![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
In 2012, the US Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama (2012) ruled unconstitutional the sentencing of minors to life without the possibility of parole (~2800 people in the US) under mandatory sentencing schema, and in 2016, Montgomery v. Louisiana determined this ruling to be retroactive. These decisions also gave states wide discretion in complying with these rulings and implementing a “meaningful opportunity for release.” Beginning in 2012, California passed several progressive laws granting opportunities for parole for people serving juvenile life sentences. In this study, we present and analyze three cases of seeking parole through three different legal mechanisms as they evolved over time. We address the following research questions: How do juvenile lifers experience seeking parole under these various mechanisms? What is the role of standard parole factors, including remorse/insight, evidence of rehabilitation, and disciplinary infractions in these hearings? What is the role of the “hallmark features of youth” in these hearings?
Methods: This study uses narrative analysis of three rich, and detailed cases of people seeking parole under one of three major California resentencing policies for juvenile lifers. For each case, we triangulate three major sources of data: parole transcripts, interviews with released former lifers, and the text of the law. Parole transcripts were retrieved from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and up to three interviews were conducted with participants upon their release from a life sentence. To triangulate data, parole transcripts, interview transcripts, and respective legislation were each analyzed independently at first. Themes were identified in the corresponding interview and parole transcripts, and then cross referenced to identify any overlap or inconsistencies. We attended to how parole and/or resentencing process was shaped by the relevant legislation, how it was implemented in practice, and how participants experienced their hearings. From this analysis, we then compiled a case study for each participant, weaving together the interview and parole hearing data, as informed by the related policy.
Findings: In all three cases, the parole board relied on standard parole factors such as demonstration of remorse and insight, prison behavior, and participation in rehabilitation programming to determine suitability for release. However, as the legislation evolved from 2012 onward, the parole board appeared to be more considerate of specific youth as a mitigation factor and less inclined to view youthfulness as a risk factor for continued violence. The two participants who had multiple hearings moved from their youth being considered a liability for parole to a facilitating factor for release.
Implications and Conclusions:
The parole process for a life sentence for youth is fraught with emotional challenges that need to be considered by those working with lifers for mitigation hearings or resentencing procedures. Moreover, while California’s policies have gone beyond national precedent in protecting the due process rights of juvenile lifers, there is mixed evidence that these reforms meet the federal standard of providing a meaningful opportunity for release specifically for youth lifers.