In November, the Supreme Court will hear the cases of two individuals, Joe Sullivan and Terrance Graham, who were sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole, for non-capital crimes they committed as juveniles, and determine whether sending individuals to prison for life without the chance of parole violates the 8th Amendment.

Joe Sullivan is one of two individuals in the United States serving a sentence of life without the possibility for parole for a crime that didn't involve a murder. He was a mentally impaired thirteen-year old when he was accused of raping an elderly woman in her house, following a burglary. Terrance Graham was 17 when he committed his crime: an armed robbery. Mitigating facts are present in both cases; for example, Sullivan was a victim of sexual and physical abuse himself, race-based comments and testimony were present during his trial, and biological evidence potentially linking him to the crime was destroyed before DNA testing could be performed. The victim of the crime identified Sullivan by "voice identification", but later admitted that she had rehearsed before trial with the prosecutor. Sullivan was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. His lawyer declined to file an appeal.

Graham had been previously convicted for armed robbery, and was sentenced to three years probation. He denied involvement in the second crime, but since probation violation hearings generally have a lower standard of proof than criminal trials, all the state had to do was prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" that Graham was involved in the second robbery. Graham did not receive a jury trial, and the judge sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole.

In these two cases, there are plenty of issues that suggest the sentences imposed were disproportionate to the crimes committed, considering all mitigating factors - either evidence specific to the cases, or procedurally. Those of you who know me know that I have very little (if any patience) for convicted rapists - I think the crime is a sickening indication of the continuing prejudice, bias, and resentment towards women that persists to this day. But even I can't support sending an individual who was convicted for a rape he committed at the age of thirteen to prison for the rest of his life without a chance to be paroled. In fact, I can't support sending any individual who committed a crime as a juvenile to prison without the chance of parole, finding it to be a horrific punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment doesn't require strict proportionality between the crime and the sentence; it merely requires that the sentence imposed not be grossly disproportionate. A forty year old who commits the same crime that Joe Sullivan did can expect to be in jail, roughly, for forty years. Sullivan, however, will spend literally his entire life in prison - anywhere from fifty to eighty years. Proportionality also requires that courts taken the offender's personal responsibility into account when imposing a sentence. A growing body of psychological research indicates that juveniles have not yet developed the decision-making capacity that adults possess, nor do they accurately consider long-term consequences, focusing more on immediate gratification. These characteristics of juveniles disappear as they make their transition into adulthood. Sending juveniles to prison for life, without a chance for review to determine whether they have, plainly put, grown-up, frustrates one of the purposes of punishment: rehabilitation (Yay, 1L Crim Law class!).

Periodic parole board hearings would best serve the purposes of the penal system. Contrary to persistent perceptions of parole, it's actually not easy to be paroled - especially if the sentence is so strict. The purpose of parole, is, once again - rehabilitation. Paroling offenders lessens costs on taxpayers, and if administered properly and responsibly, encourage offenders to reintegrate into society as productive citizens. Parole boards consider a variety of factors when deciding whether to grant parole, so it's not as if Terence Graham is going to waltz into a parole hearing and be all, "Yeah, I totally robbed that house, dude! I feel bad about it now and stuff... let me go?" Similarly, the parole board isn't going to be all "Let's just grant parole to everyone, starting with violent offenders who probably still pose a danger to society!". In fact, most inmates eligible for parole do not have it granted.

The argument is not that all juvenile offenders should be granted parole - it is simply that they should not be denied the chance to demonstrate to a parole board that they have been rehabilitated, feel sincere remorse for their actions, have goals as to where they will live and where they will work, and are ready to be productive citizens, in order to be conditionally released.

If you're interested, oral arguments will be held on Monday, November 9th.