Now with the possibility of parole: Enabling a juvenile lifer’s meaningful review

Kokkalera, Stuti S.; Singer, Simon I.

doi:10.1093/bjc/azac001

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to empirical evaluations of parole decisions for juvenile lifers in other states (Bell, 2019; Caldwell, 2016; Kokkalera & Singer, 2022), we found only partial evidence that the Miller factors were employed in prosecutors’ filing decisions. Of the 12 best-predicting variables for filing decisions in either model, we interpret just five variables (being convicted as the principal offender; having an adult co-defendant; the number of assaultive misconduct tickets; program participation; and last prison security level of 2) as aligning with any of the Miller factors: the role of the individual in the offense and youths’ capacity for rehabilitation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Both Bell (2019) and Caldwell (2016) studied parole decisions for individuals sentenced as youth to LWOP as well as those sentenced to lengthy non-life prison terms and life with parole, due to the nature of Miller (2012) reform in California. In contrast, Kokkalera and Singer (2022) focused specifically on JLWOP cases in Massachusetts, analyzing parole board statements announcing release decisions in 33 JLWOP parole hearings. Contrary to parole decisions in California, they found that four of the five Miller factors were evoked in the board’s statements (no mention was made regarding diminished competencies for navigating the legal system).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prosecutor Decision-Making Following Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Reform

Ouellet

Wareham

2023

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosecutors play an integral role in implementing sentencing reform measures in the United States. Following the Supreme Court’s recent restrictions of the use of life without parole sentences for juveniles (JLWOP), county prosecutors in Michigan were tasked with initiating resentencing proceedings by filing sentencing motions for individuals who were currently serving JLWOP (so-called “juvenile lifers”). These motions intimated whether, following the changes in sentencing policy, the prosecutor sought a new life without parole sentence or if they consented to the default term-of-years sentence that would allow a juvenile lifer an opportunity for release. In this paper, we analyze the best-fitting characteristics predicting prosecutor filing decisions. Guided by the focal concerns framework, we ultimately find evidence that prosecutors made filing decisions in ways that were consistent with their existing decision-making schema, relying on characteristics that aligned with typical conceptions of blameworthiness and dangerousness. Prosecutors’ decisions were not associated with characteristics reflecting the new guidance or mitigative logics provided by Supreme Court’s rulings, such as age and immaturity. We conclude that prosecutors’ implementation of sentencing reform measures is constrained by the extent that new policy parameters overlap with existing focal concerns and provide several policy recommendations for addressing this issue.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosecutor Decision-Making Following Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Reform

Ouellet

Wareham

2023

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A greater number of previous appearances before the Board influenced the odds of release as did appearing for a review hearing following a previous denial. The repeated appearances indicates that parole boards may be operating with an imagined amount of time before supporting release (Dagan, 2021;Howard, 2017) or that the candidate needed to provide more evidence of their suitability of release (Dagan, 2021;Kokkalera & Singer, 2023). Offense seriousness seems to matter too in the context of the total number of crimes that a juvenile lifer candidate was sentenced for.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, the Board is more likely to arrive at a decision more quickly when the candidate has clearly prioritized rehabilitation. Those who have participated in programming, employment opportunities, and sought education are perhaps viewed as having taken concrete steps towards rehabilitation (Kokkalera & Singer, 2023), warranting the Board to take less time to publish a decision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most states have responded to the Supreme Court by addressing when a juvenile previously sentenced to LWOP is eligible for parole (Russell, 2014(Russell, , 2016, but there needs to be deeper reflection on what is a meaningful review for all juveniles sentenced to life-one that not only looks at their reduced culpability but also how their adolescent status has impacted their rehabilitative efforts. Indeed, in the post-Miller era, parole boards should consider revising their guidelines to specifically address what constitutes a meaningful review of a juvenile lifer's adolescence (Kokkalera & Singer, 2023;Russell, 2014Russell, , 2016. While the state examined in this study considers the juvenile lifer population as those who received life with parole and previously sentenced to LWOP now eligible for release through court rulings or legislation, other states that have banned LWOP may make distinctions between juvenile lifers who received life with parole, LWOP, and virtual life sentences when revising or creating decision-making criteria for parole release.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analyzing the Release of Juvenile Lifers: Is There a Miller Effect?

Kokkalera,

Smith,

Wronski

2023

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court directed states to provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” to juvenile lifers—one that acknowledges their lesser culpability and rehabilitative potential. In the state examined, the parole board revised its decision-making guidelines in 2014 by incorporating the Miller ruling. Logistic regression and survival analyses were employed to examine parole outcomes. Hearings that took place in the post- Miller period and the candidate’s rehabilitative status were associated with a higher likelihood of release. A candidate’s rehabilitative efforts were also associated with the amount of time taken to decide grant or denial of release, as were factors related to the candidate’s sentencing offense such as time served and opposition at the parole hearing. Overall, the guidelines representing the Miller ruling seem to have influenced the outcome as well as the speed at which decisions are reached by the parole board.

show abstract

Technically Not Life: HowDe FactoLife Sentences Condemn Juveniles to Die in Prison

Laugalis,

Koza,

Kokkalera

et al. 2023

Criminal Justice Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi reignited interest in the constitutionality of lengthy prison sentences for juveniles. A substantial proportion of juveniles convicted of homicide and nonhomicide are currently serving “virtual life” or “ de facto life” sentences. De facto life sentences are lengthy sentences that may be considered the equivalent of a life sentence. This article investigates how states’ statutory schemes and appellate court decisions have allowed for the use of de facto life sentences for juveniles convicted of homicide as well as nonhomicide offenses. By employing content analytical techniques, this article identifies the variation in how de facto life sentences are defined and applied across the states. Nearly every state imposes some type of de facto life sentence on juveniles, suggesting that the time is ripe for courts to determine whether these “virtual life” terms adhere to the Court's Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

show abstract

Now with the possibility of parole: Enabling a juvenile lifer’s meaningful review

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Prosecutor Decision-Making Following Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Reform

Prosecutor Decision-Making Following Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Reform

Analyzing the Release of Juvenile Lifers: Is There a Miller Effect?

Technically Not Life: HowDe FactoLife Sentences Condemn Juveniles to Die in Prison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About