The Battle of the Narrative in Jones v. Mississippi: Consideration of Youth "in Name Only"

• Publication year: 2023

The Battle of the Narrative in Jones v. Mississippi: Consideration of Youth "In Name Only"

Stevie Leahy

[Page 1129]

The Battle of the Narrative in Jones v. Mississippi: Consideration of Youth "In Name Only"

Stevie Leahy^*

I. Introduction

Life without parole is an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile. Under this sentence a juvenile offender will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender. A 16-year-old and a 75-year-old each sentenced to life without parole receive the same in punishment in name only.¹

Juvenile sentencing within the United States is but one illustration of how the legal system reinforces the marginalization of populations that have been historically underinvested and underrepresented.²

[Page 1130]

Throughout the past century, the macro-narrative on sentencing has fluctuated nationally, as well as within individual states, with the reasoning used to justify decisions sliding between the conflicting lenses of rehabilitation and punishment.³ This has necessarily impacted the micro-narrative—the way that an individual's story is considered and weighed (or ignored) within sentencing. There are endless factors that affect outcomes in sentencing: class, race and or ethnicity, gender, and access to counsel are just a few examples. However, decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of the United States has emphasized over and over that one particular factor requires special constitutional consideration: youth.⁴ Yet it is nearly impossible to consider the narrative of youth in isolation.

Despite this mandate, analysis of the treatment of juveniles within individual states is significantly disparate in the way that youth is "considered" in a sentencing decision. Underscoring the concept of "justice by geography,"⁵ a seventeen-year-old in one state could receive juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) with extraordinarily little written reasoning (or meaningful consideration). Yet in another state, that sentence would be constitutionally prohibited.⁶ These disparities were present even prior to Jones v. Mississippi,⁷ a 2021 Supreme Court decision that has injected more uncertainty into juvenile sentencing procedures and that will widen disparities in sentencing. The contrasting narrative within the Jones decision itself is stark—the majority focuses

[Page 1131]

on the details of the crime and the need to ensure that protections for juveniles are not broadened by the judicial branch.⁸ This is the macro-narrative of punishment for the crime over rehabilitation. The dissent, however, includes the factors that led to this moment for the individual juvenile defendant, a micro-narrative ignored by the majority.⁹ It is a story of poverty, abuse, mental health, lack of services, lack of financial resources, and, crucially, the "signature qualities of youth."¹⁰

This Article will address the way that micro-narrative of youth is considered (or ignored) in juvenile sentencing decisions and highlight the myriad factors that impact an individual's story and final outcome. Part II focuses on definitions of what constitutes juvenile and the importance of terminology within conversations about incarceration. Part III focuses on the cradle-to-prison pipeline and the work done at Northeastern University School of Law's Center for Public Interest Advocacy and Collaboration (CPIAC). Through the C2P Project, CPIAC uses an interdisciplinary collaboration to advance the goal of dismantling the cradle-to-prison pipeline and decreasing incarceration. Part IV will unpack the role of the media and other forces in influencing juvenile narratives. Finally, Part V will examine the battle of the narratives as illustrated in the majority and minority decisions of Jones.¹¹ The Article concludes with reflections from the Mercer University School of Law Symposium, "Past is Prologue: Legal Narratives and the Law's Potential for Justice and Injustice."

II. Necessary Definitions for Discussion on Juvenile Narratives in the Legal System

"Juvenile justice policy has lost its way. What began as a system designed to rehabilitate juveniles is moving piecemeal toward a system that punishes them."¹²

Even before delving into the use of narrative within juvenile systems, an examination of what individuals fall under this label is necessary.

[Page 1132]

Within the United States, treating juveniles as a separate category within their own institutions and processes is a somewhat recent historical development.¹³ Currently, a juvenile is defined in many jurisdictions with a bright-line cut at age eighteen,¹⁴ and numerous outcomes or determinations within the judicial system hinge on this cut-off, including sentencing.¹⁵ However, as developments in science enhance understanding of adolescent brain development (and confirm Supreme Court of the United States categorization of this group as constitutionally different),¹⁶ the wisdom of using this bright-line has been called into question.¹⁷ Some jurisdictions that are more protective of juveniles have extended "juvenile" protections in sentencing up to age twenty-one and even twenty-five in some cases.¹⁸ A recent publication by the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior suggests the following terminology for use when describing systems-involved individuals: early adolescence (ages ten to thirteen), middle adolescence (ages fourteen to seventeen), late adolescence (ages eighteen to twenty-one), and young adulthood (ages twenty-two to twenty-five).¹⁹ While courts (and legislatures)

[Page 1133]

grapple with those definitions,²⁰ for purposes of this article the term juvenile will refer to individuals under eighteen—but in recognition that this space is evolving because "youth" is a "fluid concept."²¹

Regardless of where the line is drawn, individuals who violate criminal laws are subject to intense societal stigma, beginning with arrest. To combat this stigmatization, intentional language choices should be employed within discussion.²² For example, terms like "prisoners," "parolees," or "ex-cons" will be avoided; instead, terms such as "incarcerated persons," "people in prison," "people on parole," or "formerly incarcerated persons" will be used.²³ As is the ever-evolving nature of language, even these terms may be less desirable than labels that avoid reference to incarceration completely (or less desirable as determined by the individuals who have been incarcerated, who should drive the conversation on terminology). For example, the phrase "youth involved with the juvenile justice system"²⁴ omits all reference to confinement. Intentional dialogue around selection of terminology (within carceral spaces, the legal system, academia, and beyond) can better help to include these individuals as members of society and recognize them as human beings.²⁵

[Page 1134]

Defining the group itself is an issue that carries significant weight because of the additional protections afforded to juveniles in certain spaces. The Supreme Court, as well as many state courts, recognizes that juveniles have a capacity for rehabilitation that exceeds adults.²⁶ "Rehabilitation is 'the idea that the purpose of punishment is to apply treatment and training to the offender so that he is made capable of returning to society and functioning as a law-abiding member of the community.'"²⁷ The goal of rehabilitation is what "sets the juvenile/family court apart from the adult criminal system. If there is no rehabilitation, there is no hope."²⁸ Yet, while the stated goal of a juvenile system is rehabilitation, the actual operation of the system is rarely in line with this goal.²⁹ once again, we see fluctuation between rehabilitation and punishment (or, arguably, torture).³⁰

As a final note in this conversation on definitions and terminology, strict categorization of individuals into "check the box" demographic groups is an inherently complex undertaking.³¹ This task is compounded by the historical development of these constructs within the legal system.³² Yet, to see patterns or trends that can be dismantled or

[Page 1135]

bolstered within our systems necessarily requires categorization at some level. Therefore, use of constructs like "Black" or "white" does not reflect endorsement of the parameters of that categorization as used within systems—just recognition that these are the currently employed categories.³³ The intersection of age, race, and other factors are essential to narrative within the juvenile sentencing space.³⁴ These concepts ground any discussion of what it means to "consider" youth within sentencing decisions, but also at every point of their involvement with the system. And because youth is a concept subject to interpretation, when layering over that the broad discretionary powers from Jones, control of the narrative does not belong to the individual juvenile.³⁵

III. The Cradle to Prison Pipeline and its Impact on Juveniles

At crucial points in their development, from birth through adulthood, more risks and disadvantages cumulate and converge that make a successful transition to productive adulthood significantly less likely and involvement in the criminal justice system significantly more likely. Lack of access to health and mental health care; child abuse and neglect; lack of quality early childhood education to get ready for school; educational disadvantages resulting from failing schools that don't expect or help them achieve or detect and correct early problems that impede learning; zero tolerance school discipline policies and the arrest and criminalization of children at younger and younger ages for

[Page 1136]

behaviors once handled by schools and community institutions; neighborhoods saturated with drugs and violence; a culture that glorifies excessive consumption, individualism, violence and triviality; rampant racial and economic disparities in child and youth serving systems; tougher sentencing guidelines; too few positive alternatives to the streets

...