life without parole

Research by social scientists shows that criminals, even violent ones, mature out of lawbreaking before middle age, The Marshall Project's Dana Goldstein reports: "Homicide and drug-arrest rates peak at age 19, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, while arrest rates for forcible rape peak at 18. Some crimes, such as vandalism, crest even earlier, at age 16, while arrest rates for forgery, fraud and embezzlement peak in the early 20s. For most of the crimes the F.B.I. tracks, more than half of all offenders will be arrested by the time they are 30."

The reasons for this are myriad. The parts of the brain that govern risk and reward are not fully developed until age 25. And some crimes are too physically taxing for older people.

And the problem, Goldstein reports, is that sentencing in the U.S. is out of whack with this research. Forty-seven percent of federal inmates are serving sentences of more than 10 years, which is longer than the typical duration of a criminal career. And many people are being kept in prison even though they are physically unable to threaten anybody, Goldstein concludes.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court, 5-2, has ruled that inmates serving life sentences for murders committed while they were juveniles are constitutionally entitled to be represented by lawyers and to have access to expert witnesses at their parole hearings, NECN reports. The 5-member majority said providing defendants access to lawyers and to experts would ensure they have meaningful access to argue for parole.

The court also ruled that inmates can appeal parole denials, although judges could not order that parole be granted--only order new parole hearings.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional. 

The Washington Post reports that three men sentenced as juveniles to serve life without parole might be able to make the case to trial-court judges that their sentences should be adjusted:  "The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said there was at least some reason to think last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Miller v. Alabama, throwing out mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, should be applied retroactively. The court stressed its decision is tentative and made under a standard that means there is enough possible merit to warrant a full exploration of the matter. The defendants must still convince the district judges they should be resentenced."

A circuit split might be developing on whether Miller applies retroactively, which could set up another decision for the U.S. Supreme Court to make, the paper also reported.