 18, and who have been sentenced to serve a sentence of more than 15 years in adult facility, the opportunity to appear before a parole board.  While appearing before a parole board does not mean that the will be granted parole, it does mean that they have an opportunity to have their sentences commuted or the opportunity to come home.  If they are not granted parole at the first hearing they may appear once every three years after that. 

The new legislation addresses the rights and needs of victims, it addresses the requirements for the states to comply and addresses the need for this reform.  Our thanks to the legislators for this bold move. I urge you to go to www.hr4300.com to read the bill in its entirety.  There is also a link to the petition site for this legislation.  EVEN IF YOU HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION IN THE PAST (HR4300), WE REQUEST THAT YOU SIGN THE PETITION FOR THIS REVISED LEGISLATION.

I am also providing form letters that we ask you to send to members of the judiciary committee and their contact information is included in these attachments as well.  If you know of others on your own e-mail lists that need this information, please forward.  We need to rally the troops! 

I want to thank all of you for helping us pass this important legislation.  However, the next step is to help establish the rehabilitation program, education and restorative justice programs that will help insure that receive the opportunity for parole and will help them transition into communities with success.  In order for this to happen we are going to need a comprehensive shift in the way we look at criminal justice.  More to come on that in my next blog……….

letter_to_lamar_smith__and_the_judiciary.htm

letter_to_the_john_conyers_for_the_judiciary_committee.doc

us_house_judiciary_committee_111th_congress_member_contacts.htm

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

13. May 2009 by Rev Young.

Life Sentence for Juveniles?

To the Editor:

Re “Justices Agree to Take Up Life-Without-Parole Sentences for Young Offenders” (news article, May 5):

There are currently almost 2,500 people serving sentences of life without parole for crimes committed before age 18. Fifty-nine percent received their sentences for their first-ever criminal conviction. Sixteen percent were between 13 and 15 when they committed their crimes, and 26 percent were sentenced under a felony murder charge where their offenses did not involve carrying a weapon or pulling a trigger.

Our society recognizes that juveniles differ from adults in their thinking, reasoning and decision-making capacities. Research also demonstrates that adolescents actually use their brains in fundamentally different ways from adults. As a result, they are more likely to act on impulse, without fully considering the consequences of their actions.

This fall, the Supreme Court will decide if juvenile offenders should be eligible for life without parole. One hopes they will concur with the growing public sentiment that it’s time to stop sentencing young people to die in jail.

David Fassler
Burlington, Vt., May 5, 2009

The writer is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20090511&Category=OPINION02&ArtNo=905110311&SectionCat=&Template=printart

Article published May 11, 2009

Too young to discard

THE fundamental principle the Supreme Court applied to a 2005 ruling that declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles should apply to life imprisonment sentences meted out to juveniles convicted of nonlethal crimes.

When the high court takes up two Florida cases later this year, it should decide against life sentences without chance of parole for criminal teens.

There is a good reason juveniles and adults are usually handled separately in the judicial system.

Children who commit crimes should be punished in some fashion, but they are held to lesser standards than adult lawbreakers because their poor judgment and misbehavior reflect their age and their still-developing maturity.

Much as it seems that juveniles are committing ever more serious crimes, most are simply too young to be permanently discarded by society via life sentences without possibility of parole.

In the two cases the court will hear, one defendant was 13 at the time he allegedly raped a 72-year-old Pensacola woman, and the other was 17 when he was charged with participating in a series of robberies.

Both had been involved in earlier crimes and both got life in prison without parole when convicted and sentenced as adults. But those sentences, their lawyers argue, are precisely the kind of extreme measures that, for adolescents, fall under the Eighth Amendment’s injunction against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court used that yardstick when outlawing capital punishment for juvenile offenders. Now it should do the same for life without parole for individuals who are, despite the seriousness of their crimes, still children.

San Jose Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12339205?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
Calif. bill would give young killers rehab chance

By STEVE LAWRENCE Associated Press Writer
Posted: 05/10/2009 02:23:57 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO—State Sen. Leland Yee believes that wayward kids should have a second chance to make good—even when they commit murder or other serious crimes.
Yee, a San Francisco Democrat who has a doctorate in child psychology, has introduced legislation that would allow courts to reduce the sentences of inmates who were given terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole when they were minors.
The new sentence would make the prisoner eligible for parole after at least 25 years behind bars.
“No one who supports the bill is dismissing the gravity of the crimes that have been committed by these youngsters,” Yee said. “What we are saying is the people of California should not be throwing away these young people’s lives if there is a possibility of rehabilitation. We ought to look at these individual cases a little more closely.”
The bill, which is on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s agenda on Monday, would allow a prisoner who was sentenced to life without parole as a minor to petition a court for a new sentencing hearing after the inmate had served at least 10 years.
The court would have to grant the hearing—but not necessarily agree to change the sentence—if it found that the inmate met at least three of eight criteria. Those standards include the fact that inmate was an accessory to murder but not the actual killer, did not have prior convictions for assault or other violent crimes and had demonstrated remorse.
Elizabeth Calvin, children’s rights advocate with Human Rights Watch, an international group that investigates allegations of human rights violations, said there are about 250 California inmates who are serving life without parole sentences handed down when they were minors.
Most are behind bars because they were involved in a murder, often as an accomplice, Calvin said. But life-without-parole sentences can be given in a limited number of other cases, including kidnappings for ransom in which a death or serious injury occurs.
The United States is the only country that allows life-without-parole sentences for minors, Calvin added.
“There is a growing recognition that young people are different from adults,” she said. “There is no question that they understand right from wrong. The question is, are they as culpable in all ways as someone who is an adult? What science is finding is no.
“The brain development that is happening in early adulthood is relevant to how teenagers behave. Our laws should reflect that.”
Scott Thorpe, chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Association, one of the law enforcement groups that opposes the bill, said the standards that courts must consider in determining whether to grant a new sentencing hearing are too weak.
“It really doesn’t take much for a juvenile to show that he or she is entitled to the hearing,” Thorpe said. “You have such things as the juvenile had insufficient adult support or supervision. That isn’t much. That he maintained family connections through phone calls or visits. That isn’t much.
“You’re going to set up a system where hearings are going to be mandated which are mini-trials…. We’re just concerned about the cost of this and the ease of which it would be established to have these kinds of hearings. The standards are too low.”
He said the minors who receive life-without-parole sentences are 16 and 17-year-olds “who commit the most severe types of crimes. Essentially we’re talking about juveniles who commit first-degree murder with special circumstances.”
But Yee said that sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances that don’t warrant lifetime sentences—for example, juveniles who grew up in abusive environments and turned to crime, were led astray by adult criminals or were caught up in a robbery or other crime that resulting in an unintentional killing.
He said he’s haunted by one case in particular—a 16-year-old Riverside girl who killed a man who had lured her into prostitution. The girl, Sara Kruzan, is 31 now and has turned her life around while in prison, Yee said.
“She is locked up in jail, and she is going to die there,” Yee said. “She could be a tremendous role model for abused kids, a tremendous humanitarian, such an asset to our society.
“Literally, life without parole is a death sentence for these kids. In a civilized society we should not throw away the keys but give these youngsters a chance to demonstrate they’re deserving of a second chance.”

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

13. May 2009 by Rev Young.

Young People Sentenced to Die in Prison

Friday, May 8, 2009

The May 5 news story “High Court to Look at Life Sentences for Juveniles” may have left readers with the impression that the United States is not the only country that sentences youths to life in prison without the possibility of parole, but the sad fact is that it is.

While the rest of the world has recognized what science has told us — that adolescents aren’t fully developed or able to use adult reasoning — U.S. sentencing laws lag behind the times. The Supreme Court’s decision to review two cases in which youths were sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole will highlight the question of whether such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The cases the Supreme Court will consider shed light on the fact that there should be careful review of all life sentences given to youths, including the 2,574 people currently serving life without parole for crimes committed when they were under 18. No youth should be sentenced to die in prison, denied the opportunity to ever argue for his or her freedom, or stripped of all hope and the opportunity for rehabilitation.

JODY KENT

Coordinator

National Campaign for the

Fair Sentencing of Youth

Washington

Another Cruel and Unusual Punishment for Teens
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Commentary
New America Media
May 6, 2009

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took a big step toward righting a galling wrong. It joined nearly every other nation on the globe and banned teen executions. Now it should take the next big step and dump all laws that let states lock up juvenile offenders for the rest of their life.

There are lots of them. In a report last year, Human Rights Watch found that more than 2,000 juvenile offenders are serving life without possibility of parole sentences. The U.S. locks up more juveniles for life without the possibility of parole than all nations combined.

The Court will rule on two Florida cases, where juvenile offenders got no-parole life sentences. The two cases point to the often-appalling legal and racial inequities in the juvenile no-parole sentencing. The two men committed crimes when they were 17 years old. The crimes were violent crimes; a rape and an armed home invasion robbery. But in both case s, the evidence, testimony and witness identification were muddled and contradictory. They were still convicted and have spent more than a decade in prison.

As is the case with the death penalty, the no-parole sentences are far from race neutral. In the Florida case, both men are African American. Black teens are 10 times more likely to receive a no-parole life sentence than white youths. They are even more likely to get those sentences when their victims are white. This was the case in the Florida convictions, and they are often tried by all-white or mostly-white juries. Those same juries seldom consider their age as a mitigating factor.

A significant number of juveniles sentenced to no-parole sentences did not actually commit murder but were participants in a robbery or were at the scene of the crime when the death occurred. The majority of the teens slapped with the draconian sentence had no prior convictions, and a substantial number were age 15 or under.

Judges and juries say that violence is violence no matter the age of the perpetrator, and that punishment must be severe to deter crime. Prosecutors and courts in the 40 states that convict and impose no-parole life sentences on juvenile offenders — with California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Michigan, and Florida leading the pack — have repeatedly rejected challenges that teen no-parole sentences are a violation of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Though murder rates have plunged to near record lows, the public remains anxious of violent crimes, especially young persons who commit them. Lawmakers are loath to do anything that will bring public heat on them that they are soft on crime. This is still considered the kiss of death for political careers.

Yet most experts agree that children don’t have the same maturity, judgment, or emotional development as adults. In a report on juveniles and the death penalty, Amnesty International found that a number of child offenders sentenced to death suffered severe physical or sexual abuse. Many others were alcohol or drug impaired, or suffered from acute mental illness or brain damage. Nearly all were below average intelligence.

Despite Hollywood sensationalism and media-driven myths about rampaging youth, most experts insist that children are not natural-born predators. If given proper treatment, counseling, skills training and education, most can be turned into productive adults.

An irony in the Supreme Court’s 2005 ban on executing teen killers was that the ban actually worked against no-parole reform efforts. Since states could no longer execute juvenile offenders, then the legal thinking was that it was far more humane to sentence them to life sentences. Victims’ rights advocacy groups claim that taking away the option of no- parole sentences for juveniles will weaken crime deterrents. This makes it even tougher to make the case that counseling, treatment, and education is the more effective way to redeem young people who commit crimes than harsh sentencing — but it is.

And there’s the gnawing question of race. The racial gap between black and white juvenile offenders is vast and troubling. The rush to toss the key on black juveniles has had terrible consequences in black communities. It has increased poverty, fractured families, and further criminalized a generation of young black men.

No matter what their age, those who commit crimes — especially murder — must be punished, but the punishment should not only fit the crime, it should also fit the age of the person who committed it, and the circumstances that drove them to commit their offenses. If juvenile offenders with the right help can turn their life around, they deserve that chance, and judges should be able to give it to them.

The Supreme Court in its decision to ban juvenile executions called teen executions “shameful.” They recognized that the practice cannot, and should not, be justified on moral or legal grounds, and that it was past time to put a stop to them. The court should recognize the same with the no-parole sentence for teens and outlaw it.

Source: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=599f7802903e64f19e26a96107c3a214

Another Cruel and Unusual Punishment for Teens
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Commentary
New America Media
May 6, 2009

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took a big step toward righting a galling wrong. It joined nearly every other nation on the globe and banned teen executions. Now it should take the next big step and dump all laws that let states lock up juvenile offenders for the rest of their life.

There are lots of them. In a report last year, Human Rights Watch found that more than 2,000 juvenile offenders are serving life without possibility of parole sentences. The U.S. locks up more juveniles for life without the possibility of parole than all nations combined.

The Court will rule on two Florida cases, where juvenile offenders got no-parole life sentences. The two cases point to the often-appalling legal and racial inequities in the juvenile no-parole sentencing. The two men committed crimes when they were 17 years old. The crimes were violent crimes; a rape and an armed home invasion robbery. But in both case s, the evidence, testimony and witness identification were muddled and contradictory. They were still convicted and have spent more than a decade in prison.

As is the case with the death penalty, the no-parole sentences are far from race neutral. In the Florida case, both men are African American. Black teens are 10 times more likely to receive a no-parole life sentence than white youths. They are even more likely to get those sentences when their victims are white. This was the case in the Florida convictions, and they are often tried by all-white or mostly-white juries. Those same juries seldom consider their age as a mitigating factor.

A significant number of juveniles sentenced to no-parole sentences did not actually commit murder but were participants in a robbery or were at the scene of the crime when the death occurred. The majority of the teens slapped with the draconian sentence had no prior convictions, and a substantial number were age 15 or under.

Judges and juries say that violence is violence no matter the age of the perpetrator, and that punishment must be severe to deter crime. Prosecutors and courts in the 40 states that convict and impose no-parole life sentences on juvenile offenders — with California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Michigan, and Florida leading the pack — have repeatedly rejected challenges that teen no-parole sentences are a violation of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Though murder rates have plunged to near record lows, the public remains anxious of violent crimes, especially young persons who commit them. Lawmakers are loath to do anything that will bring public heat on them that they are soft on crime. This is still considered the kiss of death for political careers.

Yet most experts agree that children don’t have the same maturity, judgment, or emotional development as adults. In a report on juveniles and the death penalty, Amnesty International found that a number of child offenders sentenced to death suffered severe physical or sexual abuse. Many others were alcohol or drug impaired, or suffered from acute mental illness or brain damage. Nearly all were below average intelligence.

Despite Hollywood sensationalism and media-driven myths about rampaging youth, most experts insist that children are not natural-born predators. If given proper treatment, counseling, skills training and education, most can be turned into productive adults.

An irony in the Supreme Court’s 2005 ban on executing teen killers was that the ban actually worked against no-parole reform efforts. Since states could no longer execute juvenile offenders, then the legal thinking was that it was far more humane to sentence them to life sentences. Victims’ rights advocacy groups claim that taking away the option of no- parole sentences for juveniles will weaken crime deterrents. This makes it even tougher to make the case that counseling, treatment, and education is the more effective way to redeem young people who commit crimes than harsh sentencing — but it is.

And there’s the gnawing question of race. The racial gap between black and white juvenile offenders is vast and troubling. The rush to toss the key on black juveniles has had terrible consequences in black communities. It has increased poverty, fractured families, and further criminalized a generation of young black men.

No matter what their age, those who commit crimes — especially murder — must be punished, but the punishment should not only fit the crime, it should also fit the age of the person who committed it, and the circumstances that drove them to commit their offenses. If juvenile offenders with the right help can turn their life around, they deserve that chance, and judges should be able to give it to them.

The Supreme Court in its decision to ban juvenile executions called teen executions “shameful.” They recognized that the practice cannot, and should not, be justified on moral or legal grounds, and that it was past time to put a stop to them. The court should recognize the same with the no-parole sentence for teens and outlaw it.

