1
In California,
youth convicted of certain categories of murder are presumptively sentenced to
JLWOP, since California law states that in such cases youth “shall be”
sentenced to JLWOP unless a judge finds “good reason” to instead impose a
sentence of 25 years to life.
2
Sources: State
prison systems provided data directly to Human Rights Watch as of mid‐2004
(except that HRW used the National Corrections Reporting Program to obtain
data for Virginia, and for Alabama, we used its inmate locator system). We
updated data between mid‐2004 and 2008 using the following methods: state
departments of corrections sent updated data directly to Human Rights Watch or
to other organizations; post‐2004 press reports were checked against inmate
records with state departments of corrections; and correspondence received by
Human Rights Watch from youth offenders sentenced to life without parole was
checked against press reports and state inmate records. The term “mandatory”
means judges have no option other than to sentence youth offenders to JLWOP
upon conviction for at least one type of offense. Most often that offense is
first degree murder. State law researched by Human Rights Watch and updated by
Connie de la Vega and Michelle Leighton, “Sentencing Our Children to Die in
Prison: Global Law and Practice,” University of San Francisco Law Review,
Spring 2008.
3
Sources: See
Figure 1 above for JLWOP sentencing data. Population data extracted by Human
Rights Watch from C. Puzzanchera, T. Finnegan, and W. Kang, National Center
for Juvenile Justice, “Easy Access to Juvenile Populations Online: US Census
Population Data,” State Population Data with Bridged Race Categories 2004, for
ages 14‐17, [1]
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ (accessed January 2, 2008).
Certain states are not included in the above figure because of insufficient
data. The ratios were calculated using rates per 10,000 population of youth
age 14‐17 disaggregated by race and state.
Crimes That Can
Lead to a Life without Parole Sentence
As youth and
adult crime rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, politicians and the
public feared they were being besieged by “super‐predators”—youth who
repeatedly committed violent offenses. In response, states decided to try
youth as adults and to send greater numbers of those convicted to adult
prison, some with life without parole sentences. The actual profiles of youth
sentenced to JLWOP show how misguided and unnecessary those decisions were.
The
majority of youth sentenced to life without parole are first offenders.
Prior to the crime for which they were sentenced to JLWOP, an estimated 59
percent had neither an adult criminal record nor a juvenile adjudication.
An
estimated 26 percent of youth offenders were convicted of felony murder.
These are crimes in which a teen who commits a non‐homicide felony such as
robbery is held responsible for a codefendant’s act of murder that occurs
during the course of the felony. State laws often do not require the teen to
know that a murder will take place or even that the codefendant is armed.
Many
teens serving JLWOP committed their crimes with adults.
For example, in 70 percent of JLWOP cases in California in which a teen was
acting with codefendants, at least one of the codefendants was an adult. And,
in an estimated 56 percent of California cases in which a juvenile who
received JLWOP had an adult codefendant, the adult received a more lenient
sentence than the teen.
Racially
Discriminatory Sentencing
Figure 2 –
Ratio of Black to White Youth Serving JLWOP Sentences3
0.0010.0020.0030.0040.00South
CarolinaNevadaAlabamaMississippiKentuckyLouisianaGeorgiaWashingtonMissouriFloridaArkansasOklahomaIowaMassachusettsMarylandMichianAll
States *ArizonaColoradoNorth
CarolinaNebraskaIllinoisWisconsinDelawareCaliforniaPennsylvaniaConnecticut
As shown in figure 2 above, on average
across the country, black youth are serving life without parole at a per
capita rate that is 10 times that of white youth. Many states have racial
disparities that are far greater. Among the 26 states with five or more youth
offenders serving JLWOP and for which Human Rights Watch had data on race, the
highest black to white ratios are in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and
California, where black youth are between 18 and 48 times more likely to be
serving a sentence of life without parole than white youth.
Life without
Parole and International Human Rights
The global
rejection of life without parole for young offenders is overwhelming: The
Center For Law and Global Justice at the University of San Francisco, in
collaboration with Human Rights Watch, has confirmed that there are no youth
offenders serving life without parole sentences anywhere in the rest of the
world. In its use of JLWOP sentences for youth, the United States is an
international anomaly.
