Tomorrow morning, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, challenging the controversial practice of sentencing juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Hopefully, the Court will resist the common visceral response to youth violence and consider the scientific evidence that, as compared with adults, adolescents are less equipped to contemplate the consequences of their crimes, are more susceptible to pressure from peers to engage in behaviors they would not ordinarily commit on their own, and may, therefore, someday earn a second chance.

It has been decades since state legislatures around the country overreacted to the late-1980s surge in youth violence by expanding the pool of juveniles who could be tried and punished as if they were adults. Several criminologists (with me among them) had warned that juvenile crime rates could continue to surge if there were not a deep and determined investment in youth development. Unfortunately, most politicians took an alternative approach, emphasizing punishment rather than prevention.

The wholesale transfer of juveniles to the jurisdiction of the criminal court was supported by the catchy, yet illogical slogan, “adult time for adult crime.” Juveniles may look like adults, talk like adults, and even kill like adults, but they reason like the immature kids they are really are. Adolescents are not just a smaller version of adults.

No surprise that there aren’t many criminologist jokes floating about, at least as far as I’m aware. Still, I do recall one I heard back in graduate school that may actually have some relevance to the ongoing debate up on Beacon Hill concerning the best approach to punishing the worst offenders.

It is told that there was once a very old land ruled by a very old King who, in a gesture of compassion from his deathbed, ordered all prison sentences to be immediately cut in half. By the King’s decree, a robber’s ten-year prison term was commuted to five years, and the rapist who was serving a 30-year sentence saw his penalty reduced to 15 years. But prison officials, having to carry out the King’s wishes without deviation, had no clue on how to proceed with halving the sentences of murderers serving life. The Warden was just about as confused as many appear today about the House and Senate bills pertaining to habitual offenders.

To make a long and lame story short and painless, the punch line came in the advice that the Warden received when consulting with a local criminologist about how to administer half a life sentence. “Let the murderer go free tomorrow,” recommended the criminologist. But before the Warden could utter a word of dismay, the learned advisor continued detailing the plan. “Then bring him back to prison the next day, and continue the release/return process for alternating days of freedom and incarceration until the convict dies a natural death.” Never was the term “revolving justice” any truer.

The turn of the calendar always brings news about how crime levels have trended over the previous year. And like many cities around the country, Boston witnessed fewer crimes in 2011 than 2010, including a double-digit drop in homicide.
 
With crime rates at a 50-year low, this is a good time to re-examine our criminal justice policies, especially those measures implemented in a knee-jerk fashion when crime rates and higher levels of fear were peaking. We should begin in the areas that are a significant drain on the budget, such as our over-reliance on lengthy prison terms for juvenile murderers who, after decades of incarceration, no longer pose a danger to society. And this is hardly a left-wing, soft-on-crime idea, as even conservatives like Newt Gingrich have argued that we can't afford to continue pouring vast sums of tax dollars into prison systems.

Currently under consideration by the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary is a pair of bills (S. 672 and H. 1346) that would eliminate sentences of life without parole for juvenile murderers. Under the existing statute, passed back in 1996, all juveniles as young as 14 convicted of first degree murder -- including felony-murder and acts committed by accomplices -- are hopelessly ineligible for parole consideration.

In its breadth and rigidity, Massachusetts law stands as one of the very stiffest in the nation. The proposed juvenile justice reform would directly impact the 59 juvenile murderers currently locked up for life in Massachusetts prisons. If the legislation is passed and signed into law, the Massachusetts parole board would be empowered to grant second chances to juvenile murderers, that is, of course, only if deserving of such after lengthy incarceration.

An amendment to the Senate parole reform bill (S.2054) debated today included a provision to grant parole eligibility to juveniles convicted of murder. Unfortunately, and to the disappointment of amender Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester), that provision was dropped.

This was a good day for the criminal justice system. A federal judge set aside the death sentence given confessed serial killer Gary Lee Sampson upon proof that one of the jurors who had recommended death had concealed information that would have disqualified her from service.

Despite the fact that justice prevailed, this turn of events will undoubtedly upset many people -- and for very different reasons.

The response to my last blog post--a call to abolish life without parole sentences for juvenile murderers in Massachusetts--was lively and contentious. While many readers concurred with the goal of better aligning our state with the rest of the nation, some would have Massachusetts remain one of the harshest and most punitive when it comes to sentencing youth.

The negative tenor of certain reader comments was unsurprising, not because introducing parole eligibility for juvenile murderers is in any way a radical idea. Rather the unwillingness of some folks to consider he reforms proposed in S. 672 and H. 1346 (An Act Relative to the Sentencing of Children), is based on an array of misconceptions and falsehoods about juvenile justice.

We can all recognize and sympathize with the heartbreak endured by the Kerrigan clan. After having lost a husband/father to a violent family feud, Brenda and Nancy Kerrigan hoped and prayed, begged and pleaded, not to have their son/brother Mark lost to incarceration as punishment for his role in causing the father’s death. In a tear-filled appeal delivered prior to sentencing, the Kerrigan women suggested that the victim, 70-year-old Daniel Kerrigan, would not have wanted to see his son go to jail for the crime, but to be sent home to help the family grieve.

Despite the free-flowing emotions witnessed in her court, Middlesex Superior Court Judge S. Jane Haggerty was unconvinced and made the absolutely right decision to reject the family's request. As always, justice should be based on an objective assessment of the facts, notwithstanding the bidding by family of the victim or perpetrator.

