OK, to kick off the blog (be gentle,
please!), a post that doesn’t relate directly to the work of expert witnesses, but concerns a big change
in the law that I for one think is long overdue.
Over the years there have been numerous
cases of children committing heinous acts of violence against others. But most
countries in the world (with the notable exception of Iran and the U.S.) have
for some time recognized that the law cannot and should not treat child
offenders the same way as adults.
It must always be the case that the rights
of victims trump those of perpetrators – even if the criminals were just
children at the time. But in a country where the appetite amongst many citizens
seems to be more for retributive justice than any desire to reform those that
harm others it was always a political hot potato to even hint at changing the
status quo.
But now it’s different, at least in part.
Following it’s ruling in Miller v Alabama
and another linked case, the Supreme Court has said that the states can no
longer impose life sentences without parole for offenders under the age of 18.
As Alison Parker from Human Rights Watch
stated, “The Court recognized that it is
nearly impossible to be certain that any child is beyond redemption – and that
the US criminal justice system needs to change to reflect this fact.”
The courts may still impose a life without
parole sentence in exceptional circumstances, allowing the sentencing judge to
reflect public outrage at the most despicable acts.
In my view the decision is right and just. A
shocking 2,500 people are serving life without parole in the U.S. for crimes
they committed while a juvenile, and HRW estimate that 59 percent of them
received this sentence for their very first offense, often when they were not even
the primary perpetrator – a lookout at a botched robbery for example. In
Michigan one in three juveniles serving life was a secondary participant.
Think back to your own childhood. Look how
far you’ve come. If you’re anything like me you’re a different person in almost
every way. You may have dome some things back then that you’re not too proud
of. What were you thinking?
 |
| Sheldry Topp |
The case of Sheldry Topp provides a stark example
of what can happen if this practice was allowed to stand. He stabbed and killed
his victim during a break-in in 1962 when he was aged 17. He’s still in prison
at 67. A horrible crime for sure, and he deserved punishment for it, but I just
don’t see how paying millions of dollars to keep him inside for 50 years
represents justice for him, his victim or society and is yet another appalling
example of what can happen when the concept of retributive justice is taken too
far. Before you say it, as you may have guessed I'm not an advocate of the death penalty either. Yes I know others, possibly in the majority, will disagree and they are entitled to that view, but I just can't see the sense in it.
As Alison Parker so eloquently put it: “The Court has recognized today what every
parent knows – kids are different and are capable of tremendous growth and
transformation. Now, it is up to
judges and state legislators to ensure that every child offender has a
meaningful chance to work toward rehabilitation, to periodically demonstrate
their achievements, and, if merited, to earn their release from prison.”
I’m a firm believer in judges having
control of sentencing and this decision goes a long way to handing back that
discretion. Judges who hear all the evidence are those best placed to decide
the sentence. Tie their hands and you end up with dreadful results like the
recent case of Marissa
Alexander. Hopefully, the decision in Miller
v Alabama will bring recognition that laws requiring mandatory sentencing
should be used sparingly by state legislatures in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment