Nos. 08-7412 & 08-7621 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________________________ ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT TERRANCE JAMAR GRAHAM, Petitioner, v . STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. JOE HARRIS SULLIVAN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE OF THE MOTHERS AGAINST MURDERERS ASSOCIATION, ROBERT HOELSCHER, RUTH JOHNSON, AZIM KHAMISA, BILL PELKE, AQEELA SHERRILLS, TAMMI SMITH, AND LINDA WHITE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ANGELA C. VIGIL Counsel of Record WILLIAM LYNCH SCHALLER MICHAEL A. POLLARD KAREN SEWELL ERIC J. RAHN JUSTINE E. BELYTSCHKO BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP Mellon Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1700 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 789-8904 Counsel for Amici Curiae
Transcript
Nos. 08-7412 & 08-7621
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
_______________________________ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT
TERRANCE JAMAR GRAHAM,Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,Respondent.
JOE HARRIS SULLIVAN,Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,Respondent.
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE OF THE MOTHERS AGAINST MURDERERS
ASSOCIATION, ROBERT HOELSCHER, RUTH JOHNSON, AZIM
KHAMISA, BILL PELKE, AQEELA SHERRILLS, TAMMI SMITH, AND
I. Amici urge the court to consider voicesall victims, including those who oppose lifewithout parole for juveniles because suchsentences do not satisfy the principles ofproportionality, rehabilitation andforgiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. The experiences of amici show thatjuvenile life without parole fails toappropriately reflect proportionality,rehabilitation and forgiveness. . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Aqeela Sherrills knows firsthandthat change is possible, and hebelieves that even his firstborn son’skiller deserves a chance to change. . 6
B. Robert Hoelscher is tough on crimeyet finds it inconceivable to sentencejuveniles like adults for crimescommitted under the misguidedinfluence of youth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ii
Cited AuthoritiesPage
C. Tammi Smith feels her half-brother’skiller has shown he deserves a secondchance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
D. Linda White does not believe lifesentences without the possibility ofparole serve anyone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
E. Ruth Johnson does not believe thepunishment fits the crime for the 17-year-old killer of her son. . . . . . . . . . . 20
F. Azim Khamisa is working togetherwith the family of his son’s killer tocurb youth violence and help theircommunities heal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
G. Bill Pelke believes all juveniles,including his grandmother’s killer,can be turned around. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
H. Ninety-eight mothers of murdervictims comprise Mothers AgainstMurderers Association, a non-profitorganization created to serve victimswho seek resolution and forgivenessas well as justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Elizabeth Cauffman & Laurence Steinberg,(Im)Maturity of Judgment in Adolescence:Why Adolescents May Be Less Culpable ThanAdults, 18 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 741 (2000) . . . . . . 4
L.P. Spear, The Adolescent Brain and Age-Related Behavioral Manifestations , 24NEUROSCIENCE & BIOBEHAV. REVS. 417 (2000) . . . 3
Amici are individuals who have lost family membersto violent crime committed by juveniles yet oppose lifesentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles.Amici also include an organization whose missionfocuses on assisting such crime victims and whoseactivities and experiences have led the organization tostand against life sentences without parole for juveniles.Because the interests of other juvenile crime victimswill be uniquely and significantly impacted by theresolution of this case, amici submit their testimonialsin hopes of giving voice to their reasoned opposition tojuvenile life without parole.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Recognizing that this Court is examining whethercriminal acts less severe than murder merit a sentenceof life without parole where the offenders are juveniles,amici urge the Court to hold that this sentence violatesthe Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel andunusual punishment. Victims differ in their views onproportionality of punishment for juvenile offenders andthe importance of allowing juvenile offenders to bereleased from prison upon rehabilitation. In consideringwhat is cruel and unusual, therefore, this Court shouldnot assume all victims would support the continued
1 The parties have consented to the filing of amicus briefsin this case and filed consent letters with the Clerk. This briefwas not authored in whole or part by counsel for a party, and noperson or entity, other than amici and their counsel, has madea monetary contribution to the preparation or submission ofthis brief.
2
imposition of life without parole sentences upon juveniles.Amici contend that proportionality, rehabilitation andforgiveness must be the governing principles of juvenilesentencing. These principles are ill-served bysentencing children to life without the possibility ofparole.
ARGUMENT
I. AMICI URGE THE COURT TO CONSIDERVOICES OF ALL VICTIMS, INCLUDINGTHOSE WHO OPPOSE LIFE WITHOUTPAROLE FOR JUVENILES BECAUSE SUCHSENTENCES DO NOT SATISFY THEPRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONALITY,REHABILITATION AND FORGIVENESS.
Victims who constitute amici here believeproportionality, rehabilitation and forgiveness mustguide decisions involving the sentencing of juvenileoffenders. They advocate for those strongly-held valuesto be reflected as paramount in our nation’s juvenilejustice system.
The federal government and all 50 stateslegislatively recognize the victim’s voice in sentencingdefendants, including juveniles. See, e.g., VictoriaSchwartz, Comment, The Victims’ Rights Amendment,42 Harv. J. on Legis. 525, 526 & n.13 (2005) (listingvictims’ rights statutes); Crime Victims’ Rights Act of2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The various statutes reflect theimportance of considering victims’ views of both theharm suffered and the proper punishment fordefendants.
3
Proportionality is central to our penal system. It isaxiomatic that a defendant should not be punished to agreater extent than the offense merits. See Atkins v.Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 311 (2002) (and cases citedtherein). This fundamental tenet is captured in theEighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel andunusual punishment, which forbids penalties that aredisproportionate to the offense. See id. A penalty isconstitutionally disproportionate if it is out of step withcontemporary societal values. Id. at 312. In addition toexamining objective evidence of contemporary values,this Court has said that it must also bring its ownreasoned judgment to bear on whether a particular formof punishment is constitutionally disproportionate. Id.at 313. Because victims’ voices are legally relevant tosentencing courts across the nation, amici urge thisCourt to consider amici’s experiences as a particularlypoignant indicator of contemporary values that shouldinform this Court’s reasoned judgment.
Amici have experienced firsthand what science isnow documenting. As addressed in other amicus briefssubmitted in support of Petitioners, landmark scientificresearch now reveals that adolescents are less capableof controlling their behavior than adults. Recentpsychological, neurological and behavioral studiesestablish that children cannot appreciate consequencesand assess risk and harm the way adults can, in partbecause their brains continue to develop through theirteen years. See, e.g., L.P. Spear, The Adolescent Brainand Age-Related Behavioral Manifestations, 24NEUROSCIENCE & BIOBEHAV. REVS. 417, 421 (2000); LitaFurby & Ruth Beyth-Marom, Risk Taking inAdolescence: A Decision-Making Perspective, 12
4
DEVELOPMENTAL REV. 1, 9-11 (1992); Elizabeth Cauffman& Laurence Steinberg, (Im)Maturity of Judgment inAdolescence: Why Adolescents May Be Less CulpableThan Adults, 18 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 741, 742 (2000);Elizabeth R. Sowell et al., Development of Cortical andSubcortical Brain Structures in Childhoodand Adolescence: A Structural MRI Study , 44DEVELOPMENTAL MED. & CHILD NEUROLOGY 4 (2002). Thus,amici believe that punishing children to the same extentas adults – who are mentally and developmentallycapable of assessing the consequences and impact oftheir crimes in a way children cannot – offends the coreprinciple of proportionality.
Amici believe that children are fundamentallyredeemable. The principle of rehabilitation – providingoffenders a second chance at a productive, law-abidinglife – has special resonance in cases involving juvenileoffenders. The same studies cited above also show thatjuveniles can be successfully rehabilitated. This briefcontains several accounts where amici have personallywitnessed the rehabilitation of the juveniles they havecome to know through tragic events. They haveobserved that juvenile offenders mature and developthrough participation in rehabilitation programs. Manyamici recognize that the adult still serving the prisonsentence is an entirely different person from the juvenilewho committed the crime that led to the originalsentence. For these reasons, amici believe juvenileoffenders should be offered a legitimate chance atcomplete rehabilitation which they feel cannot beattained without the possibility of parole. After they havecompleted an appropriate punishment for theirsignificant crimes, these young people should have the
5
opportunity to prove that they deserve a second chancebefore their whole lives have been wasted in prison.
Amici value forgiveness and advocate for thejuvenile justice system to recognize this value. Thefollowing testimonials demonstrate how individualvictims came to forgive. Equally importantly, theaccounts below show the significant role that forgivenessplayed in helping them overcome these tragic eventsand in recognizing that life without parole is aninappropriate sentence for children.
II. THE EXPERIENCES OF AMICI SHOW THATJUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FAILS TOAPPROPRIATELY REFLECT PROPORTIONAL-ITY, REHABILITATION AND FORGIVENESS.
The specific accounts below show why amici holdsuch firm beliefs. These real-life experiences should formthe backdrop for this Court’s evaluation of how theprinciples of proportionality, rehabilitation andforgiveness bear on the constitutionality of juvenile lifewithout parole. It is the high regard in which amici andother similarly-situated victims hold these relatedprinciples that has led them to advocate for an end tolife without parole for juveniles.
6
A. Aqeela Sherrills knows firsthand that changeis possible, and he believes that even hisfirstborn son’s killer deserves a chance tochange.
A few short months after his son’s death, while onthe set of the television show “America’s Most Wanted,”Aqeela shocked the detective working his case. Aqeelatold him that he did not want Terrell’s teenaged killer,if caught, to spend the rest of his life in prison. Thedetective was incredulous. “Like many others, he justdidn’t understand how I could not want this kid to goaway for life.” Aqeela did not relent, though, and evenas he pled for the killer – a 17-year-old gang member –to turn himself in to authorities, he reiterated to thepolice, to family and to friends that his primary concernwas in getting the killer the help that he needed to heal.
Even before Terrell’s death, Aqeela had beenopposed to life without parole for juveniles. Coming ofage in the Watts neighborhood of south-central LosAngeles, he began working to end gang conflict as ayoung man. A one-time gang member himself, Aqeelamade a discovery during his first year in college thatwould lead him to dedicate his life to violence preventionand the promotion of community and healing. Aqeelarealized, “that my friends and I had been living underconditions that had been supported by a set of unwrittenrules. Most of us hadn’t really understood what we weredoing, and we didn’t understand how these ‘rules’ hadimpacted our lives. We were just following them becauseif we didn’t, there would be consequences.” These“rules” – rules about loyalty, love and revenge – oftenpredetermined the results of even the smallest conflict.
7
The unfortunate result, Aqeela observed, was that muchof the violence that plagued his neighborhood resultedfrom “knee-jerk reactions which, themselves, resultedfrom the immaturity of the people involved in theconflict.”
Early in his life, Aqeela came to realize that themajority of those “rules”-driven conflicts wereeminently preventable. Usually, the underlying causesof the conflict were not, in fact, interpersonal problemsbetween the perpetrator and the victim. “Most of theconflicts that I dealt with during my 16 years on thefront lines had to do with peoples’ deeper wounds, manyof which had been inflicted by sexual, physical orpsychological abuse. These wounds had been leftuntreated because it was taboo to talk about them.” Thereal problem, as Aqeela sees it, is that people, especiallychildren, have been deeply wounded – mentally,emotionally or otherwise – early in their lives. The“rules” that govern life in what Aqeela calls the“relentless” streets of Watts and other neighborhoodsacross the country have foreclosed the possibility oftreating those wounds. Young people carry the burdenof that hurt yet simultaneously lack life experience andcoping skills. When they enter into even the smallestconflict situation, the conflict quickly spirals to a pointwhere adherence to the “rules” often leads to violenceand bloodshed. For Aqeela, the only way to confront thejuvenile criminal activity is to focus on healing thewounds and changing people’s attitudes aboutadherence to those “rules” that do nothing but harmthem.
8
Aqeela knows that such changes can beaccomplished. His actions and experience give credibilityto this belief. Specifically, Aqeela was the driving forcebehind brokering a 1992 peace treaty between the LosAngeles Bloods and Crips street gangs. From this andother similar experiences, and from the discoverieshe has made about himself and his community,Aqeela knows that people, especially juveniles, are“basically good” and able to redeem themselves. Lifeimprisonment of juveniles who commit even the mostheinous of crimes is not the answer because it fails torecognize that many offenders commit their actsbecause of their own wounds and adherence to a set offalse “rules.” Those wounds could be healed and juvenileoffenders can learn that these “rules” make no sense.
Aqeela had hoped that he would never be faced withas close a personal challenge to his beliefs about juvenilesentencing as he faced on January 10, 2004. Around11:45 p.m., Aqeela received a phone call from his sonTerrell’s close friend who told him that Terrell had beenshot while attending a party in an affluent neighborhood.When Aqeela arrived at the hospital, a doctor explainedthat, despite his best efforts, Terrell had died of thegunshot wounds. Aqeela recalls feeling “totallydefeated. That’s the only way to describe it.” He couldnot understand why someone would have wanted toshoot Terrell, his dynamic, charismatic, firstborn son.The circumstances of the shooting were frustratinglyinexplicable: Terrell had been talking with his friendswhen the 17-year-old killer shot Terrell in the backmultiple times. Looking back, Aqeela wishes that thekiller had stopped to consider his actions even for amoment and had spoken with Terrell. The killer “wouldhave gotten an entirely different read on my son.”
9
In the midst of his suffering, Aqeela was confrontedby numerous friends and family members who wantedto seek revenge. Terrell’s killer had been quicklyidentified through the street network, and friends andfamily assured Aqeela revenge would be swift andprecise. Aqeela stood his ground, not only demandingthat the juvenile killer not be harmed, but also tellingthe detective on the case that he did not want the killerto go to jail for the rest of his life. Rather, Aqeela wantedto meet the killer and his parents. He wanted to knowwhat had gone wrong and what wounds the killer carried.Most of all, he wanted to be sure the killer receivedappropriate care while carrying out his sentence.
Aqeela had spent his adult life seeking an end toconflict and promoting healing. He knew seekingrevenge was “required” under the unwritten “rules,”but, in seeking revenge, he would be sacrificing all thathe and his community had achieved through his anti-violence work. The same, Aqeela believed, would be trueif the killer was sent to prison for the rest of his life. “Irecognized that the community could not afford to loseanother child. It is imperative that we give people,especially children, a second chance and the opportunityto redeem themselves.”
To Aqeela, imprisoning the 17-year-old for the restof his life was an unjust punishment for someone whowas likely failed by the people entrusted with his care:“when children commit a crime, it is a sign that parentshave failed.” Aqeela recognized that his son’s killer, whilehaving committed a heinous crime, was still a personwho could contribute positively to his community. Hewants the killer to be given the opportunity he needs to
10
heal his wounds and to recognize that the “rules” thathe had followed no longer control his actions. For Aqeela,it is clear that his son’s teenaged killer can be foreverchanged if he can recognize that his action likelyresulted from an immature inability to deal with his ownproblems and a knee-jerk adherence to the “rules.”
Aqeela does not feel that he holds these beliefs alone:“Terrell speaks through me against life imprisonmentfor juveniles.”
B. Robert Hoelscher is tough on crime yet findsit inconceivable to sentence juveniles likeadults for crimes committed under themisguided influence of youth.
In April 1961, when Robert Hoelscher was seven,his father was murdered by a troubled 17-year-old fromhis neighborhood in Houston, Texas. Robert’s motherfound her husband’s body on the floor of theconvenience store that Robert’s father managed.Robert’s father had partially lost his hearing whileserving in World War II, so he never heard his assailantcoming. He was shot in the back. The teenage killer wasquickly apprehended with the murder weapon and themoney he had stolen. He was tried and sentenced to lifein prison. He remains in prison today, nearly 50 yearslater.
Robert and his five brothers and sisters were leftwithout a father and, in many ways, the trauma thattheir mother experienced took her from them, too.Robert’s mother spent the majority of her remaining
11
days struggling with addiction to nicotine, alcohol andpain killers. She died of cancer at age 57. As the middlechild of six, Robert was the prototypical “lost child” ofan alcoholic parent. He retreated into a withdrawn,quiet, and contented persona to cope with his difficulthome life. Robert’s family never discussed his father’sdeath or their feelings about the event. It was not untilwell into adulthood that Robert found himself retellingthe story time and time again to support a cause he cameto champion.
Robert has spent a decade working in the criminaljustice system and with juveniles specifically. His workbegan in 2001 as a volunteer for the Innocence Projectof New Orleans. In only one year, Robert’s hard workand dedication earned him a promotion to be theorganization’s first executive director. Although it is nolonger his full-time job, Robert has never stopped hisinnocence work. He remains deeply connected to effortsto reform criminal justice in this country and continuesto volunteer. Robert recognizes that his work experiencemay even eclipse his father’s death in terms of the impacton his views on justice.
His innocence work notwithstanding, Robert hasnever considered himself an activist. He credits hisinitial attraction to this cause to the book ActualInnocence by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and JimDwyer. The universal experience of a child wronglyaccused of even a non-violent act resonated with Robertand helped him connect to the impetus behind theInnocence Project. He invested himself in criminal
12
justice reform, believing his connection to the cause hadlittle to do with his father’s death or the teenager whokilled his father, and more to do with empathy and logic.Robert does not base his opposition to life sentencesfor children on an emotional response to a tragicpersonal event. Robert’s views on juvenile life withoutparole, the death penalty and the need for anenlightened criminal sentencing paradigm for youthrests on pragmatism.
It was only several years later that a more personalmotivation emerged. On a visit to one of his sisters,Robert came across a newspaper account of his father’smurder. The article described a phone call his motherhad made to the parents of her husband’s killer. Onlytwo days after her husband’s murder, Robert’s mothermade the call to express her forgiveness and the sadnessshe felt for their son as a fellow parent. She told themthat hate simply would not bring back the father of herchildren, so she had chosen to forgive. This newsreflected a side of Robert’s mother that had been lostto him in her later life.
Robert was deeply moved when he read about hismother’s commitment to forgiveness in the immediateaftermath of unspeakable tragedy. The story remindedRobert that in these cases there is always loss on bothsides. He felt his mother’s gesture had to have affordedsome healing to the parents of his father’s killer. In someway, reading this story also provided Robert some senseof closure. “If there is any real life experience that canbe called ‘closure,’ reading about my mother’s phone
13
call was it for me.” It was an emotional confirmation ofthe logic of the path he had taken.
To Robert, that logic is quite simple and compelling.As to the role of punishment, Robert says very matter-of-factly: “My father’s killer took a human life. Heneeded to be held accountable. He was.” As to the publicsafety concern, he says: “My father’s killer could havetaken someone else’s life. He needed to be put in a placewhere he was no longer a threat to anyone else. He was.”In terms of redemption, Robert is equally practical andstraightforward. “When a person makes a mistake, hedeserves a chance to make up for that mistake. If aprisoner can demonstrate that he is ready to go homeand play by the rules, then we should provide thatopportunity.” Further, from a fiscal responsibilitystandpoint, Robert sees little sense in keeping someonein prison for life when the person could be contributingto society and paying tax dollars instead of spendingthem.
Self-described as “tough on crime,” Robert’s senseof logic compels his position “that juvenile life withoutparole offenders should have a path – hard earned tobe sure – back to the community.” He believes simplythat juveniles are different from adults. He finds itunreasoned and peculiar that the criminal justice systemseems to assume that a higher sentence for a juvenilewho commits a more serious crime is appropriatebecause the more serious crime reflects a higher, ratherthan lower, level of maturity and accountability. “By anyreasonable measure,” he thinks, “that is wrongheadedlogic. If anyone imprisoned for life deserves a second
14
chance at life, it is those individuals whose criminal actswere committed under the misguided influence ofyouth.”
C. Tammi Smith feels her half-brother’s killerhas shown he deserves a second chance.
Tammi Smith grew up in the same dysfunctionalhousehold in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as her half-brother, Robert Sellon, whom she always thought of asher full brother. When Tammi was not quite 15-years-old, Tammi’s mother threw Tammi, Robert and theirother siblings out of the house. They all went in separatedirections. Robert was already spending most of his timemanaging a local pool hall, so that simply became hisresidence.
On the night of October, 26, 1981, two 17-year-oldbrothers, David and Michael Samel, went to the poolhall where Robert lived. They had heard a drugshipment was being stored there. Since both brotherssuffered drug addiction and were in desperate need ofmoney, they headed to the pool hall intending to stealthe shipment. However, the information they hadreceived was wrong. Once they realized that there wereno drugs at the pool hall, they decided to rob Robert.He put up a fight, and the two brothers beat him todeath. At his trial, Michael pled guilty to second degreemurder and received a prison sentence. David’s counselbelieved that, because Michael had pled guilty, David’scase would be dismissed. However, his case not onlyproceeded to trial on first degree murder, but alsoresulted in a sentence of life in prison without parolefor David.
15
Initially, Tammi was enraged by what these boys haddone to Robert, and she hoped that the Samels wouldbe imprisoned for the rest of their lives for their crime.She had recurring nightmares about the attack, andprior to David being transferred from pre-trialdetention to permanent incarceration, Tammi visitedhim only to express her hatred of him face-to-face.However, this opportunity to express her anger to theoffender did not provide her with the closure she desired.
As the years went on, Tammi looked to herChristian faith to help her work through her anger, andshe eventually forgave the Samels for their crime. Yeteven after embracing forgiveness, there was still anunresolved question that prevented her from achievingclosure: What kind of adults had Michael and Davidbecome in prison? The question haunted her. In 2001,when she realized that Michael would soon be releasedfrom prison, she and her half-sister startedcorresponding with both Samels brothers and were ableto visit them in prison. As she learned more about them,she saw that they were no longer drug-addicted, naïveteenagers, but mature adult men who felt extremeremorse over the crime committed in their youth.“David has talked about how childish he was, and hewill beat himself up over it,” she says. David has evenexpressed to her “that if he could give his life to bringher half-brother back, he would.”
Michael has now been released, but David remainsin prison. Tammi favors and will help to seek David’srelease. Tammi says that “he would be a better personout than wasting his life just sitting in prison – he couldgive something back.”
16
Tammi Smith not only is seeking David’s release butalso opposes all juvenile life without parole: “It is justnot right to put a teenager in prison for the rest of theirlives thinking they are never going to change.” Her ownchildhood experience plays a significant role in her viewson sentencing juveniles to life in prison without thepossibility of parole. She explains that as a youth, “therewere a lot of things I did wrong in my life, but I wouldnot want to have a mark against me for the rest of mylife.” She views David Samel similarly, saying he is notthe same person now as he was as a teenager, and thathe should not continue to be punished for the mistakesof his youth. It is clear to her that David would nevercommit a similar crime again.
Rather than focusing only on her own suffering,Tammi holds herself responsible to uphold the principlesRobert would have had. Release is what Tammi believesRobert would have wanted. In getting to know thebrothers, Tammi has often thought, “my brother wouldprobably get along with these guys.” She also knowsthat Robert, who himself committed minor crimes as ajuvenile, including dealing drugs, would want someonelike David to have a second chance. “He would have said,‘I deserve a second chance if I am the one in prison,’ soDavid does too.”
Tammi feels society is better served by releasingjuveniles who have sufficiently demonstrated remorsefor their crimes and who have applied themselves duringtheir time in prison. She is inspired by David’scommitment to using his time in prison to educatehimself. She is gratified to hear David say that, shouldhe ever be released, he wants to help juveniles who have
17
been convicted of crimes. “David wants to show he issorry by giving back. He has a good heart and wants tohelp people.” For Tammi, the thought that David willnever have the opportunity to be a productive memberof society is tragic, especially when there are othercriminals who serve shorter sentences and neverdemonstrate the remorse and positive growth David has.
Unfortunately, Tammi knows that, for now, David’sdream of re-entering society and using all he has learnedduring his time in prison to help others is not a reality.Instead, 27 years after being convicted for killingRobert, David is still confined to prison and faces thepossibility that he will continue to pay for his crime untilhe dies in prison.
D. Linda White does not believe life sentenceswithout the possibility of parole serve anyone.
Linda White had not given significant thought tothe appropriateness of sentencing children to lifewithout parole prior to November 18, 1986. That wasthe day that her 26-year-old daughter Cathy, then twomonths pregnant, was raped and killed by two 15-year-old boys.
Cathy was approached by her killers at a gas stationand yielded to the boys’ seemingly innocent request fora ride. Once inside Cathy’s car, the boys brandished astolen handgun, forced Cathy to drive toward Alvin,Texas, and then ordered her to stop just south ofHouston, where they raped her. Drunk and high, theboys then shot Cathy in the leg with the intent todebilitate her. When they came to the sudden realization
18
that Cathy could identify them, they killed her and droveaway from the scene in her car. Linda and her familydid not learn of Cathy’s fate until four days after herdisappearance and murder. The killers were arrestedand confessed to the police. They pled guilty to Cathy’smurder and rape and received 54 and 55 years in prison,respectively.
Though the entry of the pleas gave Linda what shewould later call “judicial closure,” the long sentencesmeted out to the two boys did nothing to assuage thesadness that she felt. Nor did the pro-prison rhetoricshe heard at her victims’ support group provide anyrelief. Linda was only able to begin to come to termswith the horrific incident that had claimed Cathy’s lifewhen she began to confront “reality” about what hadhappened to her daughter and, significantly, to herdaughter’s killers.
Linda began to find this “reality” three years afterCathy’s death. She enrolled in college-level courses andclosely followed debates about the appropriate judicialresponse to criminal activity. She later learned aboutrestorative justice, wanting to find and implementconstructive solutions to the events that had torn herworld apart. She went on to work with and teachinmates in Texas prisons. She has been heavily involvedwith the Bridges to Life program, offering victims andinmates the chance to gather and share stories in asupportive, healing-based environment. These thirteenyears spent working in prisons and learning aboutcriminal justice have given Linda the perspective thathas allowed her to better cope with Cathy’s death. Lindahas come to know that prisons are horrible places, and
19
that sentencing anyone to spend their life in such anenvironment – without giving them an opportunity tomake up for past wrongdoing – is an unusually crueland pointless response to crime.
Linda does not believe that sentencing juveniles tolife without parole is ever appropriate, no matter howserious their crimes may have been. “There is no waythat a 13- year-old can be held responsible to makedecisions the same as adults do.” Linda’s coursework inpsychology has taught her that only adults havesufficient understanding of their actions and adeveloped ability to resist impulses. As with the boyswho made a snap decision to murder her daughter,“juveniles aren’t able to fully appreciate the long-termconsequences of their actions.”
Linda’s experiences working directly with inmatesmuch like the boys who killed Cathy have given her theopportunity to see firsthand the impact of the oppressiveconditions imposed by a life without parole sentence.This experience has strengthened Linda’s oppositionto the sentence. Many of the inmates she has met haveexpressed remorse for their wrongdoing. They arefocused on trying “to make up for the wrong they’vedone.” Sentencing juveniles to life without paroledeprives them of the opportunity to return to the worldand “make up” for their wrongs.
Linda has come to terms with her daughter’s rapeand death not through seeking retribution, but throughadvocating for a more just solution that she knowsserves her daughter, her daughter’s killers and thecountry as a whole. “There is already enough pain and
20
violence in the world,” Linda states. The infliction ofadditional violence upon others, especially juveniles,does not make sense to her. Linda knows that Cathywould not have wanted to see her killers locked awayfor the rest of their lives without the possibility ofrelease. When Linda first had an opportunity to talkwith one of her daughter’s killers, she learned, for thefirst time, what her daughter’s last words to them hadbeen: “I forgive you, and God will, too.” Of her advocacyof justice, Linda says, “Cathy would love what I amdoing.”
E. Ruth Johnson does not believe thepunishment fits the crime for the 17-year-oldkiller of her son.
On December 7, 1987, just before his 23rd birthday,Ruth Johnson’s son Steven was shot and killed by a 17-year-old drug dealer. Steven was sitting in a car next tohis girlfriend unaware that their backseat passengerwas armed. Without warning, the teenaged passengeropened fire on Steven and his girlfriend, shooting themmultiple times. When the police arrived, Steven and hisgirlfriend were both found dead and the killer had fledthe scene.
Ruth was shocked and devastated. She attendedcourt hearings and the trial where the 17-year-old wasfound guilty of two counts of murder and one count ofpossessing a weapon. The teenager received a lifesentence without parole. Following that final hearing,the case was closed – at least for purposes of the criminaljustice system. For Ruth, neither the trial nor thesentencing stopped her pain.
21
Today, the teenager is a grown man and a lifeprisoner. Lynn McNeal has served 20 years of hissentence, yet Ruth’s emotional wound remains open.Lynn turns 39 this year and is still the only person whohas been arrested or taken any responsibility forSteven’s death. An adult supplied him the bullets andadults ran the drug operation that led to the murders.Only Lynn ever went to prison.
Ruth does not doubt Lynn’s culpability. Shequestions his sentence. Though Ruth was sitting in thecourtroom during the short bench trial, she describesherself as having been “frozen” – unable to feel or listento anything that was happening around her. She did notfollow the trial or the legal arguments, and she barelynoticed the teenager before her who was being sentaway for life.
Twenty years later, Ruth reviewed the trialtranscripts from this dark period and found herselfunhappy with the process that led not only to ateenaged boy being held solely responsible for the crimeagainst her son but also, and more importantly, to hisbeing given such an unjust sentence. She learned thatLynn had been alone in a police station all night beforehe confessed without a parent or attorney to advise him.Ruth fears that he may only have confessed because hebelieved the police when they promised leniency becauseof his age. Although Ruth knows that the boy deserveda significant sanction for his crime, Lynn’s continuedimprisonment serves neither Ruth nor her community.
Ruth does not think the punishment fits the crime.For her, life without parole is not the right sentence for
22
a young member of a criminal business that buys andsells narcotics and eliminates anyone who gets in its way.It does not do justice to her son that the others in thedrug ring were never questioned or arrested – nor doesit serve her son or provide justice for her family whenthe teenage offender continues to serve a sentencedecades after his mistake and will not ever be given thechance to make up for his crime outside of prison.
F. Azim Khamisa is working together with thefamily of his son’s killer to curb youthviolence and help their communities heal.
Azim Khamisa first confronted the issue ofsentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole whenhis 20-year-old son Tariq, was shot dead by a gangmember while delivering pizzas in San Diego on January21, 1995.
Fourteen-year-old Tony Hicks shot Tariq on ordersfrom a gang leader who was himself only 18. At the time,Tony was taking part in an initiation ritual where heand his fellow gang members ordered a pizza with theplan to steal the delivery man’s cash when he arrived atthe door. Tariq was the delivery man. When Tariqrefused to turn over his money to the gang members,he was fatally shot by Tony. Five days later, Tony Hickswas arrested and ultimately prosecuted. He received asentence of 25 years to life in prison.
On the news of his son’s death, Azim’s life “came toa crashing halt.” He even felt suicidal. After taking ninemonths to begin to come to terms with his son’s death,Azim set up the Tariq Khamisa Foundation (“TKF”) and
23
approached someone who might seem to be an unlikelypartner in this effort: Tony’s grandfather, Ples Felix.Azim offered forgiveness and invited Tony’s grandfatherto work together to help put an end to youth violence.Through their joint efforts, TKF began to deliver youtheducation programs to prevent gang violence andmurder.
It still took Azim five years to develop the courageto come face-to-face with his son’s killer. When he lookedinto Tony’s eyes during their first meeting, instead offeeling anger and revenge, Azim recognized Tony’shumanity. Azim found himself looking into the eyes of ayoung boy, not a killer.
Azim realized that Tariq was not the only victim inthis incident. Victims lay at “both ends of the gun.” Whilehis son was the victim of a killer, the killer himself was avictim of society. Tony was born to a 15-year-old singlemother and was rejected by his father. At an early age,Tony witnessed the death of his cousin and sufferedabuse from his uncle’s girlfriend. He was then sent tolive with a relative.
Azim is in regular contact with Tony in prison. Azimrealizes that young offenders can be reformed and hasbeen working to reduce Tony’s sentence. Tony isstudying in jail and has now passed his college exams.Azim has offered Tony a job in his foundation should heever be released. Azim believes Tony will be more usefulto society by working for TKF than by spending his lifein prison.
24
Despite having a demanding job, Azim dedicatesvirtually all of his remaining time to TKF and otherprojects, such as The Forgiveness Project and theConstant and Never Ending Improvement Program(“CANEI”), all of which work towards restorative justicefor young people. Azim has worked with theseorganizations for 15 years. Azim has also publishedseveral books in this area, including From Murder toForgiveness, From Forgiveness to Fulfillment andThe Secrets of a Bulletproof Spirit. He has spokenglobally on these issues and has won variousinternational awards in this area, including the CaliforniaPeace Prize by the California Wellness Foundation, theNational Crime Victims Special Community ServiceAward presented by President Bill Clinton and AttorneyGeneral Janet Reno, and the Season for NonviolencePeace Hero Award. Although he had to pay a high price,Azim feels that he now leads a fulfilling life.
Through his hard work and dedication to this cause,Azim has realized the benefits of such restorativeprograms for juveniles. He believes that almost alljuvenile offenders can be rehabilitated and integratedpeacefully back into society. Young people makemistakes, but that does not make them unforgivable.
G. Bill Pelke believes all juveniles, including hisgrandmother’s killer, can be turned around.
On May 14, 1985, Bill Pelke’s grandmother was killedby a group of four teenaged girls. Everyone in RuthPelke’s Gary, Indiana neighborhood knew that theelderly woman freely gave Bible lessons to local childrenwho were interested. Tragically, this generosity led four
25
drunk and high teenagers to knock on her doorpretending to want Bible lessons when they reallywanted to steal money for video games. Ruth was aneasy target. When she unsuspectingly turned to getthem information for the lessons, one girl hit her overthe head with a vase. Then, Paula Cooper, just 15 yearsold, stabbed Ruth 33 times. The teens managed to stealonly 10 dollars and Ruth’s car.
Paula was sentenced to death and initially placedon death row. Angry and frustrated, Bill supported thesentence and favored the media attention and publicitythat it would bring in exposing the circumstances of hisgrandmother’s death.
A year-and-a-half after Ruth’s death, and three-and-a-half months after Paula was sentenced, Bill realizedthe death penalty was not, in fact, the most appropriatepunishment for the killer of a spiritual woman with atremendous faith in the Bible. Understanding that thedeath of any child would have deeply hurt hisgrandmother, Bill felt that the responsibility rested onhis shoulders to seek justice in the way that hisgrandmother would approve.
This sense of responsibility led Bill to an help in aneffort to collect signatures from two million people tooverturn Paula’s sentence. After three years, hersentence was reduced to 60 years, or 30 years with goodbehavior. During this time, Bill regularly exchangedletters with Paula. However, his first face-to-facemeeting with Paula did not come until nine-and-a-halfyears after his grandmother’s death, on Thanksgivingin 1994. In this meeting Bill was able to face the killer
26
and feel forgiveness instead of hate and anger. The keyto Bill’s forgiveness was his ability to feel compassionbecause he saw that Paula had the ability to reform. Hecontinues to correspond with her today.
Bill is now convinced that Paula has reformed. Shehas obtained her GED and a college degree. She wantsto help others who shared her experiences. ObservingPaula’s rehabilitation, Bill feels all juveniles can beturned around if given the right chance andenvironment. This provides him a sense of healing.
Today, Bill is president of Journey of Hope, anorganization he co-founded with families of murdervictims who oppose the death penalty. Bill is also theauthor of “Journey of Hope,” has been featured inseveral publications, and speaks in a variety of forumson his experience. Bill witnessed Paula’s successfulrehabilitation in prison and sees it as proof that alljuvenile offenders deserve the possibility of parole.
H. Ninety-eight mothers of murder victimscomprise Mothers Against MurderersAssociation , a non-profit organizationcreated to serve victims who seek resolutionand forgiveness as well as justice.
At 6:30 p.m. every other Thursday night, mothershold hands in West Palm Beach Florida and pray forthemselves, for their families and for their murderedchildren. The non-profit organization Mothers AgainstMurderers Association (“MAMA”) brings these womentogether and opens the floor to any of the 98 memberswho wish to voice an opinion or share a story. Some willtalk about their day. Others may talk about children’s
27
problems at school. And some will share thoughts aboutthe murder of their loved ones, how they are healing,and whether they have found the strength to forgive.The healing circle is a spiritual experience in whichMAMA members acknowledge the pain and anguish oflosing a loved one and, over time, seek to forgive themurderer.
Angela Williams, MAMA’s founder, has lost sevenfamily members to murder. Her desire to cope with thosemurders – and to help other like her heal and survivethese tragic events – inspired Angela to found MAMAin 2003. The organization’s primary aim is to assistparents and guardians of murder victims. Many of themhave had their lives forever altered by juvenile killers.
On March 20, 2001 Angela’s 18-year-old nephew,Dtaurean Gidds, was murdered by 17-year-old RogyneO’Neal during an attempted robbery. Dtaurean had beentalking with his cousin when he was approached by twoteenaged robbers. When Dtaurean revealed that heknew one of the robbers, Rogyne was startled. Afraidof being turned in, Rogyne fatally shot Dtaurean.Rogyne was arrested later that year. After his trial, hewas sentenced to serve two life sentences.
As she has with all seven murderers responsible forthe deaths in her family, Angela has come to forgiveRogyne. Angela understands the importance offorgiveness. She has had multiple experiencescounseling other victims’ family members who, unableto forgive, allowed anger to build up inside of them anddeveloped obsessions with revenge. Angela has seen how
28
these people become trapped in their rage, unable tomove beyond the tragedy and constantly reliving thepain of their loss. In her experience, too much focus onpunishment of offenders – rather than on seeking justicefor all involved through rehabilitation – worsens thesituations. This is especially true in situations where theoffenders are juveniles. As Angela explains, children –even those who commit the worst crimes – can and mustbe saved. For her, healing for victims’ families andredemption of juvenile offenders are essential andsynergistic: victims cannot heal unless child offendersare given a true chance at rehabilitation.
Led by Angela’s example, MAMA’s members standagainst juvenile life sentences without parole. Theybelieve that juvenile offenders can be redeemed and cantransform their lives. MAMA members find juvenile lifewithout parole sentences unacceptable because suchsentences reject the possibility of restorative justice anddeny juveniles a chance at redemption. Angelasummarizes MAMA’s ethos saying, “We’re aboutforgiveness and we’re about saving the children.” Formany of MAMA’s members, that forgiveness takes ontrue meaning when they engage in helping another child– even if that child is the killer of their own son ordaughter. MAMA members recognize that “My childwon’t come back so why shouldn’t I help this child havea second chance?” Angela says, of MAMA members, “Wecan’t help our kids anymore but we can help someoneelse’s.”
MAMA’s focus is not only on forgiveness but finality.Finality does not result from a correctional institutionthat forecloses parole review for a juvenile offender. For
29
MAMA, finality is accomplished only when a juvenileoffender has changed direction through rehabilitationand has become a contributing member of thecommunity. Finality comes when a child has beenrehabilitated and is released from prison. It is this senseof finality that leads to true “closure.” Angela explains:“You only reach finality by helping someone else. Notjust take, take, take. You have to give back.”
MAMA gives back by counseling and guidingchildren who begin to display criminal tendencies. Theorganization has developed an educational componentthat encourages members to share their ownexperiences of loss with jailed juvenile offenders. MAMAvolunteers teach the children how to consider theconsequences of their actions and contribute to, ratherthan endanger, their communities. MAMA membersknow that many juvenile offenders come from at-riskcommunities and families. Even these children are stillin their formative years and can overcome thisdisadvantaged beginning. But they need help. As Angelareiterates over and over, “You have to save the children.That’s what the focus is on, saving the kids.”
Tangenika Williams, another MAMA member,agrees that juvenile offenders deserve a second chance.She believes that the still-unidentified killer who claimedher husband’s life in a June 25, 2005 drive-by shootingshould “do the time for the crime.” But she also believesthat if the killer was a juvenile – as she suspects – thekiller deserves a “second chance at life.” She recognizesthat juveniles’ “brains aren’t like adults” and thatjuveniles are more susceptible to snap decisions resultingfrom, among other things, peer pressure. Most
30
important for Tangenika is that the killer, if a juvenile,is given a real opportunity at reformation andrehabilitation. She believes that children should bepunished differently than adults: “children needguidance, not a life spent in the penitentiary.”
Tangenika, Angela and other MAMA memberscontinue to bring their message of forgiveness andhealing to others in the community. MAMA providesfamily members comfort, often beginning just hoursafter a murder victim has been found and even at thecrime scenes. They counsel grieving parents and try totalk down angry family members who cannot see pasttheir rage and only want revenge. The experience ofthese crime victim mothers has taught them that ittakes a tremendous commitment to help familymembers of victims. MAMA strives to provide a vitalsource of continuing support and healing, somethingwhich may otherwise be unavailable. MAMA also worksactively with both the police and the community toencourage witnesses to help solve murders. MAMA isdedicated to providing a variety of programs forchildren aimed at helping them cope with loss andturning them away from violence. MAMA’s extensiveadvocacy and activism has given it a unique perspectiveon and stake in juvenile justice issues.
Angela and other members of MAMA have longrecognized that kids “make bad judgments, do badthings; they’re not really realizing what they’re doing.They’re not taught the right things.” MAMA membersbelieve that juvenile offenders, still in their formativeyears of development, have the chance to change only ifsomeone will reach out them. MAMA aims to help the
31
community fill that role and opposes juvenile life withoutparole because it is antithetical to their goal: to giveboth victims and juvenile offenders “a chance at lifeagain.”
***********
It may be contrary to our assumptions that victimsof violent crime would be as forgiving as the victims whoconstitute amici here. But the rationale for theiropinions is supported by the sometimes emotional,sometimes spiritual and always personal journey theyhave traveled. For amici, this journey has led them to aplace where they advocate to see the juvenile killers oftheir family members freed after they have paid theprice for their crimes and shown that they have beenrehabilitated. In their own ways, each account reveals arecognition that proportionality in sentencing isessential and that locking a child away forever for a crimecommitted before that child was fully developed andaccountable is inconsistent with the principle ofproportionality. Each account reflects the significantimpact of successful rehabilitation on the healing of thevictim’s family and the way that this process ofrehabilitation engenders a parallel process offorgiveness in so many victims.
Amici reject juvenile life without parole for theultimate crime of murder. Their experiences shouldinform this Court’s view of whether such a cruelpunishment is ever appropriate for children in non-murder cases. It is not. Juvenile life without parole isunconstitutional in large part because it fails to takeinto account that sentencing does not necessarily
32
become more just with permanence. It is only througha permanent focus on proportionality, rehabilitation andforgiveness that our system of sentencing of juvenilescan be restorative and successful for victims, offendersand communities.
CONCLUSION
For the reason set forth above, amici respectfullyrequest that this Court reverse the ruling of the courtbelow.
