Juvenile Sentencing Should Be Reviewed

Adrine Rodriguez

Arizona State University

[Document title]

Abstract

When it comes to juvenile and adult offenders, they are viewed differently under the law. Crimes

committed by minors for example being accused of being an accessory to murder should not be

sentenced to life without parole, because under article 37 these types of sentences deem

unconstitutional. The supreme court has its views on juveniles and so do the state courts, basically

both courts demonstrate two different views on juvenile sentencing. The supreme court views that

juveniles are different from adults and should be treated as such, where state courts lump all

homicide cases the same even if there are dramatically differences in the cases. For an example

being an accessory to murder and committing the murder can possibly result in the same sentence.

Being an accessory to murder and an actual murderer are different and should be treated

accordingly in a sense of sentencing. Over all this paper demonstrates how the supreme court

established that children are different from adults, and how the juvenile court system is failing to

rehabilitate juvenile offenders.

Key words: Juvenile, Sentencing, Unconstitutional, Accessory, Adolescent

[Document title]

Juvenile Sentencing Should Be Reviewed

When it comes to crimes committed by juveniles it is extremely difficult to have a clear

line of what should happen to them after the crime has been committed. Every crime committed

by juveniles differ and are most likely caused because of some sort of outside cause like abuse,

neglect, and many different types of behavior indecencies. Children are known to be different than

adults in every culture in the world, but not so much in courts that are in America. This is without

saying that every court in America is not doing its due diligence, because there are courts that are

trying to fix their juvenile court system. This is saying that all courts in America need to fix their

juvenile court system in a way that can meet the need of the accused as well as the victims.

Sentencing a juvenile to a life sentence for an accessory to murder could possibly be justified if

the criminal had prior knowledge of the murder itself before the crime was committed. What

happens if a juvenile criminal decides to commit a crime which does not include murder but gets

caught up and becomes an assessor to murder. One might ask are both crimes the same; if not,

what is different and what can be done to help protect juveniles’ rights.

In the United States a person under the age of 18, that commits a crime can be tried in

juvenile court. Unless under special circumstances from the judge that is overseeing the case,

establishes a waiver to be tried in criminal court. A juvenile can be tried in criminal court, which

would result in a harsher sentence. A judge is most likely going to establish a waiver for a juvenile

with any involvement in a murder case, possibly without fully understanding their involvement in

the actual murder. Crimes such as first and second-degree murder as well as being an accessory to
[Document title]

murder can all result in a life sentence. If all three of these crimes are seen different based off the

degree of the crime, then why should the sentence time be the same in some cases.

Before there was a juvenile court system children and adults were tried and sentenced the

same. It was not until late 1899 when the juvenile court system was established. This court was

put in place because there was a high percentage of offenders under the age of eighteen. This courts

main goal was to rehabilitate the youth. It was set that once they have served their time, they will

be able to not only function in society, but also contribute. Since the earliest time of the

development of our country children have been viewed differently than adults, which is why the

juvenile court system was put in place. Children demonstrate change and willingness more than

adults do. If an adolescent is being accused of being an accessor to murder while not fully

understanding how he or she even committed the crime, should not be subjected to having their

constitutional rights taken from them. Sentencing an adolescent to life imprisonment for accessory

of murder, in the cases where the adolescent had no intention on killing demonstrates revenue

rather then rehabilitation. (Padilla-Frankel 2016)

The American Psychological Association, explains that there is scientific evidence that

shows that a person under 18 years old “lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their

decisions” (Steinberg 2009.) Sentencing juveniles to a life sentence while knowing that they

cannot fully understand the seriousness of their crimes and how they may affect others can be

debated as unconstitutional. Adult offenders understand the crimes that they have committed and

the consequences that come after, in a different sense they fully understand right from wrong.

Courts sentence juveniles based on crimes they are accused of committing, whether, their

involvement was minimal. There are numerous cases that result in juveniles being sentenced to

life without parole for being an assessor to murder. In some cases, the person who actually commits
[Document title]

the murder does not get charged, but the person who was an accessory to murder gets a life

sentence.

