Mandatory Juvenile Sentences Challenged by Judiciary Chair

State Representative Daniel Kagan (D-3), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is challenging the mandatory sentences in Colorado for juvenile convicted of first degree murder. Representative Kagan has introduced a bill to set a new range of sentences for juveniles convicted of Class I Felonies. Under current Colorado law, juveniles found guilty of first degree murder face the sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years. In an interview with Catherine Strode, Representative Kagan says he believes Colorado’s juveniles should be sentenced based not only on their crime, but on their individual characteristics and involvement in the crime they committed.

Why are you bringing this bill now?
“For 16 years, we required every judge sentencing a juvenile who had committed a first degree murder, to life without parole. They were going to get life without parole regardless of how much they had been abused during their childhood, regardless of how closely they were involved in the crime. None of these things could be considered: the background of the individual, the level of involvement in the crime. The judge could not consider any of those things. He just had to give that defendant, although juvenile, life without the possibility of parole. And we did that for 16 years – until 2006. Then the law changed and all these juveniles, when they committed their crimes, were sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 40 years. Now the Supreme Court has said mandatory life without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional to a juvenile; you have to consider the circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal himself. This bill is an attempt at a more just way of making the sentence fit the crime and fit the offender. “

How does the bill offer that?
“It gives the judge a choice of sentences, based on the individual characteristics of the offender and on the offender’s involvement in the crime. The judge can either sentence the offender to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 20 years (not 40), or, if the judge thinks this is an appropriate case, a sentence which has a definite start and finish. How long can that sentence be? Anything from a minimum of 24 years to a maximum of 48 years followed by ten years of parole. But a parole hearing after 20 years.”

A victim might say,’20 years isn’t enough for losing my loved one.’ How do you answer that?
“What is justice, what is punishment, what is the appropriate level of punishment is something on which different people have different views and it’s not subject to research. Some people say the only just response to someone who has taken a life is to take their life. I respect that. That’s just a gut feeling about ‘What is fair?’ But what I think is clearly unfair is to say every person convicted of a Class I Felony, committed while juvenile, gets the same severe punishment without consideration of who they are, how deeply they were involved, and what their intentions were at the time of the crime. That, to me, is unjust. And I have yet to find a victim who believes that all these defendants should be treated in exactly the same way, indiscriminately, without looking at the particular circumstances of the crime and the criminal.”

How do Class I Felony juvenile sentences in Colorado compare with those in other states?
“In Colorado, a life sentence over the years has meant many things. Before the 1970’s, life meant life but parole consideration after ten years. Then it was moved up. Life meant life but parole consideration after 20 years. Then it moved up again. Life meant life but parole consideration after 40 years. Then in 1990, it became life with no possibility of parole. That’s
Our proposal, in context, is simply going back to the regime we had before the late twentieth century. As far as other states, most of them cluster somewhere around parole consideration for lifers at about 20 years. That’s not untypical. There are some states that grant parole hearings at 15 years for lifers, some that wait 25, a very few that wait 30, and one or two that wait 40.”

Does research show creating harsher sentences decreases crime?
“Research shows lengthening sentences does little to deter crime. In fact, what makes the most impact on deterrence is not the harshness of the penalty, but the likelihood of getting caught, convicted, and punished. This, if you think about it, coincides with your common sense. What matters most to a person? How badly they’re going to be fined or that they’re surely going to get fined? Whether they’re going to get imprisoned or how long they’re going to get imprisoned? Deterrence works best when the likelihood of getting caught and punished is highest. The US Department of Justice has gone into this in great depth and what their research shows is as you increase sentences, you do little to change deterrence. The longer you serve time in prison, the less deterrent effect it has. People who have done ten years, aren’t’ scared of doing another three or four. People who have never been to prison are terrified of doing three or four. It’s not the length of time that you spend in prison that is the deterrent factor, it’s the likelihood of going to prison. You can double triple, quadruple a prison sentence, you do very little for deterrence.”

What do you hope to accomplish with passing this bill?
“What I hope to accomplish is the resentencing of the 49 men who are now sitting in the Colorado Department of Corrections and are scheduled to be there for the rest of their lives, for crimes committed while juveniles. Those men will be resentenced if this bill passes. Some of them will still get life sentences and that’s probably as it should be. But some of them will get sentences which have an ending and that’s also as it should be. Their individual circumstances, and the circumstances of their crimes, will be considered in choosing who gets life and who doesn’t. That’s the way it should be. That’s the way it will be going forward if this bill should pass.”