Juvenile Life Without Parole - Right or Wrong?

Lewis was convicted of Felony murder at 14-years old
he will serve time in Juvenile Detention before being
officially sentenced at age 21 where life without
parole is a very real possibility.

According to the Amnesty International website, there are around 2500 people serving life without parole sentences in the U.S for crimes committed when they were under 18. Furthermore, although other countries, such as Antigua, Cuba and Nigeria, also permit life without parole for juveniles the United States is the only country actively practising it. Despite a U.S Supreme Ruling in 2012 demanding ALL states abolish mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles, only 13 out of 28 states have complied. According to Amnesty International, these states are actively breaking international law and certain standards that are generally accepted worldwide. 

In California, around 237 juveniles are serving life without parole sentences, with some of these being as young as 14 when sentenced. Perhaps more striking is the fact that over half of these juveniles did not commit the actual criminal act themselves. Instead, they either assisted during the commission of the crime or provided support to the actual individual(s). 

In Florida, several individuals who were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles are bringing law suits before the Supreme court in a hope of getting their sentences commuted to a lesser term. One of the plaintiffs is Shimeek Gridine, in 2009 a 14-year old Gridine and his 12-year old friend made a bungled attempted to rob a man in Jacksonville, Florida. The victim, somewhat stunned by the robbery attempt ran away from the boys, when Gridine fired a shotgun. The bullet grazed past the man's shoulder and head but thankfully he wasn't seriously injured. Despite hoping for a lenient sentence as a young offender with no past criminal history, he was jailed for 70 years with no chance of parole. In a Supreme Court ruling in 2005, the death penalty for juveniles under the age of 18 was abolished as 'cruel and unusual punishment'. It is this ruling that is being used in many of the Florida lawsuits, Shimeek Gridine's included, on the basis that sentences of 70 years plus violate this ruling. 

So what is your opinion? Do you believe if you are big enough to commit the crime, you are big enough to do the time? Or does sentencing juveniles to life without parole not take into account that these individuals are still maturing, physically, emotionally and mentally? Should a 'child' of 14 be held just as culpable if they commit the same crime as a 30-year old? Or is 14, 15 years of age just too young to assume they cannot be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society?

Shimeek Gridine sentenced to 70 years
without parole at 14-years old.

Happy New Year! Guest Bloggers Wanted!

                                                               

The death penalty debate still rages on...

First of all, Happy New Year to all who stop by and read my blog - I hope 2015 is a happy, healthy year for each one of you. Although I started this blog back in April 2014, I haven't had as much time to dedicate to it as I would of liked. This has especially frustrated me, because it has proved to be a popular....small....but popular blog. It is therefore my new year's resolution to spend more time on my blog. I have been lucky enough to have several people leave comments on my posts, all had differing opinions and all had a good point to make. This is why I have decided to appeal for guest bloggers. Basically, it would involve you writing a piece on ANY subject (within the criminal justice genre) that you like. It can be written as you want it, no matter what your opinion and your piece will be posted to the blog as is - it will only be checked by me for spelling errors. 

The Robert Pruett case has fascinated me from the minute I watched the Life and Death Row documentary over here in the UK. I was convinced from that, Pruett was innocent - of the murder of the corrections officer, Daniel Nagle - and that was that. Yet, when I wrote a post on this case, it received many comments, some from people who know Robert Pruett, others who are all to familiar with the TDCJ system and people who just knew more than I did about the case. I must admit I now sit on the fence with this case, something I never like to do but I believe these people and the Pruett case have helped me become more open minded. Something I would like to do for others. 

If you would like to write a guest blog piece, you can contact me directly at lollipopwrites@gmail.com . 

Write a post on a criminal subject of your choice...

The Law of Parties - Is it Fair?

The Law of Parties is a Felony Murder Rule

                                        
The Law of Parties is Texas' Felony murder rule. It means, that in the eyes of the law, a person can be held criminally responsible for the actions of another if she conspires, aids and abets that person. However, the Law of Parties is different to the Felony Murder Rule in other jurisdictions, especially when it comes to cases where the death penalty is on the table. In essence, in Texas, someone convicted of murder under the Law of Parties can face the death penalty as well as the person who carried out the deed. 