An example of a case when a juvenile is sentence to life without parole for being an

accessor to murder is in the case of David who was fifteen years old and Larry who was thirteen,

at the time of the crime. The boys decided to commit the crime of robbing a convince store. David

and Larry both explained that the crime that they will be committing would be robbery, nowhere

did David understand that he would be an accomplice to murder since, he only thought that they

would be robbing the store. Larry went inside the store possibly not knowing that he would soon

be a murderer, when he stepped into the store things went sideways and Larry murdered the clerk.

Larry then ran into the car that David was driving, while David did not fully understand that he

would be charged with being an accomplice to murder. The police then arrested both boys shortly

after and charged them both with murder. Larry already had a run in with the law, so he knew not

to incriminate himself, where David did not, and he told the police that Larry came up with the

plan and killed the clerk. At this moment David still did not understand his rights or the level of

the crime that he was accused of committing. Meanwhile there was not enough evidence to charge

Larry because he knew better then to incriminate himself. Shortly after David was accused with

felony murder and sentence life without parole. This case demonstrates what the supreme court

has expressed, which is how children are different than adults. In this case it shows that during the

time of the crime David was under Larry’s command, as where an adult offender normally commits

crimes under their own volition, so they can have total control over the situation (Moore 2014).

Cases like this where the defendant had no prior knowledge of a murder that would be taken place,

during the time of them committing a crime that is not homicide and being charged with murder

presents injustice. This is do to the court only looking in the best interest of the victim and not the
[Document title]

defendant when both sides should be taken into consideration. This is not saying that the victim

does not deserve justice, it just means that so does the defendant due to them being an adolescent.

Offenders that are charged with crimes such as accessory to murder at a prepubescent age

demonstrates that juveniles are capable of committing crimes just as much as an adult. Which also

shows that their state of mind is not at its full potential due to them being an adolescent at the time

of the crime rather than an adult when the crime is committed. When juveniles commit crimes at

such a young age, a person can have the capacity to commit such a heinous crime, while not fully

being aware at the time that it is wrong or unjust. Meanwhile an adult offender understands the

full concept of right from wrong before during and after the crime has been committed, which is

why adults are held accountable of their actions in a way that differs from adolescents. Over all

this means that children cannot see beyond the basic action of the crime as where an adult could

do so. There are multiple cases that result in juveniles being sentenced to life without parole for

crimes such as being an accessory to murder. Studies have shown that juveniles differ from adult

offenders in a cognitive aspect as well as in a fundamental way (Keller 2012). Which then brings

up the point that sentencing juveniles to life without parole may be unconstitutional, and

considerably wrong in the view of the supreme court. According to Keller, children are different

from adults on many levels, due to their brains not being at the full compacity of cognitive

development.

The law clearly explains that juveniles are different than adults and should be treated

accordantly. In the United States the Supreme Court expresses that juveniles are not the same as

adults which is why their punishments for crimes that they have committed should result in a

different sentence time then adults. Even though the supreme court established this, state courts do

not need to follow the same guidelines as the supreme court, which makes it difficult for juvenile
[Document title]

offenders to have a fair sentence time. The law is not always fair in a way that it does not always

serve what is best for the accused. In the United States you are entitled to a fair trial regardless of

what crime they have committed, because you are human, and the law acknowledges this and

grants you to be treated fairly. The supreme court have explained that juveniles need to be

rehabilitated rather than just given a sentence. Overall the judges that are appointed to juvenile

cases have the ultimate decision of a juvenile’s life, it all comes down to the court and the final

verdict of the judge’s final opinion. (Knight 2016.)

Another case that involved a juvenile being convicted and sentenced to life without parole,

is of a boy named Kuntrell Jackson. This young man was fourteen at the time of the crime. He

then was convicted solely on the theory that he was an accomplice to a murder and that an older

juvenile committed the actual murder (Freeman 2012.) Kuntrell believed that he was going to rob

a store, with no intention of being an accomplice to murder. He joined two other adolescents to

commit the crime of robbery, even though Kuntrell did not commit the act of murder he was still

subjected to a harsh sentence due to Arkansas law that made it mandatory that a life without parole

sentence must be inflicted for the conviction of homicide. The supreme court would say that this

lengthy conviction sentence is unconstitutional, yet courts still impose harsh sentences for

juveniles convicted of being an accessory to murder. Not all cases are the same and should not be

treated as such, this goes without saying that juveniles should not be held responsible of their

actions but expresses that courts too should be held responsible of these unjust sentences.

During the 1899 social reformers, formed opinions based off studies that show that children

offenders are not fully responsible of their behavior as well as actions, as adult offenders are

(Moore 2014). It was not until 1988 that the supreme court established executing juveniles under

the age of sixteen is a violation of their eighth amendment rights (Moore 2014.) Basically, up until
[Document title]

thirty years ago it was okay to execute juveniles, the courts established that a harsh sentence for

example execution was unconstitutional why is LWOP any different. Sentencing a juvenile to life

in prison is a violation of juveniles eight amendment right. The eighth amendment states that no

cruel and unusual punishment should be inflicted upon any human being regardless of any notion

that may or may not be a factor in their sentencing. According to “Felony Murder, Juveniles, and

culpability” the violation of the eighth amendment right applies when there is a form of cruel and

unusual punishment when sentencing a criminal that has been found guilty of a crime. The eighth

amendment was put in place for specific circumstances to protect the rights of the accused, one of

these circumstances has to do with sentencing of juveniles.

Juvenile courts are not solely based on the conviction, but primarily based on the

rehabilitation of the child. This is true because studies have shown that juveniles are more likely

to demonstrate change which is one of the main differences between juvenile and adult offenders.

Under the federal law every individual state has the right to regulate their laws in a way that best

fits their courts and crime rates. The juvenile court system main purpose is to regulate criminal

law committed by minors. Since the early 1990s the perception of juvenile court has skewed due

to juveniles committing higher degree of crimes for example murder. Juveniles can be charged

with first degree murder, regardless if they were an accessory to the murder or the one who

committed the murder itself. The judges are the ones that have the final say what the juvenile gets

charged with. It is up to the judge whether to try the case in juvenile court or turn it over to criminal

court where he or she will have a jury not of their peers, to sentence them based off the evidence

presented to them. Eventually the judge will have the final say in the sentencing time, but by this

time the juvenile is not a child in the eyes of the law, they are now an adult. When a juvenile is

charged with a crime for example, first degree murder by being an accessory, they are usually
[Document title]

faced with a life without parole sentence. Under the eighth amendment, LWOP for an offender

that is an accessory to murder is a cruel and unusual punishment. The reason for why it is a cruel

is because taking away a child’s ability to change when he or she have shown that they are capable

to change and be rehabilitated is unconstitutional. The reason for it being unconstitutional is

because not allowing them to have the right to be rehabilitated and better their life as one day being

an adult. They originally were sent to juvenile court to be rehabilitated verses remanded to life

without parole.

Under the constitution sentencing juveniles is a cruel and unusual punishment due to

juveniles one not fully understanding the fully capacity of their involvement in the crime.

According to the convention article 37, life without parole for a juvenile is a cruel and unusual

punishment, this article states that no person should be subjected to torture, cruel, or inhumane

punishment (Padilla-Frankel.) Courts have violated this article numerous times, by sentencing a

child to life without parole for accessory to murder is unconstitutional under the international law.

Courts have knowledge that juveniles are different from adults and that sentencing a juvenile to a

life sentence is unjust yet continue to do so. In anybody’s book the courts are demonstrating

hypocrisy, because of how they are sentencing juveniles, while it states in the law that juveniles

are different than adults and are protected under the law due to them not being a fully functioning

adult. In some cases, juveniles are violated and stripped of their life for crimes that they didn’t

fully understand they were committing, or better yet even committed the action themselves.

Overall juveniles are protected under the law of convention article 37, when juveniles are denied

this protection they are subjected to unconstitutional sentencing.

If one commits a crime, they should be held accountable of their actions, with respects of

what punishment best fits the crime that a juvenile took part in. Juveniles that have been charged
[Document title]

with assessor to murder should be held accountable, but to a certain extent because they are an

adolescent and deserve more insight to how or why they are sentenced. Under the law juveniles

are different then adults and should be treated as such. Many people would say if you can not do

the time then you should have not done the crime, but most people do not take into account that

juveniles don’t always commit the crime itself and are an accessory to a crime that they possibly

did not even realize that they were committing.

