Supreme Court Finds Life Without Parole Unconstitutional for Some Juvenile Criminals

Supreme Court says life without parole unconstitutional for non-killer juvies.

ByABC News
May 17, 2010, 7:39 AM

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2010— -- The Supreme Court ruled today that the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment means juvenile offenders who haven't been convicted of murder shouldn't be sentenced to life in prison without any chance of parole.

Writing for a 5-to-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy called life without parole an "especially harsh punishment" for a juvenile and said that while states may be permitted to keep young offenders locked up, they must give defendants "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."

Three quarters of the states allow life without parole for juveniles, but there are only 111 juveniles serving such sentences, which, Kennedy pointed out, amounts to a national consensus against the practice.

"It becomes all the more clear how rare these sentences are, even within the jurisdictions that do sometimes impose them, when one considers that a juvenile sentenced to life without parole is likely to live in prison for decades," he wrote.

Take the Quiz: How Well Do You Know the Supreme Court Justices?

Kennedy also cited the "diminished moral culpability" of a juvenile, who is often still maturing as an individual, and the prospect of rehabilitation as factors in the ruling.

The decision directly addresses two Florida cases involving teenagers put away for life following their convictions for non-homicide crimes. Joe Harris Sullivan was imprisoned at age 13 for raping an elderly woman, and Terrance Jamar Graham was sentenced at 17 for armed robbery while on parole.

Scott Makar, the solicitor general of Florida, had argued that the crimes committed by Graham and Sullivan were so violent that life without parole was justified.

"We like to think that it is only used rarely," he said during oral arguments before the court, "in those cases that are justified for public safety purposes where we have very serious violent offenders."

A 6-to-3 majority of the justices disagreed with Makar on the specifics of the Graham and Sullivan cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts supported the majority on the facts of the specific cases but disagreed with broader application of the sentencing rule.

"I would not, however, reach the same conclusion in every case involving a juvenile offender," Roberts wrote. "Some crimes are so heinous, and some juvenile offenders so highly culpable that a sentence of life without parole might be entirely justified under the Constitution."