|
Missouri’s parole board can no longer ignore the rehabilitation of people sentenced to juvenile life without parole
In 2016, the Supreme Court, ruled 6-3 in Montgomery v. Louisiana that its 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama banning mandatory life without parole sentences must be applied retroactively. Montgomery made clear the Court’s belief that life without parole sentences for crimes committed by youth should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. States were also presented with options: Instead of resentencing the hundreds of people who were affected by the decisions, they could make them eligible for parole. [Adam Liptak / New York Times]
Soon after Montgomery was decided, Amy E. Breihan of the MacArthur Justice Center’s St. Louis office penned a piece condemning Missouri’s courts and its legislature for their “remarkable reluctance in bringing the state in line with Miller.” Approximately 80 people in the state’s prisons were serving life without parole sentences “imposed under an unconstitutional sentencing scheme in which judges and juries were required to condemn juvenile offenders to spend the remainder of their young lives in prison.” [Amy E. Breihan / St. Louis Post-Dispatch] Missouri’s life without parole sentences also disproportionately affected young people of color: only 20 percent of state residents are people of color, compared to nearly 60 percent of those in prison on juvenile life without parole sentences. [Prison Policy Initiative]
That year, Missouri had enacted a law, Senate Bill 590, that gave people serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences the right to petition for parole review of their sentences after they had served 25 years. The law mandated the consideration of 15 factors—five more than in ordinary parole proceedings—in evaluating eligibility for release. [Robert Patrick / St. Louis Post-Dispatch] Parole hearings, as an alternative to resentencing hearings, have the advantage of ruling out the possibility of prosecutors seeking and courts imposing sentences that, while not formal life without parole sentences, still exceed the life expectancy of the person sentenced. [Kate Wheeling / Pacific Standard]
Yet Missouri’s parole review process has, according to an order issued last Friday, failed to provide those up for parole with the “meaningful and realistic opportunity to secure release upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” The order came in a lawsuit brought by the MacArthur Justice Center and the law firm Husch Blackwell on behalf of four plaintiffs. More than 90 people incarcerated in Missouri are similarly situated and the lawsuit was granted class certification in June. Nearly 85 percent of those seeking release have been denied since Missouri enacted SB 590. [Robert Patrick / St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
The court found that the parole board limits people’s access to information about the parole review process and gives them little opportunity to show evidence of rehabilitation. A person seeking release can have only one delegate present on their behalf. That delegate cannot speak to anything beyond the person’s “transition to the community.” Judge Nanette K. Laughrey wrote that the “[d]elegates—whether lawyers or not—are foreclosed from advocating for consideration of the Miller factors and other factors that the Board is required to consider.” People seeking release also have no access to the parole files and victim and prosecutor statements. After the hearing, the parole board communicates its decisions in two-page “barebones, boilerplate form,” that allowed for only two reasons for denial: the seriousness of the original offense or person’s “inability to … remain at liberty without again violating the law.” [Order in Brown v. Precythe]
Norman Brown, Ralph McElroy, Sidney Roberts, and Theron Roland, the plaintiffs in the case, were all sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as teenagers and have all been incarcerated for at least 25 years. Each was denied after petitioning for parole release. Roland “has not had a conduct violation in at least 15 years” and has been in the honor dorm for 13 years. He has also held a job in the factory or workhouse areas of the prison for at least 15 years. Ronald was denied release based solely on the circumstances of his offense. [Order in Brown v. Precythe]
Brown was only 15 when he participated in the homicide for which he was sentenced. A forensic psychological evaluation concluded that Brown’s involvement “was the product of a vulnerable adolescent being manipulated by a powerful adult rather than the product of bad character.” It also found that Brown has “long since outgrown the antisocial behavior of his youth,” that his “psychological risk factors for future violence and criminality are low,” and that “he has developed a skill set that would allow him to be a viable and productive member of society should he be granted parole.” Judge Laughrey wrote that by the parole board’s own standards, Brown has been a model incarcerated person. The only substantive reason provided for his denial was the circumstances of his underlying conviction. [Order in Brown v. Precythe]
The court has given the parole board 60 days to devise a plan “designed to ensure that all Class members are provided a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” [Robert Patrick / St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
|
