JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN...

JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN PHILADELPHIAA time for hope?

FAIR PUNISHMENT PROJECT

MARCH 2016

2Juvenile Life Without Parole in Philadelphia

INTRODUCTION

Nole participates in community service projects, including

a program he founded that helps prisoners build stronger

relationships with their spouses and children.1 He has won

multiple awards, including the Spirit of Philadelphia, for

his commitment to bettering his community.2 Currently,

Nole is a board member and facilitator of People

Advancing Reintegration, which helps people who are

returning to the community from prison.3 He also serves

as one of the worship leaders of the Yokefellow program,

which provides Christian spiritual guidance in prison.4

Freddie Nole, now 64 years old, is also a prisoner serving life without the possibility of parole for a homicide that he committed when he was 17 years old.

People who meet John “Freddie” Nole see an eloquent writer, a committed volunteer, and a loving husband.

1 Michel Marriot, Graterford Lifer Honored Parent-Child Center was Inmate’s Idea, PHILLY.COM (Mar. 23, 1987). Available at http://arti-

cles.philly.com/1987-03-23/news/26219879_1_graterford-inmate-state-prison-jail.2 Id.3 E-mail from Susan Beard-Nole, wife of Freddie Nole, to Elizabeth Eisenberg, Fair Punishment Project (March 21, 2016, 09:23 EST) (on file

with author).4 Id.

Freddie Nole, Age 23


This report explores what should happen to the 300 people who, like Nole, are

serving life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile homicide offense

committed in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the

imposition of mandatory life without parole sentences on juveniles. At the time of

the ruling, Pennsylvania was still imposing mandatory life without parole sentences

on juveniles convicted of murder in the first and second degrees. In response to

the Supreme Court ruling, then-Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed new

legislation that changed the mandatory sentence for first-degree murder to 35

years to life without parole for juveniles older than 15 years, and 25 years to life

without parole for youth under 15 years old.5 For second-degree murder, the

sentence was changed to 30 years to life with parole for those 15 and older and

20 years to life with parole for those under 15 years old.6 Judges retained the

discretion to determine a youth’s suitability for life without parole sentences in

first-degree cases.

5 PHILLIPS BLACK PROJECT, NO HOPE: RE-EXAMINING LIFETIME SENTENCES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS 4 (2015) http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/5600cc20e4b0f36b5caabe8a/1442892832535/JLWOP+2.pdf (citing Com-monwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286, 293 (Penn. 2013), and 18 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1102.1).

6 Id.

juveniles were convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in Philadelphia County.


Pennsylvania’s legislation explicitly did not apply

retroactively.7 However, on January 26, 2016, the U.S.

Supreme Court held in Montgomery v. Louisiana that

the prohibition against mandatory life without parole

sentences for youth must be applied retroactively to

every person serving this sentence.8 The court also

re-emphasized its determination in Miller in 2012 that

the punishment should only be used in extremely rare

cases when a juvenile offender is determined to be

“irreparably corrupt.”

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, is now preparing for

re-sentencing hearings for hundreds of inmates who

were originally sentenced to juvenile life without parole

(JLWOP) under the old laws. It is uncertain exactly how

these new rules will be applied in practice.

In this report, we’ll explore several compelling reasons

why Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams should

use this opportunity to adopt a new approach for dealing

with juvenile offenders, and move Philadelphia from its

position as an extreme outlier on the issue of juvenile life

without parole into the norm.

Philadelphia is now preparing for re-sentencing hearings for hundreds of inmates.

7 18 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1102.1; See Batts, 66 A.3d at 293.8 Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 736 (2016).

“Despite being in the harshness of prison, Freddie has always maintained a positive attitude. He has used his energy to try to make the world a better place by encouraging and serving others, while making the most of the opportunities available to him to learn and grow. Who knows what he could have achieved if he had a more nurturing environment as a child.”

— Susan Beard-Nole, wife of Freddie Nole

Freddie Nole reads to his stepsons during a visit.