The Texas Moratorium Network led a bill, in 2009, attempting to bring an end to people receiving the death penalty if they were convicted under the Law of Parties. Despite being approved by the Texas House of Representatives, the bill was not passed by the senate. And so, to this day, people are still convicted and sentenced to death under this law, despite not committing the deed. 

Robert Lynn Pruett - He was sentenced to 99 years in prison at the grand old age of 15, after his neighbour was murdered by his father. Because prosecutors decided Pruett's father would not have killed the man had Pruett not incited him by insinuating the man was harassing and verbally abusing him, Robert Pruett was convicted under the Law of Parties. In April 2002, Pruett was convicted of the murder of a prison officer and sentence to death. He is currently appealing his, incredibly shaky, conviction. 

Ray Jasper - Convicted of the 1998 murder of studio boss, David Alejandro. He and two accomplices broke into property owned by Mr Alejandro intending to steal expensive stereo equipment. However, the victim happened upon the three robbers and while Jasper admitted to cutting the victim's throat, he was insistent this was only after his two accomplices delivered over 25 fatal stab wounds to Mr Alejandro. He was convicted under the Law of Parties and sentenced to death in 2000. In March 2014, Ray Jasper was executed by lethal injection. 

Clinton Lee Young - Was sentenced to death under the law of parties after he was deemed as responsible as two co-defendants for the brutal murder of two men for their cars. During the trial, it was Young who was deemed to be the gun man, whereas Young has always denied being the shooter. He is currently in Texas' Polunksy Unit waiting on the results of various appeals. 

So, what is your view of the Law of Parties? Is a 15 year old really responsible for the actions of a grown man? and did he really deserve a full life sentence at such a young age. Or do you think people, such as Jasper and Young, use the Law of Parties, to try and claim their innocence for a crime they actually did commit? 

Many campaigners are against the controversial
Law of Parties. 

Robert Pruett - Did He Do It?

Robert Lynn Pruett
(Photo courtesy of The Express)

I first became aware of the Robert Pruett case around the same time most people in the UK did, when the documentary Life and Death Row was aired on BBC 3. A compelling documentary, the second programme centred on what is known as "Crisis Cases". These cases are when a death row inmate is looking at an imminent execution date and is looking for any and every kind of help he/she can get that may get them a stay of execution. Robert's case was featured alongside that of gang member Robert Garza. Pruett would eventually get a last minute stay of execution, while Garza went on to be executed.

Robert Lynn Pruett is 35 years old and he has been in prison since he was 15. Which means he has spent more of his life locked up than he did on the out. Pruett's original sentence was 99 years without parole. This was for the role he played in the murder of a neighbour. Although Pruett was not the person who stabbed the man to death, his father was, Robert was convicted under the "law of parties" act. This means if an individual is behind the events that eventually lead to the murder, they are held as culpable as the person who does the deed.

Four years into his sentence at a Texas prison, prison corrections officer Daniel Nagle was stabbed to death with a handmade shank (the name for an often crude weapon made by an inmate from everyday items). While there was no DNA or finger print evidence, a report written by the officer was torn up and strewn all over the crime scene. That report was actually a write up for a violation allegedly committed by Pruett earlier in the day. This write up is what is believed to have made Pruett angry enough to kill. Pruett denies murdering Officer Nagle and has always insisted he had never touched the report. Pruett's 21/05/2013 execution was stayed to allow for the evidence to undergo DNA testing. The results were inconclusive.

In Febuary 2014 Pruett was given a new execution date, 21/05/2014 - twelve months to the day of his first one. However, in April this execution date was also stayed to await further testing of evidence.

While there is no doubting Pruett's guilt for the original crime, many believe he is innocent in the murder of Officer Nagle. According to Pruett supporters he is the victim of "bent" correctional officers who wanted rid of Daniel Nagle because he was "by the book". While these allegations have never been proven, two correctional officers left their positions one month after the murder. Pruett's defence also points out that witness statements provided by other inmates are unreliable as many were offered privileges or even early release in return for their statements.

So, what do you think? Could Texas be wanting to execute the wrong man or is he truly deserving of the death penalty?

UPDATE - 

Robert Lynn Pruett is set to be executed April 28th, 2015. When this update went to publication, his appeals for a stay of execution had so far been unsuccessful. You can read more about Robert here.

The Allan B. Polunsky Unit
Home of Texas' Death Row
(Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)