Midwest Coalition for Human Rights - August, 2010

On May 17, 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Graham v. Florida that, under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile who has not committed homicide to life without the opportunity for parole.

Terrance Graham, the seventeen-year-old youth at the center of the case, was sentenced to life without parole for violating his probation by committing home invasion robbery and other crimes in Florida. Mr. Graham appealed his case arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States’ prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Graham deciding that that a youth under the age of 18 who have not committed homicide cannot receive a life sentence without being given the opportunity to show that he has changed or matured and should be released.

Reconciling with International Human Rights Law

The ruling in Graham v. Florida is widely celebrated throughout the human rights community. While the decision is a significant achievement and a positive step towards the fairer sentencing of youth, juvenile sentencing in the United States remains inconsistent with International Human Rights Law and at odds with international norms. The United States is one of the only countries in the world that has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically prohibits any sentencing of juveniles to life without parole.

In an interview with the Midwest Coalition for Human Rights, Shobha Mahadev, the Director of the Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentence of Children, said, “Most countries don’t even come close to the severity of our sentencing laws, particularly as they apply to young people. It is difficult to hold ourself out as a word leader when our own criminal justice system fails to appropriately balance accountability with returning youth to society. This is really a blemish on our nation.”

Even still, it is a positive and encouraging sign to see Justice Kennedy turn to international law in this ruling. Just as he did in Roper v. Simmons five years ago, Kennedy took into consideration international norms and laws on the treatment of juvenile offenders in forming his decision.

Understanding the Supreme Court Decision

In March of 2005 in the case of Roper v. Simmons the US Supreme Court abolished the juvenile death penalty finding it to constitute cruel and unusual punishment and to therefore violate the Eight Amendment. The Court used similar logic in Graham v. Florida finding that juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenders was both “cruel”, as it is too harsh for a young person, and “unusual”, as it is outside of society’s values. The Court noted that the goals of retribution, deterrence, protecting society, and rehabilitation, do not justify such a severe sentence for a child who did not commit a homicide.

What this Ruling Means for Juvenile Offenders

Human Rights Watch reports that of the 2,574 juveniles currently serving a life without parole sentence in the United States, approximately 129 were charged with non-homicide offenses. These youth will have the opportunity to apply for re-sentencing, however that does guarantee that each individual will gain parole. The Court’s ruling aims to give juveniles who do not commit homicide the opportunity to demonstrate that they have grown, matured, changed, and can be productive members of society. If after the person is given that opportunity he shows that he is truly beyond rehabilitation and is a threat to the community, he can still be denied parole.

Looking Forward

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham poses questions about whether the way in which our criminal justice system treats youth is appropriate and is encouraging of a just and safe society. The ruling reflects an understanding that, in sentencing, it is important to consider the “youthfulness” of a person who commits a crime as well as the nature of the offense involved. The Court suggested that criminal laws that don’t take into account youth are “flawed”.

It is clear that if our criminal justice system is to achieve sentencing standards that are in the best interest of both juvenile offenders and society as a whole, significant transformation needs to occur. It is now up to the states to have a dialogue on whether current sentencing laws are appropriate. Achieving sentencing standards in the United States that are consistent with human rights values will surely require the commitment of advocates, community, and government.