KIDS ARE DIFFERENT

9 Id.10 Dustin Albert & Laurence Steinberg, Judgment and Decision Making in Adolescence, 21 J. Research on Adolescence 211, 220 (2011)

Modern neuroscience has proven that the adolescent brain differs

substantially from the adult brain. The prefrontal cortex, which is

the part of the brain used for impulse control and planning, is not

fully developed until around age 25.9 As a result, young people have a reduced capacity to control their impulses; they may know and understand the choices they are making, but they have a harder time resisting the compulsion to act. Indeed, recent studies show

that juveniles perform worse than adults in the areas of impulse

control and suppression of aggression, both of which permit adults to

make more adaptive decisions than adolescents, in part because they

have a more mature capacity to resist the pull of social and emotional

influences and remain focused on long-term goals.10

The prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain used for impulse control and planning, is not fully developed until around age 25.


These neurological differences translate into a differing

risk-reward calculus between adolescents and adults.

For example, “when asked to evaluate hypothetical

decisions, adolescents as old as 17 were less likely than

adults to mention possible long-term consequences, to

evaluate both risks and benefits, and to examine possible

alternative options.”11 This is especially true with regard

to choices made under pressure, in emotionally charged

situations, or when influenced by friends.12

It is no surprise that as people age, their likelihood

of committing crimes significantly decreases.

Developmental research shows that juveniles usually

outgrow the type of reckless behavior that leads to

contact with the criminal justice system.13 Thus, the

strength of the adolescent brain lies in its elasticity

and resilience.14 In a very real sense, the teenager who

commits a serious crime is not the same person years—

or decades—later when a parole board decides whether

he or she should be released from prison.

Most developed nations have accepted these

breakthroughs in neuroscience research on juveniles

and refuse to assign life sentences to youth. There are no other Western nations that assign juveniles life without parole sentences, and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child formally condemns it.15

It is no surprise that as people age, their likelihood of committing crimes significantly decreases.

11 Bonnie Halpern-Felsher & Elizabeth Cauffman, Costs and Benefits of a Decision: Decision-Making Competence in Adolescents and Adults, 22 J. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOL. 257, 265, 268 (2001). Even greater differences prevailed between adults and younger adolescents. See id. at 268.

12 Albert & Steinberg, supra note 10.13 Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and

the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 AM. PSYCHOLOGIST 1009, 1012, 1014-15 (2003).14 Sara B. Johnson, et. al., Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health

Policy, 45 J. ADOLESCENT HEALTH 3, 216-21 (2010). Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/.15 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, GA Res. 44/25, annex, 171, U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25 (Nov. 20, 1989).


MANDATORY JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has now started to catch up with the science

behind adolescent behavior. The first move came in Roper v. Simmons, decided in

2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court banned the death penalty for those under the

age of 18 at the time of the crime, pointing both to the science and the growing

national consensus that kids should not be executed.16 Then, in a 2010 case, Graham

v. Florida, the court banned life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of

non-homicide offenses. While the majority of states technically permitted JLWOP

sentences, the court found that they were very rarely imposed for non-homicide

offenses, citing only 11 jurisdictions that had done so.17

Roper and Graham established the important point that youth matters—children

under 18 are in a constitutionally distinct category for purposes of sentencing. The Supreme Court determined that juveniles are less culpable and have greater possibilities for reform, and therefore are less deserving of severe punishment.18

The court pointed specifically to three characteristics of youth that make their

actions less likely to be evidence of irredeemability: a less developed sense of

responsibility leading to recklessness and impulsive behavior; greater vulnerability

to negative influences and outside pressures in their environment; and a more

malleable character than that of an adult.19

16 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 564-565 (2005) (“30 States prohibit the juvenile death penalty, comprising 12 that have rejected the death penalty altogether and 18 that maintain it but, by express provision or judicial interpretation, exclude juveniles from its reach... even in the 20 States without a formal prohibition on executing juveniles, the practice is infrequent.”).

17 Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (“[O]nly 11 jurisdictions nationwide in fact impose life without parole sentences on juvenile non-homicide offenders—and most of those do so quite rarely—while 26 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government do not impose them despite apparent statutory authorization.”).

