Is  sending  young  offenders  to  life in prison without parole  American  justice?

The white backround in some of the paragraphs is merely an anomaly in the printing.

In 1646, the General Court of Massachusetts of Bay Colony passed the Stubborn Child Law, decreeing that teenage boys who disobeyed their parents could be put to death. Has much changed since then? To understand why U.S. courts are doling out such harsh treatment to young lawbreakers, you need to be aware of the Old Testament influences behind the Stubborn Child Law.

 Fortunately, in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has set some cautious limits on punishments for youthful offenders. In 2005, the high court ruled it unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. In 2009, another Supreme Court ruling banned life sentences without parole for juveniles who committed crimes other than murder.

 In 2012, as many as 29 states still required minors to be tried as adults for major crimes such as murder and some sex offenses, and force them to face sentences such as life in prison without parole with no authority whatsoever for a judge to intervene. Across the United States, 59 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole are first-time offenders. The United States is the only country in the world to impose this kind of sentence on youth who are 17-years-old or younger, thereby effectively ignoring the ability of young people to grow and change into good citizens.  Young offenders sentenced to life without parole enter prison while they are still growing up and deserve an opportunity to change.

 The Human Rights Watch organization published a report in 2012 in which some of their observations bear repeating. They said in part;

 “Approximately 2,570 youth offenders [who] are currently sentenced to die in prison in the United States [are] held without the possibility of parole for crimes committed while they were children. Most have been convicted of homicide offenses.” unquote

In the State of Michigan, Bobby Hines was 15 and had just finished his eighth grade in school when he, 19-year-old Christopher Young and 16-year-old Darius Woolfolk went to confront James Warner. The three young people accused Warner of having stolen a jacket from a local boy as payment for drugs. When the trio came upon Warner, 16-year-old Woolfolk shot and killed him. Hines on the other hand had neither touched the weapon, nor the victim, yet he was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to serve “the rest of his natural life to hard labor and solitary confinement.” What kind of sentence is that?  Bobby’s co-defendants—Young, who provided the weapon, and Woolfolk, who fatally shot Warner, were convicted of second-degree murder and are serving life sentences with the opportunity to apply for parole. These sentences and Hines’ sentence are vastly different. Why is there such a discrepancy?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically prohibits incarcerating children for life and the United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have yet to ratify it. The U.S. was also the sole country to vote against a 2006 UN resolution that called for the abolition of the life without parole sentence for children and young teenagers.

In 1980, I addressed a UN conference on the treatment of offenders held in Caracas in which I suggested to the delegates that the UN create a bill of rights for young offenders. The American delegation after hearing my speech took up my torch and ran with it and five years later, the General Assembly passed the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules on the Administration of Juvenile Justice. Although the document states that no juvenile offender should be sentenced to death, it doesn’t say that juvenile offenders should not be sentenced to life in prison without parole.  What it does say in part is;

19.1 The placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and for the minimum necessary period. unquote

 Life in prison without parole is hardly what anyone could say is the minimum necessary period of incarceration.

 When both the America delegation and I jointly addressed the UN conference in Caracas in 1980 about the need for a bill of rights for young offenders, it was later unfortunate that the American delegation at the General Assembly in November 1985 was unable to sign the convention for the 50 individual states in the US. It is conceivable that some of the American states use the UN bill of rights for young offenders and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a guide but it would appear that those 29 states that sentence young offenders to natural life in prison do not. 

 However, the law on youth sentencing signed by Governor Jerry Brown of California on September 30, 2012, provides hope for nearly 300 youth offenders sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The new law, Senate Bill 9, will allow prisoners who were under age 18 at the time of their crime to ask the sentencing court to review their case and consider a new sentence permitting parole after they have served a minimum of 25 years in prison. Although 25 years in prison is a long time for committing a crime as a young offender, it is better than spending one’s entire life in prison.

 If a prisoner who was previously a young offender and was sentenced to life imprisonment without any possibility of parole is later being assessed in a parole hearing, resentencing hearing, or other sentencing review; consideration of the obstacles in obtaining rehabilitative opportunities that such youth offenders have faced should seriously be considered as a factor when considering his release. 

In Canada, the maximum time of imprisonment that a young offender who commits murder can serve in close custody is only six years. I don’t think that is enough however. One young Canadian offender killed his parents and a sibling and was released from a young offender facility after serving only six years. I hardly think that constitutes justice especially considering the fact that he refused to take part in group therapy or accept any form of psychological treatment. I don’t know if he has committed any crimes since his release because the names of young offenders in Canada cannot be released to the media and no mention can be published about his previous murders.

Serious crimes committed by young offenders are not to be taken lightly since these crimes occur with children who have psychological problems, distant relationships with their parents, and are prone to having tendencies that are violent. In my opinion, cases where murder has been committed by a young offender, the young offender should not be permitted to re-enter society without having gone through a large range of rehabilitation programs and testing. If he refuses such treatment and/or refuses to submit to being tested, I don’t think he is ready to re-enter society again until he agrees to participate in the programs and agrees to be tested.

The Human Rights Watch also said in their report;

“Teens and young adults have developmental needs that must be met in order in order for them to fully mature into adulthood. For a youth offender in the middle of this essential developmental phase, denial of these opportunities for growth is devastating. Systematic failure to provide such opportunities and widespread violence and abuse in prison turns a life without parole sentence into a punishment of excessive cruelty. Despite this cruelty, many youth offenders serving life without parole persevere in their struggles to obtain rehabilitative opportunities and do, in fact, find ways to mature into adults capable of contributing to society if ever given the chance.” unquote

What chance of development will be given to the following young offender in Florida.

Cristian Fernandez reportedly suffered neglect at the hands of a teenage mother and a drug-abusing grandmother, sexual abuse by a cousin and physical assaults by a stepfather who punched Cristian so hard in the face, the boy suffered retinal damage to one of his eyes.  His stepfather shot himself dead before the police arrived to talk to him about his assault on the boy. Officials noted there were other troubling incidents involving Christian. He killed a kitten; he simulated sex with classmates and he masturbated at school.

On June 3, 2011, Cristian, whose mother was only 12 when he was born, was himself just 12 when he, in a fit of anger, allegedly fatally smashed his two-year-old half-brother David’s head against a book shelf.

His mother, Susana, then 25, admitted to investigators that she had left Christian Fernandez, David and her other children home alone. When she returned, she said she found her two-year-old son, David unconscious. She then surfed the internet for four hours while her youngest child lay dying, and she even admitted to looking for information on child concussions before she eventually called police.. When the deputies arrived at the apartment: Fernandez's baby brother, David, was dead inside. He was found to have a fractured skull, bruising to his left eye.  The little boy was also bleeding in his brain.

The medical examiner said David might have survived if she had taken him to the hospital sooner for the head injury so she was charged with aggravated manslaughter. She pleaded guilty in March 2012 and at the time of this writing, she is awaiting sentencing. She could get 30 years behind bars.

Fernandez was charged with first-degree murder. Another felony charge was filed after his five-year-old half-brother told a psychiatrist that Fernandez had sexually assaulted him.

Based on psychological evaluations, prosecutors say that Fernandez poses a significant risk of violence, which is why he has been detained and charged with two first-degree felonies. If convicted of either crime, Fernandez could face a life sentence—a possibility that has stirred strong emotions among those for and against such strict punishment for a child as young as Cristian. He could become America's youngest offender having been charged as an adult with first degree murder as a result of the murder of his two-year-old half-brother.  If he were tried and convicted as a juvenile, he would automatically be free by the time he is 21, and could even face just 36 months in jail instead of being released when he turned 21 years of age.

Supporters of local State Attorney Angela Corey say that she did the right thing by trying Fernandez as an adult and holding him accountable to the full extent of the law. Her reason is best summed up by her statement when she said in part; “My fear is that whatever has happened to this young man in his short time on Earth cannot be solved in eight years.” unquote

Difficult questions remain for Judge Mallory Cooper: Should a child so young spend his life in prison? Does Cristian Fernandez understand his crimes, and can he comprehend the complex legal issues surrounding his case? If not, he cannot properly instruct his defence lawyer.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning sentences of life without parole for juveniles makes it impossible for his lawyers to advise Cristian on the law with respect to sentencing since the Florida Legislature has not changed the state law on this kind of sentence. Prosecutors say they never said they would seek a mandatory life sentence based on the old Florida law that called for a 25-year-to-life sentence instead of life without parole. Even the, a 25-year-sentence would be still outrageous. As of yet, the boy hasn’t been sentenced. When I learn what his sentence is, I will inform my readers as an update at the end of this article.

However, other states aren’t so strict when sentencing young offenders for murder.

In 2011, a Colorado boy pleaded guilty to killing his two parents when he was 12; he was given a seven-year sentence in a juvenile facility and three years parole. A Pennsylvania boy accused of killing his father's pregnant fiancee and her unborn child when he was 11 was sent this year to a juvenile facility where he could remain in state custody until he is 21 years of age.

I totally accept the recommended proposals suggested by the Human Rights Watch which are as follows;

(1) Pass legislation expanding the mandate of the Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to include a requirement that it monitor the conditions of confinement for youth offenders, including those who are now young adults, in the adult criminal justice system. (2) Ensure that state and federal standards for the care and treatment of children in detention and correctional institutions—both state-run and private—comply with international human rights standards. (3) Provide all youth offenders in state and federal detention and correctional institutions access to educational, vocational, and other rehabilitative means of programming that takes into account the needs and capacities of persons of their age and status. (4) Provide all youth offenders in state and federal detention and correctional institutions access to all programs. (5) Take all steps necessary to prevent, detect, respond to, and monitor incidents of physical assault and sexual violence against youth offenders in state and federal detention and correction institutions. (6) Including, at a minimum: training staff; modifying facility design and management, including classification, assignment, and staffing; developing specialized protocols and guidelines regarding investigation, internal monitoring and review, and outside reporting and oversight; and providing medical and psychological treatment for survivors. (7) End the placement of youth offenders under the age of 21 in protective or punitive solitary confinement in state and federal detention and correctional institutions. (8) Decisions about where to confine youth under the age of 21 should take into account children’s mental and physical maturity and should be reviewed on a regular basis. (9) End prolonged solitary confinement of all youth offenders in state and federal detention and correctional institutions. (10) Protective solitary confinement for adult inmates should be a last resort and an interim measure only. (11) Punitive solitary confinement of adults should be for the shortest period of time possible and should not be extended due to minor rule violations. (12) Provide all youth offenders in state and federal detention and correctional institutions with the care, protection, and all necessary assistance—social,

psychological, medical, and physical—that they may require in view of their age, gender, and personality. (13) Ensure that all youth offenders in state and federal detention and correctional institutions have a meaningful opportunity to challenge their conditions of confinement, including classification, housing, and access to programs.

In 1980 when I addressed the delegates attending the UN conference in Caracas that was dealing with the treatment of offenders, (amongst other topics) I severely chastised the American federal government because of the manner in which they treated young offenders in their care. As I said earlier, it was that speech that prompted the American delegates to bring in a resolution the following morning that resulted in the bill of rights I had suggested come into existence five years later, however, I also added that I was disappointed at having to chastise the Americans because as I told the delegates,  I recognized that Americans per se believe in justice for everyone.

Now I find myself having to severely criticize some of the American States that have on their books, excessively long sentences for young offenders notwithstanding that I still believe that Americans per se still believe in justice for everyone.