I know there is no death penalty in Michigan, regardless of age, but shouldn't the ACLU have waited until SCOTUS invalidates the death penalty for all 16 & 17 year olds before they start demanding that life sentences for those offenders in Michigan now be commuted/paroled? Someone might just happen upon such a suggestion and point to it as evidence of future anti-public safety initiatives to come from the ACLU, et al., should they succeed in further restricting the death penalty ...

The Link

State urged to consider parole for those convicted as children
September 14, 2004, 3:03 PM

DETROIT (AP) -- Michigan should adapt its juvenile crime laws to allow hundreds of prisoners who were 17 or younger when they committed their crimes to be considered for parole, a new report says.

At least 307 people serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole were convicted of serious crimes when they were younger than 18, according to a study released Tuesday by the Michigan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU project, headed by Ann Arbor attorney Deborah Labelle, said 161 people serving life without parole were 17 when they committed their crimes; 101 were 16; 43 were 15, and two were 14.

Nearly half of the 124 prisoners who responded to the ACLU survey said they were either convicted of aiding and abetting and were not the person who committed the murder, or that they were innocent. Many of their stories are verified by trial transcripts, police reports and interviews, Labelle said.

"Then there are the juveniles who committed the violent act," Labelle told the Detroit Free Press. "They're still juveniles. They're different than adults."

The ACLU study was paid for by a $100,000 grant from the JEHT Foundation, a New York City-based organization devoted to issues of social justice.

Kary Moss, the executive director of the Michigan ACLU, says she hopes lawmakers will look at offering the possibility of parole to these offenders.

"Everybody assumes all these kids pulled the trigger. That's not true," Moss told The Detroit News.

But a state legislator who helped create laws in the 1990s that made it easier for children of any age to be tried as adults for certain crimes defends the state's record.

"I think the law is working well; it has enough options for the judge," said state Rep. William VanRegenmorter, R-Georgetown Township, who was a state senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In 1996, Michigan law was changed to lower the age of juveniles who could be automatically charged as adults, from 15 to 14.

Prosecutors were allowed to seek a blended sentence for juveniles of any age, meaning that a juvenile court judge could decide to sentence a youth to either adult prison, juvenile rehabilitation or both.

And even with a sentence of life without parole, inmates may still be eligible for a pardon or commutation by the governor.

If, as SCOTUS is so fond of pointing out, "death is different", then the decision in Roper should have no bearing on whether "juveniles" are considered for special treatment under the parole laws. So I would say there is no gun to be jumped. Since the offender's age at time of commission of the offense was likely given careful consideration at the outset, the punishment decisions already made should not be overturned arbitrarily. Once the length of a sentence becomes cruel and unusual or parole becomes an entitlement, then the punishment for all offenses will have to be defined in the constitution. The age of the offender is irrelevant to the harm caused by the criminal act, and that factor must continue to carry the most weight in the decision. Of course, those respondents who were innocent should be considered for more than just parole.