Crime

When Is A Child Old Enough To Be Jailed For Life?

When it comes to sentencing, 18- to 21-year-olds need a few more years to mature before they reason like adults.

By  
on

In 2003, when Evan Miller was just 14 years old, he and a friend followed a guy into his trailer home in Alabama, got high with him, then took his wallet when he passed out.  While slipping the empty wallet back inside the man’s pocket, the man woke and a struggle ensued.  Miller used a bat to clobber him until he lay unconscious. Later, Miller and his friend set fire to the trailer to cover up the evidence. The man died of his injuries and smoke inhalation.

Miller came from foster homes and poverty.  His stepdad abused him; his mom was both an alcoholic and addicted to drugs.  He was tried for murder as an adult and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Based on that sentence, the 14-year-old would never see the light of day again outside a prison yard.  That was until the case went to the Supreme Court.

In 2012, in Miller v. Alabama, Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority noted, “Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences.” She added, “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

    With this decision, children up to age 18 can no longer be sentenced to either death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.  It was a landmark case in its time, but it begs the question: What’s so special about turning 18?  Does a young person really become an adult at that age and fully responsible for his decisions and actions?  Is 18 that different from 19, 20, or even 21?

    Although there’s not been a lot of studies on the 18–to–21 age group in the past, recent research shows that particularly in “hot” situations (situations involving emotional arousal), young adults from 18 to 21 are more likely to act like teenagers than adults in terms of their ability to control their impulses and resist peer pressure. With these new findings, it’s time for courts to reconsider whether the age of 18 should be the line in the sand, or whether an older age, say 21, is more reasonable.

      A federal court in Connecticut in 2018 decided even though a kid was 18 years old and five months, a life in prison without parole was cruel and unusual punishment.  At that age, Luis Cruz, a member of a street gang, killed two boys of a rival gang.  He was found guilty and sentenced to life without parole.  The Connecticut federal judge listened to extensive expert testimony about brain development of young adults and concluded — because of issues of impulsivity, heightened suggestibility to peer influence, and lack of full development of those parts of the brain that impact impulse control and long-term thinking — that the cut–off at age 17 and 364 days, could be extended beyond 18.  

The issue is on my mind because my client, Manuel Rivera, awaits sentence after having been found guilty in the stabbing murder of “Junior” Lesandro Guzman-Feliz.  Manuel was 18 years and nine months old at the time of the killing, just over the Miller threshold and thus subject to a sentence of life without parole.

Sponsored

The prosecutor argued that Manuel knew what he was doing during the crime and made a fully informed choice. After all, 18 is the age of reason in the U.S.  That’s when a young person can vote, be drafted, or join the military.  It’s the age at which parents no longer have to support their children.

But there are contradictions in this reasoning.  First, it ignores recent science.  As noted above, neuropsychologists who are now studying the 18- to 21-year-old age bracket are determining that parts of the brain that help them think ahead and control their actions are yet to be fully functioning until at least age 21.

Next, even our country has made conflicting determinations on how old is old enough to do certain things. For example, a young adult has to be 21 before he can drink, and 21 before he can legally own a firearm (by federal law). He’s got to be 25 before he can rent a car.  And now it’s recognized that young adults up to the age of 26 can be covered by their parent’s health insurance.  Compared to prior decades, kids marry at older ages, are independent later, and come back to the parents’ home even after finishing college. Does it still make sense to use 18 as the cut-off point in criminal matters?

Then there’s the issue of fairness.  First of all, a 14-year-old sentenced to life will be spending a lot longer in prison than a 50-year-old.  Next, have we given up on the idea that people change?  We’re not the same people we were at 40 as we were at 20. We don’t hang out with the same crowd, have the same outlook toward life, or take the same chances.  As Justice Kagan wrote in Miller, “Life without parole forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal. It reflects an irrevocable judgment about an offender’s value and place in society at odds with a child’s capacity for change.”

   For my money (and having had three kids and watched them grow), 18- to 21-year–olds need a few more years to mature before they reason like adults.  The criminal justice system should recognize that and treat them accordingly, no matter the crime.

Sponsored

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Topics

, , , ,