Pennsylvania has 444 juvenile lifers, according to a May report by Human Rights Watch. That’s not only more - far more - than any other state, it represents nearly one-fifth of all juvenile lifers in the United States.
By Jeff Hawkes
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster, Pa. — One evening in March 1992, shots echoed across a playground, and 18-year-old Debbie Rivera fell dead with a bullet to her head.
The horror of her killing was compounded when police discovered the shooter was only 13.
Richie Cruz of Lancaster, joined by three teens, went to settle a grudge with another teen. Spotting his nemesis in the Carter & MacRae playground, Cruz opened fire from 150 feet away and hit Rivera by mistake.
Perhaps if he had been aware of the price he would pay, Cruz would have chosen another way to resolve the dispute.
Tried as an adult in November 1992 and convicted of first-degree murder, he received the mandatory life sentence. Parole is not an option for lifers in Pennsylvania. Barring an unlikely pardon from a governor, Cruz will die in prison.
He is far from alone.
Pennsylvania has 444 juvenile lifers, according to a May report by Human Rights Watch. That’s not only more - far more - than any other state, it represents nearly one-fifth of all juvenile lifers in the United States.
Considering that no other country sentences children to life without the chance for parole, Pennsylvania’s Senate Judiciary Committee is appropriately taking a second look at whether life without parole for juveniles is just.
Family members of murder victims implored the senators at a hearing last week to keep teenage killers locked up forever.
But juvenile law advocates and researchers argued that the right thing to do is give an adult who committed a horrible crime as a teenager a chance to show he or she is no longer a danger.
Beatriz Luna, associate professor of psychiatry at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, said research suggests that teens should not be held as accountable as adults for their actions because the juvenile brain, particularly the region for impulse control, is not fully developed.
Research further suggests, Luna said, that the brains of people in their 20s and 30s continue to develop new pathways, indicating “great possibility for rehabilitation.”
“I am not saying that this neuroscience evidence should be used as an excuse for terrible behavior,” Luna told the panel.
“However, the fact is the adolescent brain is at the peak of risk-taking behavior, and it can be rehabilitated. My opinion as a scientist and as a member of society is that life without parole is quite uninformed (and) seems vindictive.”
Laurence Steinberg, professor of psychology at Temple University and co-author of “Rethinking Juvenile Justice,” said brain processes responding to pleasure and reward are especially active in early adolescence, explaining why teens see the rewards of risky behavior and ignore the costs.
“The engines are running at full throttle,” Steinberg said, “but there’s not a skilled driver behind the wheel yet.”
The brain’s self-control function does not fully mature until a person reaches the early or mid-20s, he said. Studies show that virtually all juvenile offenders, even those committing crimes into their early 20s, “desist from crime by the time they are 30.”
“Juveniles who commit crimes should be held responsible for their behavior,” Steinberg said. “They should be punished for their offenses, and they should be sanctioned in a way that protects the community. But we have the capacity to do this without locking them up for life and wasting taxpayer dollars.”
Sixteen years have passed since Debbie Rivera’s death. Maybe the years have made Richie Cruz, now 30, only more dangerous. I don’t know.
But science and compassion are on the side of giving a lifer hope of showing a parole board he’s not who he was at 13.
Copyright 2008 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.