In the aftermath of Miller v. Alabama, a case that abolished automatic life without parole sentencing of children convicted of murder, the question has arisen whether its holding in Miller is retroactive to child offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided. The Supreme Court of the United States in a six-three decision, answered this question with a resounding, “Yes”.
On January 25th, 2016 in the case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that Miller’s prohibition on automatic life without parole sentences for child homicide offenders is retroactive in cases on state collateral appeal review. The court’s ruling affects states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, and California, whose State Supreme Court held that Miller was not retroactive to child offenders in cases on state collateral review, and therefore did not provide parole eligibility to child offenders sentenced to mandatory life without parole. All of that has now changed.
Pennsylvania, having the most child offenders serving life without parole in the nation, must now provide parole eligibility to its approximately 550 child lifer prisoner population. This places Pennsylvania in a quandary, because Pennsylvania courts and District Attorney Association were, and are, dead set against resentencing child offenders and extending parole eligibility to them, and is now being forced to do so by the Supreme Court of the United States.
So, it begs the question, what will the conservative right wing Pennsylvania courts, DA’s, and legislature now do in response to the Montgomery decision and being forced to provide resentencing and parole eligibility to child lifer prisoners? The Supreme Court has mistakenly attempted to show recalcitrant states like Pennsylvania a way forward. Justice Kennedy, delivering the Supreme Court opinion stated that, “Giving Miller retroactive effect does not require states to relitigate sentences in every case where a child offender received mandatory life or parole,” and then recommended that a state may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole rather than by resentencing them. Pennsylvania have several options for resentencing child lifers and extending parole eligibility to them.
Pennsylvania could do any other following: (1) the Pennsylvania legislature could amend the murder statute for children to make it retroactive in cases on state collateral review, (2) the Pennsylvania legislature could amend the parole statute to extend parole eligibility to the 550 child lifers, (3) the Pennsylvania legislature could amend the post conviction release statute to allow a mechanism that will allow any legal sentence to be corrected at any time by the trial court that imposed the sentence, (4) the Pennsylvania trial courts and DA’s office could choose to not relitigate every mandatory life without parole sentence received by child offenders. Instead, they could resentence child lifers based on degree of murder and whether a child killed or didn’t kill someone, (5) the Pennsylvania judicial system could continue being obstructionist by employing judicial tactics to delay resentencing and parole release.
Each of those judicial options are fraught with its own sets of problems, but option four is the most viable, and therefore sensible, to resolve this problematic task of resentencing and extending parole eligibility to 550 child lifer prisoners. Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania establishment isn’t known much for exercising common sense. From the belly of the beast at Prison Radio, I am Shakaboona. Thank you for listening.
These commentaries are recorded by Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio
