Fighting to Save Juvenile Life Without Parole

The Heritage Foundation is worried that the playing field isn’t level in our criminal justice system. Juveniles sentenced to life without parole have the upper hand, the group says in a new paper, and the “activists” who oppose juvenile LWOP are threatening to take away this uniquely American punishment.

In a defensive, pro-punishment paper released this summer and by the conservative think tank, authors Andrew Grossman and Charles Stimson argue that its fine for the U.S. to be the only country with juvenile life without parole because we have a uniquely serious teen crime problem. They complain that irresponsible activists have monopolized the debate in favor of giving teens a second chance, and suggest that an important tool to “express society’s disapproval” of heinous crimes is in danger.

With two cases on this issue scheduled for oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 9, it’s a timely conversation to have.

I have to admit it’s kind of nice (albeit a bit disorienting) to see the tough-on-crime set worried about an uneven playing field. Debate is good, though, and I’m glad this paper is out there - by detailing the arguments for JLWOP, it makes our job as activists even easier.

In one respect, the paper contributes an important analysis. It reviews -- and casts doubt on -- the statistic that many media outlets have used for years on the number of people serving life without parole in the U.S. for crimes committed as juveniles. I’ve used that number here -- it’s 2,225 -- and this Heritage paper correctly points out that the number is an estimate, developed through research by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Nobody knows the number for sure, because records are inconsistent and unavailable (we threw away the key -- why keep records?). The minimum baseline number in the Heritage paper is 1,291.

So let’s say the Heritage number is actually right. We have 1,291 people serving life without parole for crimes allegedly committed before they turned 18, and the rest of the world has 12. Still not cruel and unusual?

There’s no discussion in this paper of investing in education or anti-gang measures to prevent the horrible crimes detailed in sidebar examples throughout the text. The issue is presented as black-and-white: we have a teen crime problem and we need juvenile LWOP to deal with it.

The logic is flawed and the goal of this cold advocacy is more imprisonment without any consideration of crime prevention, rehabilitation or second chances.

Crimes committed as juveniles deserve special consideration, because the perpetrator’s brain is not fully developed and he or she may not have had the life experience to teach them right and wrong. Juvenile LWOP is an extreme and cruel punishment, and there’s no reason for the U.S. to stand alone in the world in administering it.