Source: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=599f7802903e64f19e26a96107c3a214

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

13. May 2009 by Rev Young.

Court to review life sentences for young offenders

By JESSE J. HOLLAND – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Though it may be decades, Joe Harris Sullivan is waiting to die in prison for a crime he committed at age 13, one of thousands of children who have been sentenced to life terms without parole in the United States.

The Supreme Court on Monday announced that it will decide whether sentencing juveniles to spend the rest of their lives in prison without hope of ever being released can be considered a cruel and unusual punishment.

The justices are taking up two cases from Florida challenging life sentences for teenagers. In the first case, a judge determined that 17-year-old Terrance Graham took part in an armed home-invasion robbery while he was on probation for a violent crime.

Sullivan, now 33 and in prison at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution in Milton, Fla., was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for the rape of Lena Bruner in 1989. Bruner never saw her attacker, but she testified at trial that Sullivan’s voice sounded like that of her attacker. Two boys also testified against Sullivan, a police officer said she saw Sullivan run from Bruner’s house, and his handprint was found on a plaque on Bruner’s bed.

Sullivan had been found guilty of 17 criminal offenses, including several serious felonies, in the two previous years, officials said. The state destroyed the case’s DNA evidence in 1993.

Bryan A. Stevenson, Sullivan’s lawyer, said Sullivan was one of only two 13-year-old children sentenced to life without parole for a non-homicide crime in the United States and only one of eight with that sentence for any crime in prison.

Times have changed people’s minds about sentencing juveniles, Stevenson said.

The Supreme Court in 2005 outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals in the case Roper v. Simmons, declaring there was a national consensus that such executions were unconstitutionally cruel and ending a practice that had brought international condemnation.

A 2008 report from Human Rights Watch said that there are 2,484 youth offenders serving life without parole in the United States, with Florida, California, Louisiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania having the highest number. The United States is the only country in the world that still sentences juveniles to life in prison without possibility of parole, Stevenson and other advocates said.

“I don’t think there has been a lot of awareness about the sentences some of these kids have received, and so I do think it presents a serious question,” Stevenson said.

Bill McCollum, Florida’s attorney general, filed court papers in Sullivan’s and Graham’s cases.

The Supreme Court “has recognized that a state is permitted to make ‘a societal decision that when a person who has previously committed a felony commits yet another felony, he should be subjected to the admittedly serious penalty of incarceration for life, subject only to the state’s judgment as to whether to grant him parole,’” McCollum said.

A Florida appeals court upheld the sentences of Sullivan and Graham.

This is not the first time this court has been confronted with the question of juveniles spending their lives in prison. Last year, the justices declined to consider an appeal of a 30-year prison sentence for a teen who was 12 when he killed his grandparents in their South Carolina home.

The cases will not be heard until the fall term. The Supreme Court is expected to have a new justice by October following the retirement of David Souter.

The cases are Sullivan v. Florida, 08-7621, and Graham v. Florida, 08-7412.

CNN Story:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/04/teen.lifers.supreme.court/

Justices to hear appeals of lifers sentenced as teens

• Story Highlights
• Justices will hear appeals of two Florida inmates sentenced as teens
• Joe Sullivan committed his crime at age 13; Terrance Graham was 17
• Attorneys say life without parole is too harsh a punishment for young offenders

By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court will decide whether it is cruel and unusual punishment for young criminal offenders to be sentenced to life in prison with parole.

The justices agreed without comment Monday to accept appeals from two Florida inmates convicted as teenagers of criminal offenses. Oral arguments will be heard in the fall.

One of the men is Joe Sullivan, 33, serving a life term without the possibility of parole in a Florida prison while confined to a wheelchair. He was sentenced for a rape committed when he was 13.

The man’s lawyers say he is one of only two people his age in the world who was tried as an adult and sentenced to “die in prison” for a non-homicide.

The justices also accepted a case dealing with Terrance Graham, who was 17 when he took part in a violent home-invasion robbery while on parole for another felony.

Outside a death-penalty context, the high court has offered little recent guidance on how to treat the youngest of underage criminal defendants. The appellate record for rapists younger than 15 is almost nonexistent, legal experts say.

Child legal advocates say many states lack adequate resources to handle young inmates given long sentences, including a lack of proper jailhouse counseling. Few studies have been conducted on the psychological effects of young defendants facing life in prison at such a young age, said the Equal Justice Institute, which is representing Sullivan’s high court case.

“We have created a forgotten population with a lot of needs,” said Bryan Stevenson, Sullivan’s lawyer.

The crime happened in 1989, when, Sullivan admitted, he and two friends ransacked a home on Seabrook Street in West Pensacola. But he denied the prosecutor’s claim that he returned with a knife and sexually assaulted the 72-year-old female homeowner. An older co-defendant claimed that Sullivan was the rapist.

After a daylong trial, Escambia County Circuit Judge Nicholas Geeker sentenced Sullivan to life without parole.

“I am going to try to send him away for as long as I can. He is beyond help,” the judge said. “The juvenile system has been utterly incapable of doing anything with Mr. Sullivan.”

Sullivan, who had a lengthy juvenile record, continues to deny that he committed the attack.

At the time, state prosecutor Larry Kaden — who retired this year — said, “It was a brutal crime, and he had an extensive record. This was a bad, bad crime.”

The Florida attorney general’s office told the high court that prosecutors should have the discretion they have long been given to decide how harshly young criminals should be prosecuted. Sexual battery remains a crime punishable by life imprisonment in Florida.

A study by the nonprofit Equal Justice Initiative found eight prisoners serving life terms for crimes committed at age 13, all in the United States. Among them is another Florida inmate, Ian Manuel, who was 13 when convicted of attempted murder and robbery in 1990.

The Justice Department reports that no 13-year-old has been given life without parole for a non-homicide in a decade. And although about a thousand people under 15 are arrested for rape every year, none has been given life without parole since Sullivan.

Only a handful of states — including Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon — prohibit sentencing minors to life without a chance for parole, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Equal Justice Initiative says 19 states have laws allowing the possibility of life without parole for those younger than 14.

In 2005, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for underage killers. The justices cited evolving “national standards” as a reason to ban such executions.

Sullivan is in deteriorating health from multiple sclerosis and is confined to “close management” for dangerous or trouble-prone inmates, state corrections officials say.

His lawyers admit that he has had more than a 100 incidents of fighting and threatening inmates and guards, plus having contraband and weapons, but they say Sullivan is the victim of bullying by other prisoners and is mentally disabled.

“It’s important for the criminal justice system to recognize that inmates like Joe [Sullivan] are going to change biologically, psychologically and emotionally as they grow up in prison,” Stevenson said. “We should not assume it is a change for the worse.”

The thrust of their argument before the high court is not that Sullivan is innocent or that he seeks his freedom now but that he deserves to someday make his case before the state parole board.

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

13. May 2009 by Rev Young.

Justices Agree to Take Up Sentencing for Young Offenders

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether the reasoning that led it to strike down the death penalty for juvenile offenders four years ago should also apply to sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

The court accepted two cases on the issue, both from Florida and neither involving a killing. In one, Joe Sullivan was sentenced to life without the possibility of release for raping a 72-year-old woman in 1989, when he was 13. In the other, Terrance Graham received the same sentence for participating in a home invasion robbery in 2004, when he was 17 and on probation for other crimes.

In the majority opinion in the death penalty case, Roper v. Simmons, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that teenagers were immature, unformed, irresponsible and susceptible to negative influences, including peer pressure.

“Even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile,” Justice Kennedy concluded, is not “evidence of irretrievably depraved character.”

Outside the context of the death penalty, however, the Supreme Court has not shown much interest in cases from prisoners claiming that the sentences they received were too harsh. But Douglas A. Berman, an authority on sentencing law at Ohio State University, said the factors cited by Justice Kennedy concerning juveniles might well apply in noncapital cases.

“The principles driving Roper,” Professor Berman said, “would seem to suggest that its impact does not stop at the execution chamber.”

The United States is alone in the world in making routine use of life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders. Human rights groups say more than 2,000 prisoners in the United States are serving such sentences for crimes they committed when they were 17 or younger. A vast majority of those crimes involved a killing by the defendant or an accomplice.

At the argument of the Roper case in 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia said the rationales offered against the juvenile death penalty applied just as forcefully to sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

“I don’t see where there’s a logical line,” said Justice Scalia, who voted in dissent to retain the juvenile death penalty.

But Justice Kennedy wrote that life sentences would continue to deter young criminals after the death penalty became unavailable.

“The punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person.”

Lawyers for the two Florida inmates cited international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits sentences of life without parole for juveniles. Justice Kennedy’s invoking foreign and international law in the Roper decision was controversial, and the new cases will reopen the question of how much attention the Supreme Court should pay to international law.

Bryan S. Gowdy, a lawyer for Mr. Graham, said in an interview that his client had never been convicted of the robbery that sent him to prison for the rest of his life. Though evidence was presented concerning the robbery, the trial judge found only that Mr. Graham had violated the terms of his probation after an earlier conviction for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery when he was 16.

“When our children make mistakes, are we going to lock them up and throw away the key for life?” Mr. Gowdy said. “If you follow the rationale of Roper, that’s not appropriate.”

In rejecting a challenge to Mr. Graham’s sentence last year, a Florida appeals court acknowledged that “a true life sentence is typically reserved for juveniles guilty of more heinous crimes such as homicide.” But the court added that Mr. Graham “rejected his second chance” in violating the terms of his probation “and chose to continue committing crimes at an escalating pace.”

A ruling in favor of the prisoners in the two cases — Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, and Sullivan v. Florida, No. 08-7621 — could be quite narrow. The Supreme Court may leave for another day, for instance, the question of how murders committed by juveniles may be punished.

Last year, drawing a similar distinction, the court said in Kennedy v. Louisiana that crimes against individuals that do not involve killing, including the rape of a child by an adult, cannot be punished by death.

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

13. May 2009 by Rev Young.

There have been a few defeats and some amazing developments in the world of advocacy for incarcerated juveniles.  While Florida and Nebraska suffered defeats to the legislation introduced that would address JLWOP in their states, other developments may help them in their battles to change the future for these individuals. 

I am happy to announce that Representative Bobby Scott has re-introduced the bill formerly known as HR 4300 and now known as bill HR 2289 or Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009.  The language of the bill has changed and, in my opinion, been made stronger.  The basic intention of the bill has not changed.  This bill is designed to give juvenile offenders who have been sentenced to adult prison facilities for any sentence longer than 15 years, the opportunity to appear before the parole board.  The new bill also addresses victim rights and the requirements of the states to comply with this legislation.  The bill is written with strong and more detailed language.  It is also being introduced at a time when another constitutional and moral issue is being heard…….the constitutionality of life sentences for juveniles based on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case filed in Florida that tests the practice of life sentences based on Amendment 8 of our constitution which states that punishment levied to an offender cannot be cruel and unusual.  This seems only logical to me.  This country fought hard to insure the rights and protection of it’s children.  We instituted labor laws, driving laws, education laws, we have a child protection agency, we are supposed to be a country that stands for the protection of its children and the safety of our children.  Not according to the legalistic, reactionary legislation that has been passed in the last 10-20 years. 

I am going to post a series of articles from reputable sources.  Please read them carefully and educate yourself on these issues.  I also ask that you contact your congressman and let them know of your support for HR2289 and that you pass on the information and the call to action to others.  I think you will find, as you read these articles, that it is not only a second chance for those that have been forgotten in our prison system, it is an opportunity to protect your own children.  You will see, as you read of these cases, that the person behind those bars could VERY EASILY, be your child.

Thank you for your support.

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »