Definitions:
Late adolescent – Ages 18-21
Young adults – Ages 22-25
Source: Center for Law, Brain & Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital (2022). White Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A guide for Judges, Attorneys, and Policy Makers.
To address the overuse of life sentences, some states have introduced Second Look legislation (for example: LB 432 in Nebraska). In others, courts have used their own state’s constitution to ban mandatory life without parole sentences for people over the age of 18. See People v. Parks, IL, 2022 (age 18); Matter of Monschke, Wash, 2021 (18-20 year olds); Commonwealth v. Robinson, and Commonwealth v. Mattis, Mass, 2024 (18-20 year olds).
According to current research, brain development continues until a person is in their mid-twenties. Late adolescence and young adults are more like juveniles in their decision making than older adults. As a result, a person’s “mental age” is more important than their chronological age when deciding punishment for crime. This is due to the fact that late adolescence and young adults are stages of neurological growth where a person’s brain is still developing and should be considered when deciding punishment for crime.
With this as the backdrop, what are the appropriate punishments for young people who commit homicide?
Should we cast them out and ban them from society for the rest of their natural lives, or should we allow the brain science to dictate policy?
When the whole world was gripped by the fear of COVID-19, we heard the mantras to “follow the science” and “listen to the experts.” It was said that they know how to keep society safe because they understood the situation better than we did. Best practices of social distancing were used. Masks were mandatory and quarantine became more than a buzzword. We made it through as a result.
So why is it that our criminal policies regarding brain science, in relation to late adolescence and young adults, are failing to reflect what the experts are saying about these critical stages? The very nature of human development, specifically how the different regions of the brain form as we get older, isn’t recognized or acknowledged by current youthful offender policy. As a person matures, the area of the brain that responds to rewards develops before the area that regulates behavior. This causes the impulsivity, risk-taking, and recklessness so commonly found in young people. It isn’t until after it is too late, in a lot of cases, that the youthful offenders’ brains fully develop and offer cognitive awareness.
So what are the appropriate punishments for this group of people? In many states it is still allowed by law to give a person between the ages of 18 to 25 a mandatory life without parole sentence. That creates a huge concern that people are being given disproportionate sentences as a result of circumstances outside of their control, specifically, underdeveloped executive functioning. Adding in the new research of brain development, current scientific knowledge of the affects of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) into adulthood, and legal precedent that indicates youth matters, we must conclude that any “mandatory” sentence is disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional.
In general terms, a disproportionate sentence is one that does not fit the crime, the offender, or the interests of justice. That makes it cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional. It is possible that a sentence may become disproportionate as a result of rehabilitation while incarcerated, growth, and maturity. In this way, any sentence given to a demographic which is still developing executive functioning, even if viewed as appropriate at the time, has the potential to become unconstitutional. That is not fair and equal protection under the law and it is time that our policies reflect the science.
As a result, a sentence which allows for release from incarceration, while a person is still able to work and build a life outside of prison, seems to be more appropriate. That is supported by the recidivism statistics showing young people who commit homicide are least likely to re-offend out of all classes of felons. This is usually accomplished after serving between 20 to 30 years, which is a significant length of time to live in a correctional facility. Through rehabilitation programs, normal growth and maturity, as well as an extended period of incarceration, youthful offenders have consistently been able to reenter society (in states with appropriate policies) with very little risk (2 percent recidivism), and a high rate of success (98 percent). As such, we, as a civilized society, must impress upon lawmakers to follow the science. It worked during covid, and it can work to fix our criminal justice system.
SURVEY:
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES WOULD YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER?
Send answers to toddlcook2.0@gmail.com (on the “subject” line, please enter SURVEY).
- Mandatory life without parole in an adult facility.
- Life sentence with the possibility of parole after 20 years in an adult facility.
- Sentence between 40 to 80 years in an adult facility.
- Youth facility until age 21, then an adult facility with a sentence between 10 to 60 years.
- Youth facility until age 21, then life in an adult facility with possibility of parole after 10 years
Contact Info:
If you'd like to receive a reply from Todd, postal mail is the best option:
Todd L. Cook #47656
P.O. Box 22500
Lincoln, NE 68542-2500
Website: toddcookauthor.com
Facebook: Todd Cook, Author
YouTube: Todd Cook, Nebraska or @ToddCook6953
Email: info@toddcookauthor.com
You may also email Todd directly through GettingOut.com or the Getting Out app.
I could not agree more with the gist of this post. I also appreciate the documentation.