By Scott Burns
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Life without parole for violent juveniles is reasonable, constitutional and appropriately rare. A super-majority of states (43), the federal government and the District of Columbia all have passed laws allowing the sentence for the worst juvenile offenders. Prosecutors do not seek such punishment lightly, nor do courts impose it without careful consideration and compelling reasons. All state and federal courts that have studied this sentence have found it to be constitutional.
The vast majority of juveniles who commit crimes are and should be prosecuted in juvenile courts. Most juveniles are capable of being rehabilitated. Sadly, some are not.
The explosion in juvenile crime over the decades has resulted in all state legislatures passing laws allowing the most violent juveniles to be prosecuted in adult court. Many of them are repeat offenders. The offenders have usually refused to take advantage of the opportunities they were offered in juvenile court and have chosen a life of crime.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard two cases of teens sentenced to life without parole. The two defendants want the court to abolish life without parole for all juveniles because they believe the sentences are cruel and unusual.
We disagree.
One of the defendants, Joe Sullivan, committed 17 violent crimes as a teenager, including an armed assault. Then, he broke into the home of a 72-year old grandmother and brutally beat and raped her. He was caught by a police officer running out of the back of the house, and his palm print was found on a photo next to the victim’s bed.
Terrance Graham robbed a restaurant. He was charged as an adult, and pleaded guilty to all crimes. Although Graham was facing a life sentence, the judge gave him a second chance, sentencing him to probation and one year in jail. Right after Graham got out of jail, he committed an armed robbery at a home, where he held a gun to the victim’s head and demanded money.
Life without parole for juvenile offenders is relatively rare. Prosecutors and courts recognize that it is a severe sanction, and should only be imposed in extreme circumstances. But that does not mean the Constitution bars such punishment on those rare occasions when it is necessary to protect society.
Scott Burns is executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.
Copyright 2009 Gannett Company, Inc.