The National Organization of
Victims of "Juvenile Lifers"

WHO WE ARE

Approximately 2,400 convicted murderers in the USA (number supplied by offender advocates has been questioned) have been sentenced to Life Without the Possibility of Parole for crimes committed before they turned 18. The acronym often used for that sentence is JLWOP - Juvenile Life Without Parole. Most have been incarcerated for committing unimaginably horrific and aggravated murders or multiple murders. Most of them are the actual killers, and some of them are the accomplices convicted of "felony murder".

A very small number of  JLWOP cases are non-murder such as rape and torture, and violent attempted murders, which the Supreme Court is set to rule on soon. NOVJL takes no stand on the use of the LWOP sentence for non-murder cases, as we are an organization of murder victims families. We consider these few non-murder JLWOP cases to be fringe extreme cases and not at all representative of the JLWOP picture nationally, which is almost entirely brutal aggravated murders and multiple murders.

And we of course recognize that one cannot be support the U.S. Constitution unless they support the rights of states to make law about crimes and punishment (only exception being that a state might violate the US Constitution in the laws they would pass, which is the question the offender advocates are claiming in their attempt to make the pending Florida cases before the Supreme Court about).

We are a national organization made up of the victims' families of those killings who have begun to find each other in order to protect our voices in the national public policy discussion about the sentence. Anyone who has had a loved one victimized by an offender sentenced to JLWOP or who is supportive of victims of this type is invited to join us. We welcome also any victim family of a killer under the age of 18, no matter the sentence or status of the offender, as the larger issue of victims rights when violent offenders are juveniles remains a significant national concern.

Crime Victims in all 50 states in our nation have a legal and/or constitutional right to be informed of and heard in all procedural matters pertaining to their cases. Our rights are generally, with notable exceptions, recognized and enforced in two of the three branches of government: Judicial (trials, hearings, sentencing, appeals) and the Executive Branch (incarceration, clemency, parole) but not in the Legislative Branch (bills proposed that would retroactively reduce sentences). Advocates who claim to support the human rights of the guilty offenders and who wish to change the JLWOP sentences in place  should also recognize and support these innocent and brutally traumatized victims rights as well - and not just in court but in any matter of government pertaining to our cases.

We call on all advocates who wish to reform the JLWOP sentence to first devote the resources to build bridges of understanding to the victims of these crimes; to find, notify, support and empower the victims families in this process. They have expended years of resources and energy and millions of dollars nationally on the offenders. Nothing for the victims. The advocates for the young offenders have formed a privately funded national organization that will have a full time staff person to coordinate all the national efforts to end the JLWOP sentence. It is our estimate that already a million or more dollars have been spent to advocate that these offenders receive opportunities for early release from their life sentences. But not once have they spent a dime on victim notification or outreach, and not  so much as even asked for a meeting with any victims families. It is time they re-evaluated their strategy and started behaving in a manner consistent with Restorative Justice principles: an approach that bring all the stakeholders to the table.

WHY WE ARE HERE

There is a growing discussion among criminal justice and human rights reform movements about the appropriateness of the Life Without Parole sentence for any offender, and there should be - it is an extremely serious punishment.

But it is especially controversial for younger offenders, especially since the United States Supreme Court in Simmons V Roper recently found that the juvenile death penalty is unconstitutional.

Now a few advocates argue that same ruling may call into question whether those under 18 ought to be sentenced to LWOP.

We know this is a very difficult question. We know it better than most people do, actually.

We know that this powerful public policy debate will likely be as complicated as the crimes, criminals, and victims that gave rise to the discussion.

There is one thing we are very sure of  -- victims have an absolute right to be at the table in any discussion about the sentence of the offenders in their cases. And yet everywhere we have turned we see advocates investing significant resources into reporting the injustice of the sentence without any serious attempt to empower the voices of the victims of these crimes. See who some of these advocates are.

And without even taking time to try to notify them that they want to change the prison sentence duly given to the person who murdered their loved ones.

To be concerned for the offenders without first addressing the needs of the victims themselves is to not come close to understanding the problem.

A PUBLIC POLICY DEBATE

In the national debate generated by advocates for these younger killers, we are here primarily for one reason only - to assert our right to be included in the discussion - something, surprisingly, that generally is not happening.

In the several states where there are proposals to abolish JLWOP, victims families of those crimes have not been found and informed and supported to be part of the discussions. In fact, they have often been even deliberately ignored, excluded, or in some cases outright demonized.

In any such significant public policy discussions no key stakeholders should be kept away from the table. The Victims of these crimes are without a doubt key stakeholders. We were made as such through no choice or fault of our own by the very offenders that the advocates to end JLWOP are now working so hard to defend.

MYTHS ABOUT THE "JUVENILE LIFE" SENTENCE

Many  advocates for the offenders now serving JLWOP sentences have made some fundamental errors, we feel, in the early years of their movement to reform the JLWOP sentence across the nation. Reading the materials from  the offender advocates, there is an inaccurate picture of the whole situation being put out. Discussion about this from ANY perspective is welcome on our FORUM PAGE.  Let us address some of these myths:

1. MYTH: That the real "problem" with the whole JLWOP situation is the age of the offender.

FACT: The real problem is that someone, or several someones are dead - murdered - and that an offender or offenders chose to commit acts of unspeakable evil against other innocent living human beings.

And there is nothing but devastation in the wake of a murder.

What is at issue in all these cases are horrible, horrible murders and in all these cases tragedy surrounds the entire scenario. The problems go SO much deeper than just the age of the offender. Advocates against JLWOP need to do a much better job of embracing the full complexity of all these cases and talking about the CRIMES, not just the age of the offender. Reading their materials one could almost miss that these offenders are all convicted murderers, no matter what other circumstances surround the cases.

2. MYTH: We solve this "problem" with a discussion focused on the offenders in prison.

FACT: We solve this "problem" by focusing on  the crimes, and the staggering and life-changing  harms done (to victims) in these tragic situations.

The advocates' focus has been, up to this point, almost  entirely offender-centered and their messaging has been too much about "the poor kids in prison". This will not help them build the broad public support needed to make fundamental changes in law. They need to change their approach to one built on inclusive restorative justice principles where addressing the harms caused the victims is the focus, and where victims, the key stakeholders, are completely at the table in any public policy discussions about the sentence.

3. MYTH: The offenders in these cases are CHILDREN.

FACT: 53% of all the offenders serving what these offenders called "juvenile life without parole" were 17 at the time of their offenses - hardly "children". The vast majority of the remaining (about 35%) were 16. Only the smallest numbers of cases - and the ones they of course love to publicize the most - were younger at the time of their offenses - single digit numbers. 

Legally every one of these offenders was found in a court or by state law to be legally an adult. Many states define adulthood at 17 or even 16. States vary on ages assigned for adult criminal culpability. 

And while the system can and does make errors, and needs reform in many areas, the debate about their being "children" or not is not one in American Law - it is in international human rights standards versus the experiences of those who actually participated in the crimes themselves. Neither "side" is wrong but they both come from a very different perspective and valid perspective on what is factually so. Many of us judge "children" versus adult in the context of their own individual abilities, maturity, choices, and behavior.

Most of the JLWOP cases are from the 1990's and are gang members, most with previous records of violence, often having been previously imprisoned as juveniles for violent crimes, even murder. In several states 17 year olds  are legally adults. States define adulthood by age differently - for many states it is, indeed, 18. But for other states it is 19, 17 and even 16. JLWOP conviction have dropped dramatically in the last decade now that much of the gang leadership infrastructure has been locked up, and much better prevention mechanisms have been put in place.

Also, advocates who continually call them children need to consider the impact of this argument on the victims of these crimes, not just use it for its propaganda impact on the public, and publishing pictures of the offenders (as they have many times) when they were MUCH younger than when they actually committed the crimes. Calling these murderers "children" constantly in their advocacy work  is incredibly emotionally troubling to many victims' families - some have described it to us as a dagger into them each time the offender is called that. It is worst when the actual murder victim was a REAL child. Many of these cases were 17 year olds killing, for example, 5 year olds. To hear the offenders called "children" all the time to the mother of a murdered young girl is beyond painful.

"Children" is  not a term teens themselves would accept. Those of you who have 17 year old offspring, would they want to be called children? The most accurate is the legal term juvenile,  or the social terms teen, youth, or adolescent. Their basis for using the term is international Treaty of the Child which applies to those under 18. But the political and legal messaging in the United States needs to be applied in ways that are meaningful to our system.

4. MYTH:  The ages of the offenders is not considered in their legal process.

FACT: In most states there are layers of review afforded these offenders that are extra and aimed to look at the factors associated with their ages. Also, there are often extra avenues of appeals open in their cases. Many teens who are guilty of murder do not end up in the adult system in the United States.  There are  also processes in place in courts and in prosecutors' offices that review and evaluate appropriate charges and avenues of prosecution to the individual situation and often there is some discretion afforded prosecutors and judges in these cases.  However, we do agree that one possible area of examination for reform might be in the areas of the law where mandatory transfers to adult court are less flexible.

5. MYTH: Many of the JLWOP cases are innocent of their crimes.

FACT: Most of the offenders serving JLWOP sentences are guilty of their crimes, and were the actual "trigger men", though some are convicted as direct accomplices with equal legal responsibility.

And there are actually some cases where accomplices could be seen as even more culpable than the "trigger men" if they directed or ordered the shooting, as is often the case in some gang killings.

6. MYTH: One of the favorite arguments of those who want to abolish JLWOP is that the brains of these offenders are not fully developed, and therefore they are not fully culpable.

FACT: The argument of frontal lobe development (see our LINKS page) is generally not applicable in these matters. Yes, recent studies show the frontal lobe of the brain continues to develop into the 20s. But if this argument were relevant  no one should be allowed to do anything - drink, fight, drive, marry, sign contracts, vote, until they were close to 30. And legal culpability for all crimes as adults should have to be raised to 25 at least.  In fact, people learn right from wrong at a very young age and have the ability, generally, at a very young age to conform their behavior to what they know is right and wrong. Moral and emotional and cognitive development is by far advanced enough in early adolescence, if not before, to adequately keep anyone from killing another human being. Fully aware CHOICE to kill is often completely demonstrable in many of these cases.

The real issue in SO many of these cases, tragically, by the way, is the easy access the young offenders have to guns. No one under age in the United States should be able to access a gun. And adults who allow them to do so are themselves culpable, we believe.

7. MYTH: Victims families will oppose any and all reforms and therefore should not be consulted in this discussion, because they are too "emotional" and too adversarial, and unreasonably so.

FACT: Many of us who are victims strongly support some real reforms to the criminal justice system. And NOVJL does not oppose, for example, the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to decide the JLWOP issue for non-murder cases. The principle of case by case decision-making about which offenders should be held to which level of accountability, depending on the facts of the case, is one we generally support. We invite a national discussion about mandatory transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts. We believe in extra layers of legal protection being afforded younger offenders, and encourage extra layers of review.

And even if we do not support abolishing JLWOP altogether, and know it to be sadly necessary in some cases, we have experience and evidence that has to be examined in the process nonetheless.

We have actually found ourselves in recent hearings in several states that they emotion, hostility, and "unreasonableness" is all coming from the offender advocacy side, sadly enough. Contact us if you want specific and several examples, but we have yet to see a hearing on bills in state legislatures where the few victims "lucky enough" to know about the hearings and be able to attend, were anything other than honest in telling the facts of their cases, respectful of all present, and we have stunning and several examples of out and out hatefulness and rudeness openly leveled at victims families by advocates for the offenders --  including some legislators. 

8. MYTH:  That everyone convicted of murder deserves the sentence they get (this supports definitely the need for some reforms, and throughout the criminal justice system, not just for "juvenile lifers").

FACT: We know, and often victims know this better than anyone, that the criminal justice system is not perfect. Many people in prison are fully innocent. Many are over-sentenced or less guilty than what their sentence describes. Many guilty people go free, or are not sentenced as they should be. The "system" is far from perfect and needs reform.

And so while we all talk together as a society about what reforms we genuinely need to make, we must bring all stakeholders to the table - and victims are key to that discussion. Offender advocates and family members cannot make the case for reform on their own. Everyone involved can bring much that will enlighten and inform to the discussion.

But the way to RIGHT these WRONGS is NOT by balancing the repairs on the backs primarily of the victims' families and make across the board changes in how often they have to go back - over and over - to hearings on the sentence of the offenders in their cases. Victims deserve as much legal finality in their cases as they can possibly have.

The way to right the wrongs in ALL cases of error and injustice in the criminal justice system is to address each case, protect avenues of appeal, raise the standards for rules of evidence and review prior to going to trial, maximize quality defense resources, make sure penalties are appropriate to the crimes and situations, and make strong systemic reforms in all aspects of the criminal justice system, not just for this one group of offenders.

There are innocent and over-sentenced men and women serving in America's prisons of every age. That there is such massive attention being paid to 2400 cases of mostly guilty murderers, mostly 17 years old, because of their "youth" is a serious injustice for the entire vital movement for criminal justice reform in the United States. It raises questions about whether or not the younger killers cases are being exploited for mainly PR purposes, or because this cause is particularly capable of increasing the funding for organizations who champion it..

9. MYTH: The USA compares much worse with other nations in their treatment of juvenile offenders.

FACT:  While most nations do not have JLWOP specifically, many nations do much worse by their younger people. Many nations have unbridled child abuse in the form of female genital mutilation, forced child marriage and rape, sex slavery, no education, horrific child labor, and many other forms of abuse. And other nations do not have the easy access to guns that we have in the USA, something largely responsible for a high number of the JLWOP cases in the first place. Our nation has a large population - third largest in the world after China and India that treat children horribly. We have tremendous programs and protections for our youth. Most states have significant legal protections for any juvenile offender facing JLWOP and usually their case has to rise to tremendous heights of accountability to receive JLWOP.

We urge the offender advocates to stop trying to make their case about the need to reform JLWOP by making irrelevant comparisons to other nations. And while we support international human rights standards, and those do require a different treatment of offenders under age 18, that can be accomplished by a more protected legal process. The fact is that some offenders in America commit crimes so awful, and with so much personal and repeated culpability on their parts, that natural life is called for, and is what their victims families deserve.

THE COMPLICATIONS

The list of complications is long and often without clear solutions. States and even nations differ on the definition of a "juvenile". Doctors of both physical and psychological development cannot begin to "define" the line between adulthood and adolescence with any exactness. Culpability for a crime is a matter so incredibly complex that the profession of lawyers and the entire field of psychology had to be invented before they could begin to discuss it.

WHO MUST BE INCLUDED

Those who would advocate reform for the JLWOP sentence can be clear about one thing - Murder victims families of the younger killers in the United States, confident that "Life Without Parole" as a sentence meant they could walk away and, as best they could, "move on" in their lives, would want to be told of proposed retroactive changes to this sentence for the person responsible for killing their loved ones.

It is the victims families right to choose to be present in the debate over the JLWOP sentence, NOT the advocates for the prisoners' decision to leave them out of the discussion. Those whose focus in the young offenders, who might perhaps often be afraid of the "opposition" that victims might represent, have been deciding not to include them in the discussion they want governments to have about the JLWOP laws.

Victims' rights, which are also fundamental Human Rights, to be informed about matters pertaining to their case are indisputable.

Victims Rights have been recognized and enforced in the Judicial Branch of government in their right to be heard before sentencing and to be present at every step of the legal proceedings in their cases. They have long been recognized and enforced in all proceedings in the Executive Branch of Government, clemency and parole, in the notification and inclusion of their input. To assert that the entire third branch of Government - the Legislative Branch - that can also affect the offenders sentencing by passing legislation that retroactively would reduce that sentence - is also clearly a right of victims to be notified of in advance and heard in because it can have the same net effect - it can change the sentence duly given in their case. We have begun to work diligently at the national level to bring recognition of the need to improve the care for victims rights in all relevant legislative matters affecting their cases as well.

In any state where a proposal is to be "retroactive", victims have a constitutional right to be notified of, and participate in, if they wish, these discussions. Victims rights amendments exist in all 50 states' Constitutions and the right to notification with regards to matters of their cases is usually the first and most important of those rights.

"JUVENILE LIFERS"

There is no doubt that right now that with all the massive resources being devoted nationally to helping these young offenders, the advocates who wish to change this sentence are NOT doing right by the victims of these crimes.

They have made a major and fundamental error in their early strategy. Their whole message is all about "the poor kids in prison." And while we know that living people behind bars evoke more of an urgent feeling of sympathy because they are THERE in front of them, and we know that it is much harder to try to see the innocent victims of these murders that are NOT THERE, the advocates for juvenile lifers need to stop talking about "the poor children" if they really want to bring our nation to a place of actual change on this issue. First of all, they were not children - they were teenagers, adolescents, juveniles, and mostly young adults of 17. And the public is too smart to ignore the absolutely horrific crimes that put these young killers in prison in the first place. Advocates for the offenders should not do it either. They need to change their message and their strategy and start with a focus on the crimes and the staggering consequences for the victims families. Only then can a real dialogue proceed.

It is important to remember in these discussions that, for the most part, these killers sentenced to JLWOP are not just for "routine" killings - all of these cases had extremely serious degrees of what the law calls "aggravation" in order to achieve a sentence that serious, and in order to be legally tried as adults. 

While we absolutely recognize the many and systemic flaws in the criminal justice system, especially as we are often victims of them ourselves, there is a genuine debate in general about prison sentences. The social question of broad generally far more harsh prison sentences resulting from the "tough on crime" mood of the nation for some decades, especially for non-violent crimes, is a real one. We know that the US Prison population are at historic highs. We believe that re-entry programs and educational opportunities and health care and restorative justice programs and mentoring and a whole host of other opportunities need to be created and rebuilt in prisons to encourage and support rehabilitation. We support criminal justice reform and we abhor human rights violations (as we are, again, victims of them ourselves - we know as  few others do the depth of those violations). We also know that 2/3 of the US prison population is behind bars for non- violent drug related offenses and we question those who want to begin sentence reduction reforms with the "worst of the worst", instead of with the vast majority of non-violent offenders.

Only when the offender advocates start to publicly acknowledge the massive damage left behind by these crimes will we begin to have opportunities for restorative justice, where all stakeholders are at the table, recognizing the realities that brought us here, supporting each other in trying to heal what can be healed, transform that which is permanently and irreplaceably destroyed, and coming together about what we all do in the wake of these unmitigated tragedies.

Continued on the page about our ideas for first steps towards solutions in this JLWOP debate. Please join in.

See our MEMORIAL PAGES