Court can force Pa.'s hand on juvenile sentencing

By Christopher Moraff

The U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of juvenile life without parole last week when it heard oral arguments in Montgomery v. Louisiana. At issue is whether the court's 2012 ruling outlawing mandatory sentences of life in prison for minor defendants should apply retroactively.

In Miller v. Alabama, the justices concluded by a narrow 5-4 vote that automatically sentencing a defendant to die in prison for a crime he committed before turning 18 violates the Eighth Amendment. Judges must now consider mitigating factors that might warrant leniency - such as the defendant's level of maturity, family history, and the circumstances of the crime - before imposing such an extreme sentence as life without parole.

But the court left it up to the 28 states affected by the Miller decision to interpret its ramifications. For nine states, this meant abolishing life without parole for juveniles entirely. For others, it involved establishing new graduated sentencing schemes that give judges discretion over the severity of the sanctions they impose on juveniles convicted of murder.

A dozen states have concluded that these legal protections should apply retroactively to juvenile defendants sentenced prior to Miller, including those who no longer have a direct avenue to appeal. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the five states that have ruled against retroactivity are in violation of the law.

One of those states is Pennsylvania, which holds the dubious distinction of being the national poster child for juvenile life without parole. At last count, Pennsylvania's prisons housed more than 400 juvenile lifers, more than any other state. At least half of them are from Philadelphia, which, according to a new study from the Phillips Black Project, has condemned more youths to a life behind bars than any county in the nation.

A favorable outcome in Montgomery could have profound implications for these inmates, most of whom would qualify for resentencing and, in some cases, the possibility of immediate parole.

For others - such as 81-year-old Joseph Ligon - a victory would be more symbolic. Ligon was a developmentally challenged 15-year-old in February 1953, when he received two consecutive mandatory life sentences for participating in a "flash mob" incident in South Philadelphia that left two people dead.

For the last 62 years, Ligon has been housed at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. He is now America's longest-serving inmate. If he makes it to 88 and is still incarcerated, he will become the longest-serving prisoner in modern American history - beating out Paul Geidel, who spent 68 years and 245 days behind bars in New York before being released in 1980.

It's hard to fathom what benefit society gets out of keeping a man like Joseph Ligon in prison. Even more perplexing is how a state that prides itself on being the "birthplace of liberty" could become the national leader in a practice that is globally condemned as a violation of human rights.

For starters, Pennsylvania courts don't recognize a charge of juvenile murder, so all homicides in the state are treated as adult crimes, regardless of the perpetrator's age.

This is not a practice unique to Pennsylvania. However, we're also one of only six states where all life sentences are imposed without the possibility of parole, and one of only two - Louisiana being the other - where convictions for first- and second-degree murder have carried mandatory life sentences.

By one estimate, more than a quarter of Pennsylvania's juvenile lifers were sentenced for murders they didn't personally commit, or for crimes that lacked murderous intent but nonetheless resulted in a death. (Though it's often reported that Pennsylvania has eliminated life as an option for juveniles charged with second-degree murder, courts may still apply the sentence discretionarily.)

The final blow to juvenile justice in Pennsylvania was delivered in 1979, when a rape and murder rampage committed by a recently released juvenile lifer named Reginald McFadden led to changes to Pennsylvania's constitution that greatly restricted the commutation process. This all but closed off the only gateway to freedom available to inmates sentenced to life in Pennsylvania.

In denying Miller retroactivity, Pennsylvania is condemning hundreds of inmates to a fate that has been deemed inconsistent with the constitutional principles the state's most revered citizens are credited with helping establish. A ruling that the Miller decision applies to all juvenile lifers regardless of when they were sentenced would confirm what these founders already knew:

Basic human rights don't come with a time stamp.

Christopher Moraff writes on criminal justice, policing, and civil liberties for Al Jazeera America and NextCity.org. cmoraff@temple.edu