The prison system is meant to deter crime, provide public safety, and rehabilitate criminals. But today, the Supreme Court told us that too often that last aim is ignored in the case of juvenile offenders. The court ruled 6-3 to allow prisoners convicted of a crime they committed while they were juveniles to have their life without parole sentences reconsidered.

In a 2012 ruling, Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court barred “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles, but only for future convictions, affecting none of the currently imprisoned people, for the sake of preserving the “finality of conviction.”Today in Montgomery vs. Louisiana, the court had the rare effect of retroactively altering the sentences of inmates. The case, centered around Henry Montgomery, a man who shot and killed a deputy sheriff at the age of 17. Montgomery is now 69, and for his entire adult life has known nothing but the prison system.

#SCOTUS holds Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life w/out parole for juvenile offenders IS retroactive in cases of state collateral review

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) January 25, 2016

Some states individually chose to adjust the sentences of convicted juveniles following the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling. This means that the new retroactive ruling only affects the sentences of about 1,000 inmates out of the 2,341 people convicted as juveniles facing life sentences, according to a study by The Phillips Black Project. More than half of that population had already been allowed to seek reconsideration of their sentences, as long as they can prove that their “crimes reflected their transient immaturity.”

The entire course of this argument hinges on whether a life sentence should only apply to an incorrigible person–that is, one with no hope of rehabilitation–and whether a juvenile is capable of being incorrigible at a young age. Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion that “prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.” This ruling adds on to the ban on “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles unless the prosecutor can prove that the specific individual is beyond saving. While standards of incorrigibility vary by state, they typically focus on the accused showing repeated examples of behavior and no response to reprimands from authority.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Undoes “Life Without Parole” Sentences For Juveniles appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Rehtaeh Parsons was a compelling one that hit the media, particularly North American media, last year. She was a young woman from Nova Scotia who was raped in 2011 by four teenage boys while at a party when she was fifteen. A photograph of the assault was taken, and then actively passed around her high school. After the abuse she suffered at the hands of her peers, Rehtaeh Parsons committed suicide last year, but the trial of those involved in her assault and the circulation of the photograph is going on now.

Now if I were in Canada, I could be in a lot of trouble for writing that previous paragraph. The reason why is that there’s a Canadian law that bans the identification in the media of anyone involved in a child pornography case. The media has had to refer to Rehtaeh Parsons’ case essentially in code, writing things like “the victim” or the “the girl” and then describing the case against the young men who sexually assaulted her and then distributed the picture.

It has also forbid the media from mentioning her parents’ names, and the names of the two young men currently on trial for the actions they took against her. But the ban didn’t go into effect until recently, when certain points in the proceedings were reached against the young men. Well after many people around the country had heard Rehtaeh Parsons’ terrifying story.

The ban exists to protect those who are involved in child pornography cases — obviously an incredibly sensitive subject. But in this case, Rehtaeh Parsons’ name was already out there, and her parents think that the ban is actually in place to protect the authorities, who they claim did not do nearly enough to protect her from the beginning.

When the Parsons family first approached the police about a week after her assault and after the photograph was taken, they looked into it for almost a year before deciding to not press charges. They allegedly didn’t do anything to try to stop the spread of the photo. The Parsons family claims that at the time they were told that the photo didn’t even qualify as child pornography. Now their daughter’s name can’t be published anywhere for that exact reason.

The Parsons family also argues that Rehtaeh’s name has taken on a life of its own, and that she would have wanted to be able to speak up for herself and on behalf of future victims. Her parents emphasize the potential strength that Rehtaeh’s name, picture, and identity have as a rallying cry. Leah Parsons, Rehteah’s mother, stated that not being able to use her identity “diminishes the impact and the connection people have with the issue. When people hear her name and see her face, they realize it could be anybody’s daughter.”

The Parsons brought the gag rule before a judge who decided that while Rehtaeh’s name has reached a status much different than the usual child pornography victim, the law stands.

If the facts are indeed what the Parsons allege, I have to agree with them. The law does make sense — in the correct context. This is not the correct context. In an already highly publicized case where the victim’s name has inspired legislation and advocacy, the law seems unnecessary and cumbersome.

But most importantly it takes away Rehtaeh’s voice, which when you think about it, is the exact same thing that happened when her rapists assaulted her, spread that picture, and tortured her. They took away her identity. She deserves it back — even in memoriam — and this gag order law is doing nothing to help her or other rape victims who could find strength in her story.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [val.pearl via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Does the Gag Order on Rehtaeh Parsons’ Name Really Help? appeared first on Law Street.