Sentencing youth to potentially life long sentences is virtually non existent anywhere else in the world. We still allow it, despite evidence that adolescent brain development should mitigate the culpability of youth.
12,000 people in the US are serving a life sentence for a crime committed under the age of 18. All 50 states allow juveniles to be sentenced to life imprisonment, and all but 2 states have persons serving a life or “virtual life” sentence for a crime committed as a juvenile.
More than 2,000 people are serving virtual life sentences, who were juveniles at the time of their crime. ½ of this total are in Texas and Louisiana, states that already sentence many juveniles to life with and without parole. In Washington and Louisiana, nearly 10% of the virtual life sentenced population were minors at the time of their crime. The US Supreme courts decisions to limit life without parole sentences for juveniles has allowed approximately 2,000 people to be considered for a sentence review. This development has come about because of the established science showing the importance of brain development on decision making.
Life Without Parole
At the end of 2016, there were 2,310 people serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed as juveniles. Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Michigan have the greatest number of people serving juvenile life without parole sentences, making up half of the national total. 23 states and the District of Columbia no longer allow juvenile life without parole.
Life With Parole
As of 2016, 7,346 people were serving life sentences with the possibility of parole for crimes committed as juveniles. States with the highest population of people serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles are California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. Combined, these 4 states hold more than 60% of the national total.
In 2012 the US Supreme Court, in Miller v. Alabama, vacated the mandatorily imposed life without parole sentences for about 2,000 individuals who were juveniles at the time of their crime. As states implement reforms to comply with this decision, some have changed these sentences to life with parole, which grants parole boards the authority to consider factors related to youth at the time of the crime in assessing readiness for release.
California has taken steps to ensure that its parole board considers various age related factors through creation of its Youth Offender Hearings. “The board is required to give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the inmate. Moreover, if the hearing panel relies on risk assessment in assessing a youth offender’s growth and maturity, the risk assessment must take into consideration these factors.”
Missouri is under a federal court order to implement new protocols for the parole review process for lifers sentences as juveniles because the overwhelming majority of parole applicants were denied a release date due to their underlying offense. The order authorizes individuals to have full access to their prison records, ensures the right to bring multiple witnesses to hearings, including an expert witness, and provides the right to counsel. When parole is denied, the board must specify the reasons for denial along with supporting evidence. Risk assessment tools must account for youthfulness at the time of the crime. Additionally, people serving life sentences cannot be excluded from some programming simply because of their life sentence. The board is also prohibited from denying parole based solely on the nature of the crime.
Characteristics: Race and Ethnicity
80% of youth serving life sentences are youth of color, and more than 50% are African American. In the southern states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia, over 80% of the youth life sentenced population is African American. When compared with adults serving life sentences, the disproportionality is even more distinct.