Criminally Yours: In Jail For Life At Age 16

The Supreme Court's decision still leaves thousands of juveniles, or inmates who started off as juveniles, in the system indefinitely. What else can be done?

justice-handcuffs-e1372182679824-300x286Last week, in a decision much awaited by prison inmates and civil rights activists, the Supreme Court ruled in Montgomery v. Louisiana that juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole have the right to appear before a parole board and be considered, at some point in their long sentences, for release.

That’s good news, but a drop in the bucket. It still leaves thousands of juveniles, or inmates who started off as juveniles, in the system indefinitely, subject to the whims of parole boards that are often political, secretive, and capricious.

A story:

I represented a young man, Vincent A., who at age 16 allegedly killed someone — another young man, a 14-year-old. The prosecutor at trial painted a picture of my client as a tough 16-year-old who hung out with the Bloods street gang, got stoned every afternoon with other boys at the leader’s apartment, skipped school, stayed away from home, and ultimately was told to take one of the gang’s guns and go to a nearby park to shoot a Crips member. Vincent and another young friend allegedly set off on a small bike, like they might use to go to a ball game or McDonald’s. Once at the park, shots were fired and a 14-year-old boy, the younger brother of the presumed main target, was killed.

The gun was ditched within a block and recovered by police. An eyewitness identified my client as the shooter but the ID was questionable — the witness was only 15; she saw the shooter for brief seconds and was scared to death at the time, having heard the gun shots and watched the shooter, gun in hand, run up her block — all factors that experts consider make for a weak identification.

The DNA evidence from the gun was inconclusive. There was no direct match to my client. However, because of the controversial way in which New York does DNA testing, the forensic lab did not exclude my client as ever having touched the gun, they just couldn’t say he definitely did. It was a probability game. The judge ruled this highly controversial way of interpreting DNA admissible.

Vincent was convicted after a tough battle before a tough judge. It took the jury more than a week to reach a verdict and one juror sobbed out loud as the verdict was read. Vincent was sentenced to 40 years to life.

Sponsored

I think about this case a lot, and am still in touch with Vincent and his family as we fight the conviction on appeal.

What could I have done better? How could this injustice have been avoided?

See, I don’t think Vincent committed this crime and there’s nothing worse than seeing someone you believe did not commit a crime sentenced to life for it. But assuming for a second that the prosecutor and jurors were right and Vincent was guilty, the sentence the judge imposed was still way out of kilter with the realities of being a juvenile boy. Their brains are just not as developed as adults, and therefore they should not be punished to the same extent as adults committing the same crimes.

You don’t need an expert in cognitive development to tell you that juveniles make dumb mistakes. Some worse than others. It kind of defines being a juvenile. How many times did you get in a car stoned as a kid?

Experts confirm that the brains of juveniles are not fully developed and therefore they are unable to make some of the higher-level decisions that adults make.   The frontal lobe, the part that controls impulsivity, decision making, ability to foresee long-term consequences of actions, and self-control, is not fully functioning until sometime in the mid to late 20s. That’s why so many people in our criminal justice system are between the ages of 18 and 24.

Sponsored

Most of them are not irredeemable, unintelligent, or evil. They’re just dumb kids who, yes, did terrible things, but to condemn them for life for their mistake is not the action of an enlightened society, or a reasoned one. It’s the action of a society seeking only vengeance.

Even the judge in my case recognized this when, during the long deliberations, he became worried that there might not be a conviction and sent an emissary from his chambers to discuss with me the possibility of my client taking a plea to 17 years instead of waiting out the verdict. At this point, realizing a conviction was not certain, the court felt 17 years was plenty enough punishment for the crime committed.

My client, having always proclaimed his innocence, chose not to take the deal, but once he was convicted, the judge no longer felt 17 years was appropriate — the sentence, instead, became 40 years to life. How’s that for invoking your right to be proven guilty by a jury of your peers?

As it stands, unless his conviction is overturned, Vincent doesn’t have a chance to leave jail for 40 years, at the earliest. And most likely, it will be a lot longer. With people convicted of murders, no matter how young they were when the crime was committed, the parole board never lets them out at the earliest date.

And here’s the other issue — parole boards. I’ve never heard good news from clients about them. While the recent Supreme Court decision mandates that all juveniles sentenced to life without parole now be given the chance to see a parole board, the people in control of that chance at freedom appear to be invested in extending prison sentences as long as possible. I’m not sure why. This requires an investigation all its own. I’ve just seen the results, time and time again.

If prison reform is on the horizon, let’s take it seriously. I’m seeing dibs and dabs of change — juveniles sentenced to life, now entitled to parole. Less solitary confinement for juveniles having problems in jail.

But it may be time to consider a lot more. Why not incentivize good behavior instead of only punishing bad? Think of how many inmates would want to break up fights, or take classes, or help fellow prisoners learn to read, if there were a clear benefit that could be objectively measured before any parole board.

This is what we do with our own children — catch them doing something right and praise them for it. Even in jail, this approach could reap great benefits.