Major Supreme Court Ruling: Kids Who Didn't Kill Anyone Should Not Have to Die in Prison

Children who commit crimes other than murder can no longer face a sentence of life without parole, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a highly anticipated decision that civil rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson calls "an incredibly important win for kids who've been condemned to die in prison."

Stevenson represents Joe Sullivan, who was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) when he was just 14 years old. Sullivan, one of 77 prisoners in Florida serving LWOP for non-homicide crimes committed before the age of 18, was the defendant in one of two related cases before the court. His case, Sullivan v. Florida, was "dismissed as improvidently granted" given the ruling in the other case, Graham v. Florida, which bluntly held that "the Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide." (Read AlterNet's two-part series on Sullivan and Graham for an explanation of both cases.)

The ruling was based heavily on the court's 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, which abolished the death penalty for juvenile defendants on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy drew a parallel between the death penalty and life without parole, noting that while "it is true that a death sentence is 'unique in its severity and irrevocability,' (Gregg v. Georgia) ... life without parole sentences share some characteristics with death sentences that are shared by no other sentences."

"The State does not execute the offender sentenced to life without parole, but the sentence alters the offender's life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable," Kennedy wrote. "It deprives the convict of the most basic liberties without giving hope of restoration, except perhaps by executive clemency -- the remote possibility of which does not mitigate the harshness of the sentence."

Explaining why LWOP is "an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile," Kennedy wrote: "Under this sentence a juvenile offender will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender. A 16-year-old and a 75-year-old each sentenced to life without parole receive the same punishment in name only."

When it comes to judicially mandated sentencing reform, the ruling is significant: the New York Times' Adam Liptak points out that it "expanded a principle the court has never endorsed outside the death penalty -- that an entire class of offenders may be immune from a given form of punishment." At the same time, for juvenile offenders serving LWOP, the ruling will have limited reach. While 37 states and the federal government have life without parole on the books for non-homicide crimes, of the more than 2,500 such prisoners with no hope of parole, the court's decision will apply to only some 129 prisoners who were convicted of non-homicide crimes. This means that prisoners like Sara Kruzan, who killed her abusive pimp when she was 16 years old, remain ineligible for relief.

What's more, the effects of the ruling are hardly automatic: the decision means that prisoners are entitled to a new sentencing hearing, not immediate release. This presents a daunting task for the prisoners and their families: In a phone call with reporters on Monday, Bryan Stevenson pointed out that "most of the kids who've been sentenced to life without parole have no legal representation," an egregious failing of the criminal justice system if there ever was one. Ensuring that all of these prisoners who are entitled to new sentencing hearings are able to get lawyers, he said, will be "a big challenge going forward."