Public Policy: Testimony on House Bills 4518, 4594–4596: Juvenile Life Without Parole Legislation
The debate on this issue has gone on for many years, and it always becomes clouded by emotion. The emotions, however, are real. The crimes committed by the individuals in question are an affront to our society. The pain felt by a victim’s family is real, and long-lasting. Remorse, and the desire for reconciliation, can also be present on the part of the incarcerated.
Offenders should be held accountable for their crimes, yet Michigan's current juvenile life without parole statute sends the message that those who commit even a dreadful crime are beyond redemption, or correction.
There are youthful offenders who know the difference between right and wrong, and there are those who do not. There is a matter of culpability to consider, which is separate from the matter of guilt or innocence. While there are exceptions to the following rule in terms of maturity, teenagers are in fact different than individuals in their 20’s or 30’s.
It would seem sensible, therefore, for a judge to have the flexibility to view all the circumstances of a particular crime, including the mental maturity of a perpetrator, and to mete out justice accordingly.
Since the last hearing on this topic, there has been another decision of the U.S. Supreme Court citing the emotional and developmental differences between adult and juvenile offenders. The Court did not, however, strike down the use of this sentence in all cases. While we may wish that they had, the Justices did not. For this reason, the MCC supports instituting judicial discretion for future judicial proceedings.
For those currently serving their life sentences, the situation is a bit different.
I have sat here for every moment of testimony on this issue for the past two legislative sessions. Those who have testified against changing the law did so for two main reasons….either they were the family of a victim to whom a promise had been made; that there would be no parole opportunity, or they were the prosecutor who made that promise. In that it was the law at the time of sentencing, the MCC agrees that there should only be a parole hearing if the family of the victim grants its consent. We also are willing to support the special “veto” given to prosecutors and judges, while this is most likely unnecessary. Prosecutors and judges can always argue against releasing someone during the parole process. In these cases, it is the victim’s family that should matter most. Again, this is simply about granting a parole hearing, and not an automatic release. If an individual is repeatedly turned down for parole because of a threat they would pose to society, so be it.
While not perfect, the substitute versions of the bills in this package are an improvement over current law, and we support their passage today.
