Waters hails U.S. Supreme ruling striking down mandatory life sentences for juveniles

HARRISBURG, June 26 – As a long-time advocate for rethinking Pennsylvania’s costly prison incarceration strategy, State Rep. Ronald G. Waters, D-Delaware/Phila., said yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders supports the argument for change.

Waters said the 5-4 Supreme Court decision – which held that for those under 18, a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment – provides the impetus for further dialogue concerning prison reform in the Keystone State.

“As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Pennsylvania has the largest population of teen lifers in the nation – 480 of them, including 350 from Philadelphia,” said Waters. “Of the 80 inmates serving life without parole for crimes committed before age 14, one in four is from Pennsylvania. So it is fair to say that this landmark Supreme Court decision affects Pennsylvania more than any other state.”

Waters said the ruling does not overturn anyone’s conviction; it only means that a judge may now review those sentences, and has the latitude to grant parole and early release if he or she deems it appropriate.

“I have been saying for years that we need to spend less money on prisons, and reinvest that cash in practices that have a proven record of success,” said Waters. “Those practices include job training, addiction treatment, re-entry programs, alternatives for nonviolent and low-risk offenders – and, yes, probation and parole.”

Waters said it makes sense to factor in the age, mental maturity and likelihood of rehabilitation of a juvenile offender when deciding a sentence, even when the crime involves first- or second-degree murder. In Pennsylvania, those crimes had carried a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole, regardless of the age of the perpetrator.

Almost a third of these juveniles condemned to life sentences without parole did not pull the proverbial trigger, or they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, said Waters.

“By restoring a judge’s sentencing discretion in such cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively given back the authority to use a tool that not only provides better justice, but can be used to help reign in our escalating prison costs,” said Waters