Mandatory Life-Without-Parole Sentences For Juveniles

On November 18, 1999, Kuntrell Jackson accompanied his older cousin, Travis Booker, and an older friend, Derrick Shields, to a video store after discussing robbing the store (Chang & Wang, 2012). Jackson waited outside of the store while Shields entered, pointed a shotgun at the clerk, and demanded money; Jackson entered shortly after, and while he was in the store Shields shot and killed the store clerk because she would not give him money and mentioned calling the police (Chang & Wang, 2012). After Shields shot the clerk, he left the store with Jackson and Booker; they did not steal anything from the store while they were inside, even after the clerk had been shot and killed (Chang & Wang, 2012). Nearly four years later, on July 19, 2003,

557). To understand this ruling, one must understand exactly why life-without-parole sentences for juveniles are considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. In Jackson’s case, for example, the facts show that Jackson did not kill anyone, did not possess any weapons, and did not take anything from the store, yet he was still convicted of capital felony-murder and aggravated robbery. Jackson, a young boy who was presumably influenced by the older boys, was being held responsible for crimes that he did not actually commit. During sentencing, the circumstances of the case and Jackson’s age could not be taken into consideration; the mandatory sentence was just handed down. At fourteen-years-old, Jackson was sentenced to spend the rest of his living years behind bars in an adult population, all because he was in the wrong place with the wrong people. This is cruel and unusual

Why was a young boy sentenced to life-without-parole, which is arguably the same as a death sentence, for just being in the store when his friend killed a woman? It was not fair for his life to be taken away from him for being a bystander to his friend’s crimes, it was not fair for him to be given a sentence that did not give him any chance for rehabilitation, and it was not fair that his age and the circumstances could not be taken into consideration. Jackson did not kill anyone, Jackson did not harm anyone, Jackson was not violent, and Jackson did not steal anything. It could be argued that he went along knowing that there was a discussion of robbing the store, or he did nothing after his friend killed the woman, and that could be considered wrongdoing. However, those actions (or lack of) can be attributed to his inexperienced youth. If that aspect of the situation should be addressed, a better solution for Jackson would have been individual or group counseling to help him work through proper responses to situations, how to deal with peer pressure, and how to cope after witnessing a murder. Some other forms of community treatment, community service, or even probation could have been fitting for rehabilitation/punishment/treatment. Sentencing him to mandatory life-without-parole was not the solution; the transfer process from juvenile court to adult