Life without parole for teens unconstitutional, Supreme Court told

Published online on Monday, Nov. 09, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Attorneys for two Florida teenagers who are serving life in prison without the possibility of parole told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that such sentences violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and that juveniles should get a chance at release.

Several justices appeared unconvinced, however, that such prison terms aren't appropriate for extremely violent crimes that fall short of murder.

Justice Samuel Alito asked about several cases, including one in which a juvenile offender had raped an 8 year-old, "burying her alive."

"There are some who deserve life without parole," he said, noting cases "so horrible you can't imagine."

The justices heard two hours of arguments stemming from the two cases in Florida, which defense attorneys said led the nation in the number of inmates who were serving life without parole for crimes committed while they were teenagers. The two before the court: Terrance Jamar Graham, who was convicted of armed robberies when he was 16 and 17, and Joe Sullivan, who was convicted of raping an elderly woman when he was 13.

Their attorneys argued that the court in a 2005 ruling prevented those younger than 18 from being sentenced to death for their crimes because young offenders are more easily swayed and lack the judgment of adults. Life without parole, argued Bryan Stevenson, an attorney for Sullivan, is comparable to a death sentence.

"To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel," he said.

The lawyers noted that such sentences are rarely imposed, suggesting a "social consensus" that they're cruel and unusual.

However, Chief Justice John G. Roberts suggested that such sentences are used rarely because courts may "appreciate the gravity" of them. He suggested that judges should consider age at sentencing, but the lawyers are arguing that such sentences should be declared unconstitutional.