Almost everyone serving life in prison for crimes they
committed as juveniles deserves a shot at going home, said the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s message in these cases is
that children are different than adults when it comes to crime and punishment —
less culpable for their actions and more amenable to change, reported The Marshall Project. As such, court
rulings have determined all but the rarest of juvenile lifers are entitled to
“some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity
and rehabilitation.”
The court left it up to states how to handle this year's new
ruling but suggested parole boards were a good choice. “Allowing those
offenders to be considered for parole,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote
in January, gives states a way to identify “juveniles whose crimes
reflected only transient immaturity—and who have since matured.” Most states
have taken this option, changing juvenile lifers’ sentences en masse from life without to
lifewith the possibility of parole.
But prisoner’s rights advocates and attorneys have begun to
argue whether parole boards, as they usually operate, may not be capable of
providing a meaningful opportunity for release. A handful of courts have agreed.
Last month, a New York state appeals court judge ruled that
the state’s parole board had not “met its constitutional obligation” when it
denied parole to a man who had killed his girlfriend when he was 16. Dempsey
Hawkins is now 54 and has been denied parole nine
times in hearings that, the court said, did not adequately weigh what
role his youth and immaturity had played in his crime.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment