Due Process and Sentencing

Provide Right to Legal Counsel

CJJ agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court decisions In Re Gault and Kent v. United States that guarantee children accused of delinquent offenses and their families a right to counsel. Furthermore, CJJ believes that in no case should a child surrender or waive the right to legal counsel. Access to competent counsel is necessary to ensure that children – particularly those from low-income families and of racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority background – are treated fairly if they come into contact with the juvenile justice system. CJJ calls upon the federal and state governments to provide resources to facilitate training and leadership which will ensure the highest quality of legal representation for all children.

Consider Age and Stage of Development in Sentencing

CJJ opposes statutory schemes that preclude a sentencing judge, in either juvenile or criminal court, from considering the developmental stage of “youth” as a mitigating factor. In so doing, CJJ recognizes the need to utilize current knowledge about adolescent brain science and development, whenever a mandatory and/or determinant sentence is being contemplated for a defendant who is under the age of majority.

Eliminate Juvenile Life without Parole

The United States is the only nation where juveniles are serving life without parole sentences for crimes they committed while under the age of 18. Juveniles are different from adults, as confirmed by recent findings in adolescent brain development research. Consequently, researchers have concluded that juveniles are not as culpable as adults for the offenses they commit. Similarly, due to their developmental capacity, youth under the age of 18 have been shown to be more amenable to treatment than adults and less likely to re-offend in the future when held accountable and treated in ways that are appropriate to their developmental stage.

Detailed research on the use of Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) around the nation has documented evidence of systemic racial disparities, gross failures in legal representation, and many examples of youth being sentenced more harshly than adults convicted of the same crimes. In addition, a large portion of youth serving JLWOP sentences are not repeat offenders, nor have they been convicted of the most serious violent offenses. Rather, nearly 60% of people serving JLWOP are first time offenders.

Elimination of JLWOP does not mean that violent people will simply be released to the streets. Instead, careful periodic reviews for youth who have been convicted of serious offenses will help responsible decision-makers in each state better determine whether these young people continue to pose a threat to the community, and will ensure that those who can prove they have reformed are given an opportunity to re-enter society as contributing citizens.

For these reasons, CJJ opposes the imposition of life sentences without the possibility of parole (JLWOP) for youth who were under the age of 18 when they committed the offense. Further, until such time that all states voluntarily do so, CJJ supports federal policy that incentivizes states to eliminate the practice of sentencing juveniles tried as adults to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Abolish Juvenile Death Penalty

In March, 2005, in a seminal 5-to-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment for those who committed crimes while under the age of majority. For 11 years prior to this decision, CJJ formally opposed the use of the death penalty for any and all individuals whose offenses were committed before the age of 18 years. In 2004, CJJ filed a brief as amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court to support the abolition of the death penalty in Roper v. Simmons, with counsel from Joseph D. Tydings, Miriam R. Vishio, and Erin L. Webb of Dickstein Shapiro Morin and Oshinsky LLP of Washington, DC.

CJJ's Amicus Brief on the Juvenile Death Penalty