The United
States’ practice of sentencing youth to JLWOP is a violation of at least two
international treaties to which the United States is party. The Human Rights
Committee (the oversight and enforcement body for the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights) has said that “[t]he Committee is of the view
that sentencing children to life sentences without parole is of itself not in
compliance with article 24(1) of the Covenant.” In addition, in March 2008,
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the oversight and
enforcement body for the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination) found that, in light of the racial disparities
in the sentencing of youth to JLWOP in the US, “the persistence of such [youth
LWOP] sentencing is incompatible with article 5 (a) of the Convention. The
Committee therefore recommends that the State party discontinue the use of
life sentence without parole against [youth offenders], and review the
situation of persons already serving such sentences.”
Fair Sentences
for Youth
In the United
States, criminal punishment has four goals: rehabilitation, retribution,
deterrence, and incapacitation. Sentencing youth to life without parole fails
to measure up on all four counts.
After years of
ignoring the goal of rehabilitation, the United States is moving back to
recognizing it as crucial to community safety. Life without parole not only
does not advance this goal, it negates it. The sentence sends an unequivocal
message to youth offenders that they are banished from the community forever,
no matter how they change or grow. In this regard, we note that the American
Bar Association adopted resolution 105C in 2008, urging the adoption of laws
to ensure that “Youthful offenders should generally be eligible for parole or
other early release consideration at a reasonable point during their sentence;
and, if denied, should be reconsidered for parole or early release
periodically thereafter.”
Proponents of
life without parole believe the sentence is necessary in order to ensure
retribution—that society metes out the worst punishment for the worst
offenses. However, while teens can commit the same acts as adults, by virtue
of their immaturity they are not as blameworthy or culpable. They do not have
adults’ developed abilities to think, to weigh consequences, to make sound
decisions, to control their impulses, and to resist group pressures; their
brains are anatomically different, still evolving into the brains of adults.
Neuroscientists
conducting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research have uncovered striking
physical differences between the brains of adolescents and those of adults,
showing that the areas involved in impulse
control are less developed in youth.
These findings suggest that states should revise their sentencing laws to
ensure that youth are not sentenced as if they were adults.
Supporters of
the life without parole sentence also claim that teens who pause to consider
the consequences before committing crimes will be deterred if they face harsh
sentences such as life in prison without parole. But young people are less
likely than adults to pause before acting, and when they do, research has
failed to show that the threat of adult punishment deters them from crime.
Finally, incapacitation as a justification for life without parole sentences
fails because some youth offenders can be rehabilitated and become productive
members of society.
The terrible
crimes committed by youth can cause injury and death and ruin lives. In its
sentencing choices, the United States must reflect the harm these youth have
caused. But it must also acknowledge that they are not all irredeemably
violent people. Recognizing their capacity to grow and to transform themselves
is deeply embedded in human rights principles. Instead of violating those
principles with regularity, the United States should vigorously uphold them.
Submitted by the Coalition for the Fair
Sentencing of Children
Children’s
Advocacy Clinic, Children in Prison Project, Florida State University College
of Law
Children’s Law
Center, Massachusetts
Citizens for
Juvenile Justice, Massachusetts
Columbia Legal
Services, on behalf of clients, Seattle, Washington
DLA Piper, LLP
Bernardine
Dohrn, Director, Children & Family Justice Center, Northwestern University
School of Law
Family and
Friends of Inmates, Omaha, Nebraska
Shaena Fazal,
Director, Long‐Term Prisoner Policy Project, John Howard Association of
Illinois
Brian J. Foley,
Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Human Rights
Advocates, California
Human Rights
Watch, New York
Individual
parents, relatives, or friends of youth serving JLWOP sentences throughout the
United States
Juvenile
Justice Project of Louisiana
Juvenile Law
Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Michelle
Leighton, Director Human Rights Programs, University of San Francisco School
of Law
NAACP, Legal
Defense Fund, New York
National Center
for Youth Law, Oakland, California
National
Juvenile Justice Network, Washington, D.C.
Penal Reform
International, Washington, D.C.
Pendulum
Foundation, Colorado
The Sentencing
Project, Washington, D.C.
Jeffrey Shook,
Assistant Professor of Social Work and Law, University of Pittsburgh
Randolph N.
Stone, Clinical Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Rev. Bonnie
Young, Kings Crossing Foundation, Colorado
Youth Advocacy
Project, Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services
Youth Justice
Coalition, Los Angeles (led by youth, including many serving LWOP and other
life sentences
Article printed from A Voice for Juvenile
Prison Reform: http://avoiceforjuvenileprisonreform.kingscrossingfoundation.com
URL to article: http://avoiceforjuvenileprisonreform.kingscrossingfoundation.com/2008/11/18/moving-forward-to-a-new-day/
URLs in this post:
[1] http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/:
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
WHO
IS BEHIND THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE FAIR SENTENCING OF YOUTH?
READ BELOW
Full- Time Position Available* :
(WE PUBLISH THIS AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR ABUNDANT FUNDING!!)
Communications
Specialist
Washington, D.C.
Deadline for applications: September 18,
2009
Download: Communications Job Announcement (.pdf)
BACKGROUND:
The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of
Youth (CFSY) works to reform the
sentencing of juveniles to life without
the possibility of parole (JLWOP) in the United States. The
Campaign
works with advocates across the United States, and in Washington, D.C. The
CFSY uses a
multi-pronged approach to reforming JLWOP through public
education, advocacy, and litigation.
We work with active state campaigns
and are advised by a committee of experts in the field.
DESCRIPTION: The Communications Specialist will report
directly to the National Coordinator, and will
be based in Washington,
DC. Salary is commensurate with experience and health benefits are included.
The Communications Specialist will develop and implement a robust
communications strategy for the
Campaign through tasks including, but not
limited to:
 | Developing written and social media- friendly materials for public
education purposes |
| Creating material for, and updating information on, Campaign website
|
| Writing and distributing press releases/advisories on behalf of the
Campaign |
| Coordinating media appearances for Campaign spokespeople
|
| Training state-based campaign members on the national communications
strategy. Working
with these state-based advocates to strengthen
their own communications work, including by
tailoring national and
state messages, developing talking points, interacting with reporters,
and
identifying new and unlikely spokespeople, consistent with the
Campaign’s national
communication strategy
|
| Providing assistance to state campaign members in writing and
utilizing op/ed’s, letters to the
editor, and state-specific press
advisories/releases |
| Maintaining press clippings and lists of reporters covering criminal
justice issues |
QUALIFICATIONS:
The candidate must have strong written
communication skills and experience
working directly with reporters and
advocates. Three-to- five years experience in public relations is
required. Experience coordinating public relations for campaigns related to
social justice issues is
strongly preferred. Commitment to criminal
justice issues, particularly reform to harsh juvenile
sentencing
practices in the United States, racial discrimination in juvenile justice,
and /or human
rights in the United States and a bachelor’s degree are
required. Work experience in juvenile justice
is highly desirable, as is
familiarity with Web 2.0. Proficiency in Spanish is a plus.
CORE COMPETENCIES:
| Leads with vision—Able to think big picture and pay attention to
detail, while adeptly handling sometimes conflicting communications
strategies |
| Excellent communicator – Honest and straightforward in communicating
among campaign members and effective at engaging external stakeholders
|
| Driven and versatile– Eager to take the initiative to develop new
strategies and work diligently in an environment that often requires
independence and flexibility |
| Commitment to working as a team – friendly and courteous, willing to
work closely with the CFSY and as part of the larger community working
to end JLWOP |
HOW TO APPLY:
(no calls or email inquiries) by emailing
in a single submission: a letter of interest,
your resume, names or
letters of at least three references, and a brief, unedited writing sample
and/or sample press release no later than September 18, 2009 to
info@endjlwop.org use “ CFSY
Communications Specialist” as the
subject of your email. Only complete applications will be
reviewed.
The CFSY is an equal opportunity employer that does not
discriminate in its hiring practices and, in
order to build the strongest
possible workforce, actively seeks a diverse applicant pool.
CURRENT CFSY STAFF and BOARD
as listed on their website:
National Coordinator
Jody Kent
Special Assistant to the National Coordinator
Amy
Barch
Advisory Committee
Pat Arthur
Senior Attorney
National Center for Youth Law
Sarah Bryer
Director
National Juvenile Justice Network
Bernardine Dohrn
Director
Children & Family Justice Center
Associate Clinical Professor
Northwestern University School of Law
Dana Kaplan
Director
Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana
Deborah LaBelle
Director
Juvenile Life Without Parole
Initiative, ACLU
Kim McGill
Youth Justice Coalition
Lia Monahon
Equal Justice Works Fellow
Children’s Law Center of
Massachusetts, Inc.
Alison Parker
Deputy Director, U.S. Program
Human Rights Watch
Liz Ryan (consulting member)
Chief Executive Officer
Campaign
for Youth Justice
Bryan Stevenson
Executive Director
Equal Justice Initiative
