Bridging justice between childhood and adulthood
|
|
Landmark Court Decisions in Massachusetts and Michigan Find Life Without Parole Sentences for Emerging Adults (ages 18+) Unconstitutional
In late 2021, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court remanded two separate cases involving emerging adults (ages 18 and 19) who had been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole: Commonwealth v. Robinson and Commonwealth v. Mattis. A Superior Court Judge subsequently held evidentiary hearings to determine whether a life without parole (LWOP) sentence imposed on these emerging adults was constitutional or whether such a sentence violated the "cruel and unusual" clause of the Commonwealth's Constitution (Article 26). At the hearing, the Court heard testimony about adolescent development from two experts for the defendants: Robert Kinscherff, professor at Williams James College specializing in forensic and clinical psychology, and Laurence Steinberg, professor at Temple University with expertise in adolescent development across social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. On July 20, 2022, the Court released its long-awaited opinion, holding that automatic LWOP sentences for youth up to age 21 is unconstitutional. Ruth Greenberg, attorney for the defendant, Mattis, reflectively noted,"it's not a get out of jail free card... it's an opportunity for people who were 18, who went to prison for life to now show to a parole board and to a judge maybe that they are deserving of a second chance. It's a big step forward."
A case in front of the Michigan Supreme Court, People v. Parks (2022), involved a now 24-year-old defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder as an 18-year-old. The Michigan Court held that automatic LWOP sentences for 18-year-old defendants violates the principle of proportionality, constitutes cruel punishment, and is unconstitutional. The Court's decision only applies to 18-year-olds and leaves the question of youth older than age 18 automatically sentenced to LWOP unaddressed. As the Court explains, "Because of the dynamic neurological changes that late adolescents undergo as their brains develop over time and essentially rewire themselves, automatic condemnation to die in prison at 18 is beyond severity—it is cruelty. The brains of 18-year-olds, just like those of their juvenile counterparts, transform as they age, allowing them to reform into persons who are more likely to be capable of making more thoughtful and rational decisions. This means that 18-year-olds, as they age, are likely to begin to take fewer risks, further understand consequences, become less susceptible to peer pressure, and have decreased aggressive tendencies. All of this suggests that 18-year-olds, much like their juvenile counterparts, are generally capable of significant change and a turn toward rational behavior that conforms to societal expectations as their cognitive abilities develop further."
These cases follow in the footsteps of the Washington Supreme Court's decision In re Monschke, recognizing the growing body of research showing that youth transitioning to adulthood share many of the same characteristics as their younger peers, and that their youthfulness is constitutionally significant. These decisions mark an important moment in American jurisprudence, as an increasing number of state courts apply the research on neurobiology and developmental psychology to youth beyond the 18th birthday.
Related Materials:
|
|
EAJP Releases RFI for Its Developmental Framework Project and Posts Video of an Informational Webinar |
|
The EAJP recently released a Request for Interest for state, county, and municipal government entities and non-profit organizations to become one of three sites (“Innovation Sites”) to implement and assess the functionality of a newly designed Developmental Framework (“the Framework”) specifically for emerging adults with adult criminal legal system involvement. Over the course of 2.5 years, each of the selected jurisdictions will implement the Framework at a particular stage in the criminal legal system of its own choosing, such as post-arrest diversion, defense, probation, or re-entry. Representatives from the Innovation Sites will participate in Emerging Adult Justice Developmental Framework Steering Committee (“Steering Committee”) meetings, both in-person and virtual convenings, during which they will report back on implementation and help adapt, edit, and improve the Framework to maximize its usefulness to local and national practice.
The Columbia University Justice Lab’s Emerging Adult Justice Project (“EAJP”) and the Annie E. Casey Foundation (“Casey Foundation”) will partner with sites by providing expertise in the burgeoning field of emerging adult justice, sharing promising practices, and supporting and fostering learning among all the sites. The Casey Foundation will provide funding to the selected sites for $50,000 for the first year (and further funding to be determined). We thank the Casey Foundation for their funding and support and acknowledge that any findings and conclusions presented are from the Columbia University Justice Lab alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Foundation.
More information:
|
|
Tragically, since our last newsletter, we’ve seen more mass public shootings in which emerging adults continue to be disproportionately involved as alleged perpetrators. While spikes in gun violence and an influx of new guns in neighborhoods causes anxiety and fear, it will be critically important to be guided by the facts and research. In that vein, we wanted to share a few items:
-
Because there is no widely agreed upon definition of a "mass shooting," reporting on their frequency can be confusing. Some organizations that keep track of the cases nationally consider different minimums or maximums of individual people shot or injured, and others occasionally include the instigator of the shooting while others do not. This absence of a universal metric makes it difficult to track, compare and assess the problem. We urge the federal government, in consultation with researchers and organizations that are sharing their datasets with the public, to provide an official definition of "mass public shooter."
Recommended reading:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
