Fairness and redemption in juvenile sentencing
Today the U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether minors convicted of crimes other than murder can serve life sentences without parole. In a lot of ways, this is a case that stems from the 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, which eliminated the death penalty for minors. On the day of the oral arguments for Roper, I happened to be at the Supreme Court to attend another case (U.S. v. Booker, which dealt with the unsexy topic of upward departure in the federal sentencing guidelines). I remember standing outside the Supreme Court building and talking with some of the other people in line about the Roper case, and we all agreed that we were glad we weren’t judged for the stupid things we had done in our teenage years.
The LDS Church has no official opinion or policy on appropriate sentencing for juveniles. Even in a topic such as capital punishment generally, the Church is avowedly neutral. But certain aspects of criminal law invoke concepts of mercy, justice, forgiveness, and redemption—ideas that are a central part of Mormon theology, as well as that of mainstream Christianity and other faiths. Different Mormons might reach different conclusions within the same religious and legal framework, but I think both are important considerations when we consider criminal sentencing, particularly for juvenile offenders.
I have thought about some of these issues before, a few years ago when I worked at a district attorney’s office prosecuting child sex offenders, and more recently in a post about capital punishment. On the one hand, young people can commit some pretty heinous offenses before the age of 18, and even supporters of today’s case acknowledge that some juvenile offenders should be locked up for a long time. And having dealt with child sex cases, I feel very strongly that some people need to be imprisoned in order to protect the general public. But my religious beliefs also lead me to believe that people can change, and that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ makes forgiveness possible. And without at least some rehabilitative aspect, imprisonment seems futile or counterproductive for most offenders. As many prison administrators can testify, the last person you want to deal with is someone who has no hope of getting out an no incentive to improve behavior. Where is the balance between the consequences that result of our exercise of agency, and the mercy and forgiveness made possible by the atonement of Christ?
Both Terrence Graham and Joe Sullivan, the plaintiffs before the Court, are model inmates and good candidates for release. Legal analysts say their life sentences were the result of an extreme combination of two Florida sentencing laws. In my mind, the case actually hinges on the interpretation of “cruel and unusual punishment” and principles of federalism, but the concepts of accountability and redemption linger in my mind.
Photo credit: Still Burning.