18 Id. at 68 (quoting Roper).19 Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. at 733 (2016) (quoting Roper and Graham; alterations, citations, and some internal quotation marks omitted).


The Supreme Court applied this same

rationale in their 2012 decision in Miller

v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life

without parole sentences for juveniles

convicted of homicide offenses.20 The court

held that automatically sentencing a juvenile

to life without parole without specifically

considering his or her youth as a mitigating

factor violates the Eighth Amendment.21

The Miller court then went on to propose

a standard for the rare case in which life

without parole could be imposed on a

juvenile, explaining that this punishment

should be reserved for exceptional cases—

for juveniles whose crimes reflect

“irreparable corruption.”22

They reaffirmed this standard this year in

the Montgomery decision.

Irreparable corruption is a very high bar,

and the court has stressed, “[A]ppropriate

occasions for sentencing juveniles to this

harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.

That is especially so because of the great

difficulty we noted in Roper and Graham

of distinguishing at this early age between

the juvenile offender whose crime reflects

unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the

rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects

irreparable corruption.”23 In Roper, the court

noted that “it is difficult even for expert

psychologists”24 to make a determination

that a child is irreparably corrupt, given that

decision-making skills are still developing

and changing.

Sentencing a juvenile to life without parole without specifically considering his or her youth as a mitigating factor violates the Eighth Amendment.

20 Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012).21 Id.22 Id. at 2469.23 Id.24 Roper, 543 U.S. at 573.


At the time of the 2012 decision, the court left it up to the states to decide how to apply the prohibition on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles. Ten states have abolished juvenile life without

parole completely in the years since Miller, bringing the national total

of jurisdictions that formally prohibit it to 17 states and the District of

Columbia.25 While many of the states that retained juvenile life without

parole determined that Miller should apply retroactively, meaning that

youth sentenced under old rules would have resentencing hearings to

determine if their punishment fit the Miller criteria, Pennsylvania chose

not to apply Miller retroactively.26 In fact, in Commonwealth v. Cunningham,

Philadelphia County District Attorney Seth Williams’ office fought all

attempts to make Miller retroactive, arguing that there was no legal

reason to change the sentences.

A Broad Consensus Against Juvenile Life Without Parole

Jurisdictions that prohibit JLWOP

States that allow JLWOP but have no such cases

States that allow JLWOP and have five or

fewer cases

District of Columbia

25 PHILLIPS BLACK PROJECT, supra note 5.26 Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013).


In January 2016, the Supreme Court determined in Montgomery v.

Louisiana that Miller must be applied retroactively.27 This means that all

people currently serving JLWOP sentences must have their sentences

reconsidered or, alternatively, be made eligible for parole.28 Montgomery

did not make release mandatory, but the court was clear that the vast

majority of JLWOP sentences should be significantly reduced because

the sentence should be unusual and an exception rather than the norm.

“Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without

parole is excessive for all but the rare juvenile offender

whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.”29

The court thus established the legal standard for resentencing and

parole determinations by holding that those individuals serving JLWOP

sentences “must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption.”30

27 Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. 718.28 The issue about parole versus resentencing remains to be litigated in the various states.29 Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. at 724 (quoting Miller).30 Id. at 736

Kempis Songster, Age 14


PHILADELPHIA IS AN ‘EXTREME OUTLIER’ ON JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE

Philadelphia County has the highest

percentage of juveniles sentenced

to life without parole in the country.

31 Holly Otterbein, Philly Tops All Cities in Sending Juveniles to Prison for Life, PHILLY MAGAZINE (Sep. 23, 2015), http://www.phillymag.com/citified/2015/09/23/juvenile-life-without-parole-sentence/.

32 Id. 33 Data from Bradley Bridge, Assistant Defender at Philadelphia Defender Association.

Among all U.S. jurisdictions, Pennsylvania has imposed

the highest percent of JLWOP sentences of any state. In

particular, Philadelphia County is responsible for the

highest number of juvenile life without parole convictions

in the country.31 By way of comparison, Philadelphia

County is home to .5% of all Americans, but at least 9% of

all juveniles sentenced to life without parole.32 There are

approximately 300 individuals currently serving JLWOP

sentences from Philadelphia County.33

A number of legal factors coalesced to make Philadelphia

the center of JLWOP sentencing. Pennsylvania does not have a “juvenile murder” charge, meaning that all youth—no matter how young—who commit homicide in Pennsylvania can be tried as adults. All juveniles charged

with homicide begin their cases in adult court, and the


34 Bobby Allyn, For Hundreds of Inmates Who Killed in Their Youth, Chance for Parole Hinges on High Court Decision, NEWSWORKS (Oct. 12, 2015), http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/philadelphia/87065-for-hundreds-of-inmates-who-killed-in-their-youth-chance-for-parole-hinges-on-high-court-ruling.

35 18 Pa C.S.A. § 2502(b).36 Christopher Moraff, Court Can Force PA’s Hand on Juvenile Sentencing, PHILLY.COM (Oct. 19, 2015), http://mobile.philly.com/

beta?wss=/philly/opinion&id=333961331. 37 Id.38 John J. DiLulio, Jr., Arresting Ideas, HOOVER INST. POL’Y REV. (1995); Editorial Board, Echoes of the Superpredator, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 13,

2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/opinion/echoes-of-the-superpredator.html.

burden is on the defense to convince a judge to move the case to juvenile court.

The mandatory sentence for first-degree and second-degree murder committed

by a juvenile, up until the rulings in Miller and Montgomery, was life without

parole.34 Murder in the second degree is a homicide that occurs “while defendant

was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.”35

Pennsylvania is just one of six states where all life sentences are imposed

without the possibility of parole,36 and is one of just two states where both

first- and second-degree murder convictions automatically trigger life without

parole sentences.37

In addition to the extremely punitive laws, the Philadelphia County District

Attorney’s Office historically embraced a culture that valued excessive

punishment in response to the nationwide moral panic surrounding the so-called

“superpredator” scare in the 1990s. This scare was facilitated by the perception

that violent crimes committed by youth were increasing. The “superpredators”

were a coming “breed” of “fatherless, Godless and jobless” teenagers who would

“kill, rape, [and] maim, without giving it a second thought.”38

Pennsylvania IllinoisIowaLouisiana MaineSouth Dakota

Pennsylvania is one of just six states where all life sentences are imposed without the possibility of parole.

13Fair Punishment Project: Juvenile Life Without Parole in Philadelphia

The myth of a new wave of young

“superpredators” carried with it racial

undertones that had dire repercussions for

young people of color who became caught up

in the criminal justice system during this era.

Black youth in Philadelphia were

disproportionately sentenced to life without

parole. African-Americans make up 17% of

Pennsylvania’s population, but 80% of its

juvenile lifers.39

The “superpredator” myth, which led to

an increase in juvenile life without parole

sentences, was proposed by political scientist

John Dilulio in the early 1990s. Dilulio argued

that young people, particularly young people

of color in urban areas, were so morally

corrupt that rehabilitation was useless. Dilulio

and former Philadelphia District Attorney

Lynne Abraham served together on the

Council on Crime in America, a pro law-and-

order organization that sought solutions to

what was perceived to be a rise in violent

crimes committed by youth. The Council on

Crime in America emphasized the need to

“contain” young people who were committing

The Myth of the

JLWOP Sentences in Philadelphia43

violent crimes and refused to acknowledge all

scientific evidence supporting rehabilitation

of youth and the impact of trauma on

development.40 While these theories have since

been debunked, vestiges remain in punitive

sentencing schemes—like Pennsylvania’s use of

JLWOP sentencing as a mandatory minimum

sentence, which sends an unambiguous

message that a child is too incorrigible to ever

change.41 Much like his predecessor Lynne

Abraham, Philadelphia County’s current

district attorney, Seth Williams, has spoken in

favor of harsh sentencing for juveniles.42 The

Montgomery decision offers him the chance to

reconsider his approach to juvenile justice.

