Court rules juveniles’ sentences unconstitutional

SAN FRANCISCO >> A divided California Supreme Court on Monday struck down sentences of 50 years to life or greater for juveniles convicted of crimes other than homicide, saying such a punishment was unconstitutional because it doesn’t recognize the defendant’s youth and ability to change.

The 4-3 ruling came amid heightened scrutiny of sentences for juveniles around the country. A 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down life without parole sentences for juveniles who commit crimes other than homicide.

The U.S. Supreme Court said children are more likely to be impetuous, fail to appreciate risks and be vulnerable to peer pressure and home environment.

Citing that ruling, California Supreme Court Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said Monday juvenile sentences must recognize the offender’s capacity for change and limited moral culpability, offer hope of restoration and a chance for fulfillment outside prison walls, and give the juvenile an incentive to become a responsible individual.

The two sentences the court considered — 50 years to life for one defendant and 58 years to life for the other — failed that test because they would not provide the defendants with an opportunity for parole until one was 66 and the other 74, Liu said.

“Even assuming defendants’ parole eligibility dates are within their expected lifespans, the chance for release would come near the end of their lives,” Liu said. “Even if released, they will have spent the vast majority of adulthood in prison.”

Liu said such sentences violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling came in the case of two 16-year-olds charged as adults and convicted in 2012 of kidnapping and raping two teenage girls in San Diego County. With the decision, the lower court will have to resentence the teens.

The ruling built on a previous California Supreme Court ruling that held that a juvenile defendant’s sentence of 110 years to life for attempted murder was the functional equivalent of life without parole and therefore unconstitutional.

The attorney general’s office argued that Monday’s case was different because the defendants would get an opportunity for parole within their expected lifetimes.

An email to the attorney general’s office for comment was not immediately returned.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Tani CantilSakauye agreed with the attorney general, saying sentences that offered parole at 66 and 74 did show respect for the ability of juveniles to change and reenter society.

Cantil-Sakauye said, “Profound life experiences still may lie ahead of someone released from prison at age 66 or 74.”

“The majority describes these ages as falling ‘near the end’ of a person’s life, language that suggests that fulfillment at such a juncture is well-nigh impossible. The millions of productively employed senior citizens would beg to differ,” she said.