The wheels of justice may be notoriously slow, but at least the dozen men and women charged with determining the fate of Christopher Gribble acted swiftly. Of course, a lengthy deliberation would have been almost as surprising as any verdict other than guilty of murder in the first degree. At least from the sideline, south of the New Hampshire border, this case seemed as open-and-shut as ever there is.

The defense strategy of portraying the confessed killer as being so devoid of empathy and human emotion that his decision to kill was little more than an involuntary reflex was surely a long shot. But in defense of the defense, it was the only shot. Gribble may certainly be deeply flawed; but his defect is of the character, not of the mind.

The unfortunate part about this failed attempt to portray Gribble’s violent acts as the product of mental disease or defect is the mockery it makes of the insanity defense itself. I absolutely do believe in the validity and the important role of the insanity defense in our legal system, as there are indeed some offenders whose actions are beyond their understanding and control. But public cynicism fueled by long shots like Gribble’s makes it almost impossible for deserving defendants to prevail in insanity cases, especially in high profile trials.

In the final judgment, I am quite satisfied with the resolution of Gribble’s trial. His absurd insanity claim was summarily dismissed by the jury, and he will be incarceration for life without ever having the possibility of parole release. This is exactly how it should be for the most violent, vicious and ruthless of murderers.

Author's note: You can follow me on twitter at @jamesalanfox for notifications of new blog postings. Also, you can find me on the Web at www.jamesalanfox.com or contact me by e-mail at j.fox@neu.edu.

Last summer, when suspected Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff chose suicide over the prospect of life imprisonment, the murder prosecution came to a sudden and unanticipated halt. The family of Julissa Brisman, the erotic masseuse who met her deadly fate when she met up with the Craiglist client in an upscale hotel room, reacted to the news with shock and dismay. Carmen Guzman was denied the closure that she hoped would come from the trial and conviction of her daughter’s killer.

At a minimum, a criminal trial would have provided Guzman with some answers in her quest to discover everything about her daughter’s last moments alive. And now, the heartbroken mother is understandably frustrated over the many months it has taken for the case file to be purged of sensitive information pertaining to innocent parties, so that it could be shared.

But there is a secondary reason for Guzman’s pursuit of the details, horrific and upsetting though they may be. According to the family attorney, the specifics may also help to build a civil suit against those bearing at least partial responsibility for the crime: the local hotel where Brisman was killed and the New Hampshire gun dealer who is believed to have sold Markoff the murder weapon. It is rather common for grieving families to seek accountability, especially when the true villain is not around to take the heat.

The column below was written in advance of today’s verdict convicting Steven Spader of murder and other charges. Neither the speed nor the outcome of the jury’s deliberation was at all surprising. Given the extremely sympathetic victims and the extremely unsympathetic defendant in this case, it would have been a shocker had the jury taken even one night to sleep on its decision.

There was very little that would have persuaded the jury to find reasonable doubt, as Spader's own actions and words spoke volumes about his dangerousness and arrogance. Like most people, I am confident that the verdict was just. However, the prosecution’s decision to deal with Spader’s unsavory accomplices, even if deemed necessary to secure a conviction, is not the best means for ensuring justice.

The evidentiary phase in the trial of Steven Spader, the 18-year-old New Hampshire man accused of murdering Kimberly Cates and attempting to kill her daughter Jaimie inside their Mont Vernon home, concluded last week without a single witness taking the stand for the defense. By contrast, the prosecution offered up dozens of witnesses, including several friends of Spader believed to have joined him in carrying out the brutal home invasion last year.

Despite the lack of direct testimony on his client’s behalf, Jonathan Cohen was hardly silent when addressing the jury in his closing argument. The defense attorney went on the offensive, attacking the state's case by challenging the credibility of certain key prosecution witnesses – specifically, the accomplices to murder whose sworn testimony was obtained in exchange for reduced penalties.

It is hardly uncommon for prosecutors to utilize the testimony of accomplices or snitches to secure a conviction. Typically, however, guilt is corroborated by physical evidence of some kind, such as fingerprints, blood, DNA or surveillance video. The big surprise in the Spader case was in the complete lack of physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene, even though this could be explained, as the prosecutor contends, by steps the accused may have taken to cover his trail.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from the defendant's own mouth and hand. Following the murders, even while locked in a jail cell awaiting trial, Spader apparently couldn't resist boasting and bragging about the murders. Indeed, if anything has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, it is Spader’s narcissism and desire to be seen as tough and fearless.

Undaunted by the lack of evidence from the crime scene and from the riverbed where certain incriminating items may have been disposed, the prosecutor repeatedly emphasized detailed statements allegedly made by defendant in poems, text messages and letters. He reportedly boasted of killing dozens of people and wanting to kill more, although nothing suggesting any other homicides was introduced. He also bragged of ties to a national street gang without there being anything to confirm a gang affiliation. Of course, Spader would hardly be the first to exaggerate, or even fabricate, for the sake of attention.

It is unlikely that any member of the jury will feel even a shred of sympathy toward the defendant. His poetry, letters and text messages would convince even the most skeptical of his anti-social nature. And taken altogether, few court observers, including myself, would be surprised by a verdict of guilty as charged. Even so, shouldn't we expect much more than brash talk from the defendant and damning testimony induced from co-conspirators?

Notwithstanding the defendant’s own actions and demeanor, I am troubled by the heavy reliance on the word of accomplices who would certainly have an incentive to lie or twist the truth. Although perfectly legal, we should be very cautious about deals with criminals.