25

20

15

10

5

01965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015

39 Holly Otterbein, Philly Tops All Cities in Sending Juveniles to Prison for Life, Philly Magazine (Sep. 23, 2015), http://www.phillymag.com/citi-fied/2015/09/23/juvenile-life-without-parole-sentence/.

40 The Counsel On Crime In America, The State of Violent Crime in America (1996) https://www.heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/4390.pdf.

41 Phillips Black Project, supra note 5.42 Allyn, supra note 34.43 Infographic by Phillips Black.


WHO ARE THE KIDS SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE? Freddie Nole shows how much a person can change as he

grows into an adult. Nole grew up in South Philadelphia

as one of 11 siblings, and was left to run the streets and

fend for himself. In 1969, when he was just 17 years old,

Nole and two other teens were arrested for robbing an

elderly South Philadelphia shopkeeper, who later died

from injuries sustained during the robbery.44 All of the

youth involved were charged with murder.45 While the

other two teens were tried in juvenile court and given

short sentences, Nole was charged as an adult and

sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Nole uses his first-hand knowledge to help prisoners,

family members, and other community members by

contributing writings to the Human Rights Coalition,

a Philadelphia-based organization committed to

rehabilitation and humane prison conditions.46

44 Marriot, supra note 1.45 See 42 Pa. Const. Stat. Ann. § 2502(b).46 Human Rights Coalition (“About”), http://hrcoalition.org/about.

Age at Arrest Current Age Years Incarcerated

Freddie Nole

17 64 47


Nole has pointed out that, like him, many youth

sentenced to JLWOP are “poor, uneducated, from single

parent homes, alcohol and drug infested neighborhoods,

and minorities.”48

Mr. Nole is not the same person he was as a teenager, and this is true of countless other inmates who were sentenced as juveniles in Philadelphia and are still serving time.

Luis Gonzalez was 17 years old when he was spending

time with a group of friends and they decided to steal

someone’s jacket. The man was killed, although police

never determined who pulled the trigger.49 Luis was

sentenced to life without parole for the crime. Since

then, he has dedicated himself to education and has

spearheaded several volunteer initiatives, including a

scholarship program funded by inmates at Graterford

State Correctional Institution from their meager wages.50

47 Human Rights Coalition, THE MOVEMENT, http://hrcoalition.org/sites/default/files/movement22.pdf.48 HOWARD ZEHR, DOING LIFE: REFLECTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN SERVING LIFE SENTENCES (1996).49 THE REDEMPTION PROJECT, Profile on Luis Gonzalez, http://www.theredemptionproject.org/.50 Id.

“About four years after I came in, I started changing my life around.I had started going to school, and I passed my GED. That was significant; that was like a milestone for me. It made me feel wonderful. It was the first time I had the opportunity to make my family proud of me. But more than that, it allowed me to see what I was capable of as an individual.”47

— Freddie Nole

Luis Gonzalez


17 46 29

Freddie Nole and wife Susan Nole and family


Joe Ligon

In 1953, Joe Ligon, then 15 years old, was arrested

along with five other youths in connection with the

deaths of two other teens in a large brawl.51 Ligon is

developmentally disabled and did not actually stab

the victims who died.52 Today, all four of the other

defendants have been released; only Ligon remains

locked up.53 He is now a 78-year-old man, and with

more than six decades of incarceration, he is the

longest-serving juvenile lifer in the state.54

In 1980, David Maldonado, then 16, stabbed a

man who was pursuing him after David’s brother

stole a box from the man.55 Maldonado cried when

he realized he had killed someone. He was later

convicted of second-degree murder.56 Thirty-five

years later, he has overcome his drug addiction,

received multiple degrees, and hopes to become a

drug and alcohol counselor.57


15 78

David Maldonado


16 52 36

63

51 Karen Heller, After 57 Years Behind Bars, A Juvenile Lifer Speaks, PHILLY.COM (Sep. 22, 2010), http://articles.philly.com/2010-09-22/news/24978674_1_fellow-inmates-prison-joe-ligon.

52 Id.53 Id. 54 PA. Juvenila Lifers Look to Supreme Court for Some Relief, PHIL. TRIBUNE (Sep. 29, 2013), http://www.phillytrib.com/news/pa-juvenile-

lifers-look-to-supreme-court-for-some-relief/article_485bed07-0e2c-55c0-bdfe-c00fced07d4b.html. 55 Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 494 A.2d 402, 405 (Pa. 1985).56 Id.57 THE REDEMPTION PROJECT, supra note 49, Profile on David Maldonado.


Kempis Songster & Dameon Brome

John Pace

In 1987, 15-year-olds Kempis Songster and Dameon

Brome got in over their heads with a Jamaican

drug gang in Philadelphia. After being locked in a

room without food, and fearing for their lives, they

participated in an attack that resulted in the death

of another boy who worked for the gang.58 Songster

and Brome deeply regret their actions and have

spent their time in prison studying, writing, and

volunteering.59 Even the victim’s father forgave

Songster and Brome, arguing that both boys were as

much victims as his own son, due to their youth and

the extreme influence of gang leaders.60

Many of the youth sentenced to JLWOP were sentenced under the felony murder rule, meaning they had no intent to kill anyone.61 When John

Pace was just 17 years old, he hit a man in the head

with a rubber blackjack, intending to knock the

man out so he could rob him. The man died 10 days

later, and Pace ultimately pled guilty to second-

degree murder.62 Since then, more than 30 years

have passed, and John has used the time to earn a

bachelor’s degree and to teach other prisoners

how to read.63

58 Amy S. Rosenberg, Caught in the Drug World, 2 Teenagers Became Killers, PHILLY.COM (Jan. 18, 1988), http://articles.philly.com/1988-01-17/news/26283642_1_shower-posse-jamaican-drug-gang-member.

59 Amy S. Rosenberg, Teen Killers, Prison Lifers, Given a Ray of Hope, PHILLY.COM, (Feb. 16, 2016), http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Teen_killers_prison_lifers_given_a_ray_of_hope.html.

60 Id.61 Adam Brandolph, Juvenile Lifers in Pennsylvania Lose Appeal to High Court, TRIBLIVE, Jun. 9, 2014), http://triblive.com/state/pennsyl-

vania/6253741-74/court-appeal-law.62 THE REDEMPTION PROJECT, supra note 49, Profile on John Pace.63 Id.


15 43 29


17 47 30


Robert “Saleem” Holbrook

Stacey Torrance

Robert “Saleem” Holbrook was 16 years old when he

served as a lookout for what he was told would be

a drug deal.64 The incident ended with a killing that

he did not participate in or anticipate, yet he was

convicted of second-degree murder.65 Since then, he

has written articles for newspapers, journals, and

newsletters; joined the Human Rights Coalition; and

written a survivor’s manual to assist juveniles and their

families in navigating juvenile life without parole.66

Stacey Torrance was only 14 years old when he was

involved in the plans of his cousin and another man

to commit a burglary that he did not know would end

in a homicide.67 Despite his youth and the fact that he

was not present for the killing, Torrance was convicted

of the murder and sentenced to life without parole.68

Since then, he has found his passion working as an

electrician. He makes 42 cents an hour doing this work

for the prison and dreams of continuing this work on

the outside.69 He is now 40 years old and has been in

prison for all of his young life; he’s never paid a bill or

driven a car.

64 Richard Wolf, Supreme Court Considers Reprieve for Kids Who Kill, USA TODAY (Oct. 11, 2015), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/11/supreme-court-juvenile-life-without-parole-murder/73594976/.

65 Sadhbh Walshe, What JLWOP Means: Life, Without Parole, for Kids, THE GUARDIAN (March 16, 2012), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/16/what-jlwop-means.

66 16 And Life to Go…The Case of Robert L. Holbrook, FREESALIM.NET, http://freesalim.net/16_and_life_to_go.67 Matt Stroud, Just Kids—Could A Recent Supreme Court Decision Give Juvenile Lifers a Second Chance?, IN THESE TIMES (Dec.

30,2013), http://inthesetimes.com/article/15988/just_kids_juvenile_life_sentencing.68 Dana DiFilippo, Sentenced to Life As A Juvenile, He Hopes Ruling Means Freedom, PHILLY.COM (June 27, 2012), http://articles.philly.

com/2012-06-27/news/32425545_1_sentences-nonhomicide-juvenile-lifers. 69 Id.

Age at Arrest

Age at Arrest

Current Age

Current Age

Years Incarcerated

Years Incarcerated

16

14

42

42

26

28


These stories are compelling examples that demonstrate

just how much juvenile offenders can transform

themselves as they age.

These sentencing decisions were made without credible

information about an individual’s potential. A life without

parole sentence for a teenager “means denial of hope; it

means that good behavior and character improvement

are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might

hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the inmate], he will

remain in prison for the rest of his days.”70 It means “there

is no possible piece of information that could be learned

between sentencing and death that could bear in any way

on the punishment the convicted is said to deserve, short

of what might ground an appeal.”71

But juveniles who commit a serious crime and the person they become later in life are often very different people.72

Many of them demonstrate a great elasticity and capacity

for change and simply grow out of any proclivity toward

criminal activity.73 Often, they are more mature and

introspective, and have great potential to be a valuable

member of society. No compelling evidence exists to

show that a juvenile who is charged with a violent crime

will continue to commit crimes throughout adulthood.

Indeed, many of these prisoners have transformed their

lives in dramatic fashion in the years—and decades—since

their convictions. The vast majority of those sentenced to

JLWOP are not the same 14- or 17-year-olds who long ago

committed serious crimes.

70 Graham, 560 U.S. at 70 (quoting Naovarath v. State, 105 Nev. 525, 526, 779 P.2d 944 (1989)).71 Jennifer Lackey, The Irrationality of Natural Life Sentences, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 1, 2016), http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/

the-irrationality-of-natural-life-sentences/?emc=eta1&_r=2. 72 Id.73 Dana Goldstein, Too Old to Commit Crime?, THE MARSHALL PROJECT (Mar. 20, 2015), https://www.themarshallproject.

org/2015/03/20/too-old-to-commit-crime#.GeHv5zjzJ.


A REASON FOR HOPE IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

Seth Williams, Philadelphia District Attorney

This is a critical moment in District Attorney Seth Williams’ career.

Hundreds of individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes

they committed as kids are now eligible for resentencing hearings

under Montgomery. In this scenario, as in many other sentencing

decisions, the prosecutor wields a great deal of discretion.

Throughout the United States, the tide has turned against life

without parole sentences for juveniles, with both neuroscience and

common sense guiding the shift. Philadelphia County remains an

extreme outlier in its high usage of JLWOP sentences, although it

now has the opportunity to adopt a new approach to juvenile justice.

It is up to Seth Williams’ office to consider the growing body of

evidence against sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole

and seek more appropriate sentences in these cases.


ABOUT THE FAIR PUNISHMENT PROJECT AND PHILLIPS BLACK PROJECT

The Fair Punishment Project uses legal research and educational initiatives to ensure

that the U.S. justice system is fair and accountable. As a joint initiative of Harvard Law

School’s Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice and its Criminal Justice

Institute, the Fair Punishment Project works to highlight the gross injustices resulting

from prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective defense lawyers, and racial bias, and

illuminate the laws that result in excessive punishment. For more information visit:

www.fairpunishment.org.

Phillips Black is at the forefront of compiling and analyzing the transformation of

juvenile life without parole sentencing (JLWOP) resulting from the seminal Eighth

Amendment decisions of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama,

132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). Phillips Black is a leading producer of JLWOP legal scholarship

examining the rapid changes across the country, identifying the jurisdictions that have

already abandoned or are decidedly moving away from this sentence, and explicating the

law and actual practices in counties and states that continue to countenance sentencing

individuals to die in prison for crimes they committed before reaching age 18. For more

information visit: www.phillipsblack.org/juvenile-justice.

FAIR PUNISHMENT PROJECT

JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN...

Documents

Transcript of JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN...