Dan Martinez, Research Intern
“It has been 43 years that I have not seen my family. Just give me the death penalty. I am never getting out of prison. I am going to die here. This is slavery. -Robert Saunders”
Robert Saunders went to juvenile detention center for 11 months for felonious assault at age 12. Robert lived on the street for about a year after being released before returning to detention for rape and kidnapping with little evidence. He’s been in prison for 43 years and he’s only 58 years old.
Let’s talk about de facto life sentences. What is a de facto life sentence anyway? A de facto life sentence (sometimes called “virtual” life sentences) are “non-life sentences that are so long that the sentenced person will likely die or live out a significant majority of their natural lives before they are released.” (Restore Justice)
What about kids sentenced to virtual life sentences? Human Rights for Kids considers life without parole sentences one of the worst human rights violations, as “such sentences cast an irrevocable judgement on a child that deem [them] unworthy of living in free society ever again- no matter how much [they] change over time.” Not only is this cruel from a human rights perspective, but there is increasing scientific evidence to support the abolition of life without parole sentences for kids convicted of a crime (but we’ll get to that later.)
Despite the clear ethical dilemmas associated with juvenile life without parole and de facto life sentences, these sentences are far too common. As of 2016, 2,310 individuals who were kids at the time of their crime are serving life without parole. Life with parole? 7,346. And 2,089 are serving virtual life sentences.
Figure 1 from The Sentencing Project
Okay, but why are kids still being sentenced to die in prison when there is case law in place to protect them? Well, the scope of that case law is pretty narrow.
Under Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to mandatory life without parole. Sentencing individuals to life in prison for acts committed as kids is a violation of the 8th Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause. Graham and Miller rendered juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses unconstitutional and barred its imposition as a mandatory statute, respectively (Sentencing Project.) These rulings only account for explicitly determined life sentences; ie, these cases do exclude virtual life sentences, or sentences that are so long that the individual will likely die in prison. Further, they only protect kids who committed non-capital offenses. That being said, eight state supreme courts have since ruled that de facto life sentences also violate the Graham and Miller rulings. (Sentencing Project)
Both Graham and Miller were argued using evidence that kids’ brains are fundamentally different from adults because their decision making abilities are not fully developed until around the age 25. So what about kids who are convicted of a capital offense? Shouldn’t that same argument apply to them as well?
When we look at the existing brain development research, it’s clear that kids’ brains are fundamentally different from adults’. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, adolescents’ actions “are guided more by the emotional and reactive amygdala and less by the thoughtful, logical frontal cortex.” The AACAP also notes that exposure to drugs or alcohol can change or delay these developments.
What does this mean? Well, it means kids and teens are more likely to act on impulse, get involved in fights, and engage in risky behavior. Teens are less likely to think before they act or pause to consider the consequences of their actions. Neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt attributes this to the fact that critical parts of the brain are not fully developed until age 25. Even by age 18, the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain that helps inhibit impulses) is not fully developed. You can’t even rent a car until the age of 25, so why should someone be sentenced to life without parole for a decision they made when they were 14, 15, 16?
Aside from the mounting scientific evidence, de facto life sentences for kids are unethical and cruel from a human perspective. Not only are kids’ brains not fully developed until age 25, rendering them incapable of sound decision making to the same degree as an adult, but a life sentence (de facto or not) eliminates any possibility of growth or rehabilitation. Kids who made a bad decision deserve compassion and help to remedy the harm done, not life in prison.
Click here to listen to the stories of “Juvie Lifers,” or people who were sentenced as kids and are now in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and eighty years old.