Lawmakers must address juvenile sentencing

By Fred M. Mester and Thomas Cranmer

We were two of more than 100 former prosecutors, judges, state bar presidents and former Governor William Milliken who joined a friend of the court brief urging the Michigan Supreme Court to apply a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to those serving a mandatory life without parole sentence handed down when they were teenagers. The Michigan Legislature had already codified the U.S. Supreme Court ruling for cases going forward by removing the “mandatory” part of the sentence thus allowing the judge in each case to tailor the sentence to the person and circumstances before him or her and, ultimately, give the teen convicted a chance to show they have been rehabilitated.

The Legislature paused when it came to applying the new law to the 361 men and women who were already serving what has been deemed an unconstitutional sentence.  They paused because the Michigan Supreme Court had taken up 3 cases related to the retroactive application of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and they wanted to let the judicial branch follow through on its process.

Now that the Michigan Supreme Court decided not to apply the U.S. Supreme Court ruling retroactively, it’s time for the Legislature to stop the pause and press “play.”  In other words, it’s time for the legislative branch to address the issue.

There might be those that will say it will be costly to allow these people to have a parole hearing.  We can think of 4 reasons why we should think twice before believing that argument:

1. Governor Snyder and the Legislature could do exactly what Governor Engler and the Legislature did in 1998 when they repealed the “650 lifer law” and made it retroactive to the hundreds of people convicted to mandatory life without parole for possessing, delivering, or intending to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine or heroin.  By making the change in the law retroactive, Governor Engler paved the way for those convicted to obtain parole hearings.

2. Our criminal justice system is set up for judges or parole boards to fairly assess whether a person has been rehabilitated so the Legislature would not be establishing a new, untested system. 

3. With the passing of MCL 769.25 last year, the Legislature effectively approved the costs of parole hearings for youth convicted of the same crimes as those who are currently serving a life without parole sentence IF the conviction came after 2012. If an unknown number of youth in the future are granted such a hearing (and the state absorbs those hearing costs), it’s hard to imagine the Legislature can object to doing the same for the 361 currently serving life without parole sentences for the same crimes.

4. Not allowing any hearings guarantees that the citizens of Michigan will continue to pay increasing amounts for the housing, feeding and medical care of these individuals for decades to come, without any discernable benefit to public safety. 

What about victims’ families?  Victims’ families are not a monolithic group in how they feel about no chance for parole for adolescents.  There are victims’ families who don’t believe the children who committed these crimes should be thrown away without a chance for redemption and they support release for those that can demonstrate they have been rehabilitated. 

In fact, a group of victims’ families and groups representing victims’ families submitted a friend of the court brief on the juvenile life without parole cases before the Michigan Supreme Court urging the Court to allow those imprisoned under an unconstitutional sentence of mandatory life without parole a chance for parole.  That’s not a guarantee.  It’s simply the opportunity to prove their rehabilitation.   

If Michigan wants to attract businesses, young people and innovation to drive up our economy, we have to lead other states not lag behind them.   When it comes to our approach to prisons and rehabilitation, Michigan is a laggard.  At $2 billion, our State’s corrections budget has increased at a time when our crime rate has decreased.   The Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency just issued a report, Youth Behind Bars, which describes the correction costs incurred by the State that do not make the public any safer.

The 2014 National Council of State Legislatures report, Managing Corrections Costs, hits the nail on the head when it states “managing prison populations is key to managing corrections costs. The largest and potentially most sustainable reductions have resulted from changes to sentencing and corrections policies that have safely lowered prison populations.“ 

That’s what Michigan needs to do—look at common sense changes to sentencing and corrections policies that have the best shot at safely lowering prison populations.  The State’s thinking about corrections is rooted in outdated approaches and has not caught up to the current research especially with regard to how we view youth in the criminal justice system.

 We urge our Legislature to study other states’ approaches to youth involved in the justice system and finish its work on MCL 769.25 by providing hearings to the 361 people serving juvenile life without parole.
————————
Fred M. Mester is a former Oakland County Circuit Court judge and a former prosecutor.  Mester was first appointed to the bench by then Governor William Milliken.  During his time on the bench, Mester  presided over a number of trials involving youth who, because of the governing statutes, were given a mandatory life with no chance for parole.
Thomas Cranmer was an assistant prosecuting attorney in Oakland County and a former assistant chief of the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan.  He is also a past president of the State Bar of Michigan.