On Human Dignity
By Josephine Weinberg
On Monday May 17, in a decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court held that sentencing juvenile non-homicide offenders to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment (Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ____ (2010)).
The case involved Terrance Graham who committed armed burglary at the age of 16 in Jackonsonville, Florida. During the burglary his accomplice attacked a restaurant manager with a metal bar. No death resulted and no money was taken. Graham was charged as an adult but accepted a plea agreement, was sentenced to a year in jail and was put on probation. Graham was subsequently found to have violated his probation by committing a home invasion robbery and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Graham challenged his sentence under the Eighth Amendment.
In its decision, the Court examines national and global consensus in determining whether such sentencing is cruel and unusual. The Court notes that while 37 states allow for the life sentencing of non-homicide juvenile offenders (California being among them), the actual imposition of such a sentence is rare. What is of particular interest to MCLI is the court’s mention of international law and the fact that the United States is the only nation that actually imposes life without parole sentences on juvenile non-homicide offenders. The court states that, Article 37(a) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990), ratified by every nation except the United States and Somalia, prohibits the imposition of “life imprisonment without possibility of release ... for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.” [citations omitted] [T]he United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against” life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. [citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 at 577(2005)]. (Page 30 of Slip Opinion)
The Court recognizes the weight of these international views and finds that even though there are no international legal agreements that are currently binding on the U.S. on this issue, the fact that the overwhelming weight of international opinion is against life without parole for non-homicide offenses committed by juveniles, provides “respected and significant” support for the Court’s own conclusion that such sentencing is cruel and unusual.
The Court reiterates its findings in Roper which many of us would view as common sense: Roper established that because juveniles have lessened culpability they are less deserving of the most severe punishments. As compared to adults, juveniles have a “ ‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility’ ”; they “are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure”; and their characters are “ not as well formed.” These salient characteristics mean that “[i]t is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Accordingly, “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders.” A juvenile is not absolved of responsibility for his actions, but his transgression “is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Thompson, supra, at 835 (plurality opinion). [all citations omitted] P. 16-17 of Slip Opinion)
The Court viewed a categorical ban on life sentences of non-homicide juvenile offenders as a necessary step given the above findings. Hopefully such a ban puts the U.S. closer to ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Perhaps the most useful for all those seeking to have the U.S. further recognize international law, is the language and approach the Court takes on analyzing global views. The Court frames international condemnation of such sentencing as evidence that such sentencing practices are simply inconsistent with basic notions of decency (Page 31 of Slip Opinion). While the Court clearly states that no international agreement or view is currently dispositive on this issue, the legitimacy of international treaties and the need for international perspective to be incorporated into decision making is evident. A copy of the Graham v. Florida decision can be found at www.supremecourt.gov.
Josephine Weinberg is a graduate of the New College School of Law, a legal activist, and MCLI Board member.