Juwan Wickware wasn't the shooter. But he and more than 2,500 others nationwide will enter prison as teenagers, grow into adults, and die – all behind bars.
This is not right. The sentence must fit the crime, and we cannot throw away kids' lives.
Here's Juwan's story: When he was 16, he and another young kid robbed a pizza deliveryman. Both kids were armed with guns. Tragically, his friend shot and killed the man. Although this was Juwan's first offense, and despite a documented learning disability, troubled home environment, and a psychological evaluation concluding that Juwan could be rehabilitated, the judge sentenced Juwan to life in prison with no possibility of parole (LWOP). The boy who pulled the trigger was acquitted because a witness could not identify him.
%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20id%3D%22media-youtube-etnvbcjxm9c%22%20width%3D%22576%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22Why%20Are%20Kids%20Getting%20Cruel%20And%20Unusual%20Punishment%3F%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FetNvBcJxM9c%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Benablejsapi%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Bplayerapiid%3Dmedia-youtube-etnvbcjxm9c%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3EVideo%20of%20Why%20Are%20Kids%20Getting%20Cruel%20And%20Unusual%20Punishment%3F%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
Juwan is one of over 350 people serving this sentence in Michigan alone—the second highest number among states in the U.S. Today, the ACLU is representing thirty-two of these Michigan prisoners in a hearing before the (IACHR), a Washington, D.C.-based tribunal charged with examining allegations of human rights abuses committed by members of the , which includes the United States.
Our petition argues that human rights laws prohibit anyone from being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes they commit as children. Kids are still growing. Throwing away the duration of their lives does not make any sense. Any punishment kids do receive should reflect their unique capacity for rehabilitation.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has begun to recognize the cruel and unusual nature of sentencing kids to be behind bars until they die, and has taken significant steps towards ending the practice. In (2010) the Court held that life-without-parole sentences for non-homicide offenses committed by persons below the age of eighteen are unconstitutional, and in two years later, banned mandatory life without parole sentences for children who commit homicide offenses. Following the Supreme Court's lead, some states have passed laws eliminating life without parole sentences for children, and supreme courts in states like and Illinois have retroactively and proactively banned the punishment for kids.
But because Miller and Graham did not categorically ban the practice, life without parole sentences for kids are still allowed in "rare" cases. This means that in 2014, Americans may still be sentenced to die in prison for crimes they commit as children. Forty-four states . In Michigan alone, since the Court's 2012 ruling in Miller, two children, including Juwan, have been sentenced to life without parole. Moreover, a number of states, including Michigan, have refused to apply Miller retroactively, meaning that thousands of individuals convicted of crimes committed when they were children will languish behind bars until they die, regardless of whether they grow into mature adults or are rehabilitated.
At , Congressman John Conyers, ACLU attorney Deborah LaBelle, and former Michigan State Court Judge, the Honorable Fred Mester, will urge the U.S. Government and State of Michigan to take immediate steps to change this sad state of affairs by adopting measures to ban life-without-parole sentences for children in all circumstances, allow all individuals presently serving the sentence a meaningful opportunity for review, and examine racial disparities in the imposition of these extreme sentences.
The U.S. remains the in the world that imposes LWOP on children. The international community has long recognized that people who committed crimes as children deserve a second chance. It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.
Learn more about juvenile justice and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.