In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that mandatory
life-without-parole sentences were unconstitutional for those younger than 18.
This January, the court ruled that the ban must be applied retroactively. Since then, Pennsylvania's high courts have vacated
dozens of life sentences, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer.
About 480 other
juvenile lifers across the state, 300 of them from Philadelphia - will receive
new sentencing hearings following the Supreme Court's ruling in Montgomery
v. Louisiana. But a key question remains: What sentencing law applies?
"Nobody has any real answer," said State Sen.
Stewart Greenleaf, a Montgomery County Republican who chairs the Judiciary
Committee.
"We're in uncharted territory here," he said,
"because we have a situation where the law these juveniles have been
sentenced under has now been found to be unconstitutional, and the laws that we
adopted as a legislature were adopted after they were sentenced
originally" and do not apply to them.
The most straightforward resolution might be new
legislation, but it's not so simple.
After the 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama,
Pennsylvania enacted new sentences for juvenile killers: 25 years to life for
those younger than 15, and 35 to life for those 15 to 17. But that law excluded
anyone whose sentence was final before the Miller decision. Greenleaf
said there's no changing that.
"The problem is, even if we pass something, it would be
ex post facto," or retroactive, he said. "I don't think the legislature
can do anything at this point, because it could be unconstitutional what we
do."
Marsha Levick, chief counsel at the Juvenile Law Center,
said no new law is needed. Her solution: Resentence juveniles to 20 to 40 years
in prison, the punishment for third-degree murder.
"Because there is no constitutional sentencing statute
that applies to these individuals, we would argue the court should apply the
next-harshest sentence," she said. "That's all the court can do. It
can only apply a constitutional sentence."
But Pennsylvania courts have already gone a different route.
About two dozen juvenile lifers - all sentenced, but still
in the appeals process, when Miller came down - have received new
sentences based on judges' discretion. The results have varied wildly.
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, in the case of Qu'eed Batts -
who at age 14 committed a gang-related murder - said the appropriate sentence
for individuals such as him would carry a minimum number of years in prison and
a maximum of life.
So brothers Devon and Jovon Knox, who were convicted in a
Pittsburgh carjacking and murder, received new sentences, of 35 years to life
and 25 years to life respectively.
But in re-sentencing Ian Seagraves, who committed a brutal
murder in Monroe County, a judge told him, "At this point in time, I have
the option of life with parole or life without parole." The judge
concluded that life without parole was still the appropriate sentence.
Doug Berman, a sentencing expert at the law school at Ohio
State University, said such inconsistency was unsurprising.
"This is the problem when the law is uncertain. It's
subject to different suppositions, some of which may be completely out to
lunch. Uncertainty breeds errors and differences of opinion," he said.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in Miller that courts
must consider the individual situation and the "mitigating qualities of
youth" before imposing the sentence of life without parole.
Pennsylvania Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm has been
inundated with calls and emails from prosecutors and judges trying to figure
out how to handle the cases and what sentencing laws apply.
"I know some of these D.A.s are going to go back and
ask for the highest minimum they can because there's a public safety question
here," she said.0-\*
She said if courts are guided by the state's new sentencing
law created after Miller, 189 offenders out of 480 would be immediately
eligible for parole. The average time served among the 480 is 36 years, and the
longest is 62 years.
"In some of these cases, you're going to see time
served become the new minimum. Obviously that needs to be very carefully
negotiated with the D.A., the defender, and the surviving family members."
For Anita Colon, Holbrook's sister and an advocate for
sentencing reform, consideration is all she wants for her brother.
"The court said you have to look at the individual case
and understand what that child had been going through," she said. She says
her brother's young age at the time of the crime, his conduct over the last 26
years, and that he was not the actual killer all work in his favor. "He
made a stupid decision and, without a doubt, he needed to be punished for that,
but not to take away the rest of his life."
Prosecutors, judges, and defense lawyers across the state,
which the Pennsylvania Corrections Department says has more juvenile lifers
than any other, have been tangling with this question and coming to disparate
conclusions. One Chester County judge converted the cases on his docket to
"time served to life," triggering the immediate possibility of
parole.
But Richard Long, executive director of the Pennsylvania
District Attorneys Association, said there was some consensus among
prosecutors: "We believe that the sentencing provision enacted by the
legislature for those cases after June 2012 can serve as good guidance."
Bradley Bridge, who's working on the cases for the Defender
Association of Philadelphia, said he had been meeting with prosecutors and
judges in Philadelphia to set up a structure to resolve the cases, including
what sentences could be imposed. To him, one thing is clear: Resentencing
juveniles to life is not permissible.
"They must be given new sentences that have both a
minimum and a maximum," he said. "That is what is required under
Pennsylvania law."
Berman called the situation unprecedented: When the Supreme
Court struck down other harsh laws, such as the juvenile death penalty, it was
relatively straightforward to convert those sentences to an obviously milder
sentence of life in prison.
But in this case, different inmates - ones who have served
40 years already and those who have served five - are likely to argue for
different resolutions. He said, "It's hard to engineer a one-size-fits-all
solution."
"This is one of the reasons, I think, why the jurisdictions
like Pennsylvania, which had the most Miller cases, were disinclined
to apply this retroactively," he said. "You get all these
complications just to sort out what law applies."
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment