Third Way: The Need to Overhaul Juvenile Sentencing
fstop123
Today, and any other day to follow, there are approximately 60,000 children under 18 currently incarcerated in juvenile detention centers and adult prisons across the United States. More conversations concerning the U.S. judicial system ranging from police use of force to mass incarceration are taking place globally and in the U.S.; however, the topic of juvenile sentencing practices—and abuses—often falls by the wayside leading to a largely unseen injustice.
New Revelations, Old Injustices in Tennesee
The release of ProPublica and Nashville Public Radio’s report on October 8, concerning a Tennessee county judge, Judge Donna Scott Davenport, charging juveniles for crimes that did not exist, recently shed new light on the topic of the mistreatment of juveniles—particularly Black juveniles—in the U.S. justice system. In their report, ProPublica and Nashville Public Radio found glaring injustices relating to Rutherford County’s juvenile incarceration rates, violations of State and Federal law concerning pre-trial detention, ignoring higher-court decisions, and a general theme by Judge Davenport—the sole juvenile judge in Rutherford County, Tennessee—of abuse of power.
As widely agreed in polling from the Associated Press and NORC, Gallup, and the ACLU, the U.S. justice system is viewed by the public as containing many deficiencies and is in need of serious reform across the board. This reality becomes amplified when the perpetrator—or alleged perpetrator—is under the age of 18.
The situation in Tennessee was egregious and unique; however, it is by no means as outlandish and in contravention of the norm as it appears by an outside viewer when compared to the routine abuses that juveniles face when entering the justice system. Whether in the use of mandatory minimums, the all-too-common practice of prosecutors trying juveniles as adults, or in the justice system’s inability to create an environment wherein juveniles that commit crimes can receive less severe sentences that focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures, the justice system in the United States is woefully unable to balance accountability with rehabilitation.
Juvenile Sentencing Practices
The Supreme Court has decided several landmark cases concerning juvenile sentencing—most notably, Miller v. Alabama, Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Montgomery v. Louisiana. These cases range in subject matter, from banning the death penalty sentences for juveniles to banning Life Without Parole sentences. Yet with these improvements to some of the most severe penalties, there remains practices and workarounds that skirt the spirit of Supreme Court decisions and even setbacks in progress made over the past two decades in the Supreme Court from recent appointees to the Court.
The most acute issue in need of correction within the juvenile justice system for individuals tried as adults is the emergence of de facto Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentences. Despite the Supreme Court ruling that LWOP sentences for juveniles convicted of crimes in most cases are unconstitutional and that sentences that in effect become life sentences, many juveniles still face a de facto sentence tantamount to a sentence of LWOP in all but name. Furthermore, in April the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in a 6-3 decision in Jones v. Mississippi gutted much of the painstaking progress made in juvenile justice reform. In a decision penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court decided that the discretion judges given under Miller not to impose LWOP sentences, also extended in the opposite direction to allow a judge the discretion to impose LWOP sentences for juveniles based on severe crimes—in this case, murder.
However, even before this April Supreme Court decision granting judges a wide berth of discretion to violate the spirit of previous Supreme Court decisions, one of the chief practices utilized to create de facto LWOP sentences and sentences that extend decades centered around overcharging and stacking mandatory minimum charges to be served concurrently.
Overcharging an individual accused of committing crimes is nothing new within the justice system. It serves as a tactic that prosecutors employ to coerce defendants to accept a guilty plea. Overcharging is wrong in many cases; however, the aspect that creates the most detrimental effect on juveniles is the concurrency of mandatory minimums requirements the juvenile is forced to serve if found guilty (the minimum amount of time an individual convicted of a crime is required to serve per charge) which can add decades of incarceration when a juvenile is tried as an adult. This accumulation of charges is capable of creating de facto life sentences which, while in contravention of the spirit of Supreme Court decisions, is not only legal but widely tolerated amongst prosecutors.
The average life expectancy according to the World Bank for men and women in the U.S., as of 2019, is 76 and 81, respectively, yet sentences that extend longer than these estimates all too often occur. Just this year in Ohio, a juvenile, Brandon Moore, received a reduced sentence on appeal that originally required him to serve 141 years, but only due to recent legislation, which almost half of the states have not yet implemented. Or in the case of Timothy Willbanks in Missouri, who received a 375-year sentence, but is eligible for parole at the age of 85, a sentence that is a de facto LWOP and death sentence.
In effect, despite Supreme Court rulings labeling LWOP sentences as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s “Cruel and Unusual Punishment,” clause, these sentences still occur. The current state of the criminal justice system when it relates to juveniles is a mixed batch of competing interests that does not serve the public-at-large nor those convicted of crimes. Instead of creating a system tailored to juveniles that commit serious crimes and lower crimes (where juvenile Court handles sentencing), the U.S. criminal justice system relies on an insufficient system that labels juveniles as adults rather than tackle the complex, nuanced issue of juvenile crime.
The Need for Reform is Long Overdue
What is needed is a significant overhaul in juvenile sentencing practices that can hold juveniles convicted for a crime accountable while balanced with restorative justice outcomes that can also provide justice for that same juvenile. No one—not even this article—argues that blanket amnesty should be granted to juveniles who commit crimes. However, the argument for the justice system not distinguishing between adults and juveniles is unacceptable and is a betrayal of juveniles’ fundamental Constitutional and human rights. Juveniles are intrinsically different from adults who can better process the consequences of their actions, and our criminal justice system should reflect this reality. Currently, states throughout the U.S. are slowly passing legislation to come into compliance with Supreme Court decisions; however, with the most recent decision in Jones, it remains unclear if the progress made this century will continue.
The U.S. and its citizens need to ask themselves if this is genuinely the best way to dispense justice for juveniles. As noted by legislators and activists alike, structural issues with the justice system require painstaking work. Yet, the need to create a better system to both hold juveniles accountable for criminal activity and—more importantly—rehabilitate those same juveniles should be at the top of the list for any individual advocating for criminal justice reform.