When it comes to children we need to stop and look at what we can do to help rehabilitate

them and not lock them up to be forgotten about. Throughout this whole paper you have seen what

the courts say and do, but you don’t get an insight into the juvenile’s life nor a sense of who they

are. Just like this paper, courts are also not shown these important aspects that led to the crime

itself. Juveniles are perceived different than adults under the law, but when it comes to sentencing

in most cases this perception is blurred. If a child has been proven that they are different and

demonstrate change in contrast of an adult offender, then their sentencing time for crimes should

also be different. The Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court system has established that children

are different. Which then asks the question to why is sentencing for juveniles an issue in our

society. It makes no sense how all these findings and studies have still yet to make an impact on

the juvenile court system. There are many juveniles that have been victimized by the courts and

stripped of their lives, due to courts not considering all aspects of the case and not putting into

effect that children differ from adults in a cognitive and in fundamental aspects.
[Document title]

References

Authors, Table of. "Recent Decisions: Heinonline." Print Arizona Law Review (1985): 27.

Drinan, C. H. "Juvenile sentencing post-miller

: Preventive and corrective measures." Wisconsin Law Review (2015): (2), 203-218.

Fiorillo, S. E. "Mitigating after miller: Legislative considerations and remedies for the future of

juvenile sentencing." Boston University Law Review (2013): 93(6), 2095-2130.

Freeman, C. Supreme Court Cases of Interest. Criminal Justice, (2012) 26(4), 43-45,54.

Huston, A. "Jurisprudence vs. judicial practice: Diminishing miller in the struggle over juvenile

sentencing." Denver University Law Review (2015): 92(3), 561-612.

Jordan, K., McNeal, B., & Kovera, Margaret Bull. "Juvenile Penalty or Leniency: Sentencing of

Juveniles in the Criminal Justice System." Law and Human Behavior (2016): 40(4), 387-

400.

Keller, E. C. "Constitutional sentences for juveniles convicted of felony murder in the wake of

roper, graham j.d.b." Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal (2012): 11(2), 297-326.

Knight, E. D. "Brought back to life: Massachusetts supreme judicial court resuscitates parole

eligibility for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder." Suffolk University Law Review

(2016): 49(1), 139-162.

Miller, K. "Sentencing and punishment: The missed opportunity for categorical rule against life

without the possibility of parole for juveniles miller v. alabama, 132 s. ct. 2455 (2012)."

University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy (2013): 24(2), 313-iv.
[Document title]

Moore, M. "Felony murder, juveniles, and culpability: Why the eighth amendment's ban on cruel

and unusual punishment should preclude sentencing juveniles who do not kill, intend to

kill, or attempt to kill to die in prison." Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law (2014):

16(1), 99-128.

Moriearty, P. L. "The trilogy and beyond ." South Dakota Law Review (2017): 62(3), 539-558.

Padilla-Frankel, C. "Contemporary theory on customary international law and human rights

violations in the united states: Languishing behind bars juveniles sentenced to life

without parole." Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law (2016): 33(3),

803-824.

Pimlott Kubiak, S., & Allen, T. "Public Opinion Regarding Juvenile Life Without Parole in

Consecutive Statewide Surveys." Crime & Delinquency (2011): 57(4), 495-515.

Shitama, M. K. "Bringing our children back from the land of nod: Why the eighth amendment

forbids condemning juveniles to die in prison for accessorial felony murder." Florida

Law Review (2013): 65(3), 813-854.

Solmon, E., et al. "Who's in, who's out, and who's back: Follow-up on 59 juveniles incarcerated

in adult Prison For Murder Or Attempted Murder in the Early 1980s: Behavioral Sciences

and Law." Behavioral Sciences & the Law (2001): 19 (1), 97-108.

Steinberg, Laurence; Cauffman, Elizabeth; Woolard, Jennifer; Graham, Sandra; Banich, Marie

American Psychologist, 2009, Vol. 64(7), p.583-594