What Is a Life Sentence?

 

law-1063249__180

 

Opinion Piece by: Jake Morask

Per Dana Vollmer of Illinois Public Radio, the Illinois Supreme court has to decide “what is a life sentence?” They will make a decision on whether sentencing a 16 year old to a 50 year sentence is constitutional.  As the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama has declared, a juvenile cannot be given a life sentence without parole.

So the question is, whether the sentencing of Dimitri Buffer- a 16 year old who mistakenly shot and killed a woman he thought was a rival gang member- effectively a life sentence? Per the article, Buffer’s attorney Christopher Gehrke argues that the sentence is unsurvivable, pointing out that a 50 year sentence for a 16 year old provides no chance for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. “The best case scenario for my client in this case, even if he survives his sentence, he’s basically doomed to live the last few years of his life homeless and impoverished.” Gopi Kashyap, the Assistant attorney general, counters that because Buffer would be due to get out by age 66 it’s not a life sentence because 66 is younger than the average life expectancy. There’s no timeline for the court to decide.

It’s a fascinating case in that it is surprising the Supreme Court took this on and I think a lot of it comes down to the question of what the function of our prison system is supposed to be, especially when it comes to young offenders.  I would argue that Gehrke’s point is a strong one and that the rehabilitation of prisoners should be what we strive for so they can both atone and be given a chance for a normal life outside of prison. This can’t be the ideal for every prisoner obviously as some people have committed such heinous crimes they should never see freedom again. Is Buffer’s crime so heinous? It might be. I can’t imagine the grief of the family of the women who was sensensely murdered. But context matters. This is a 16 year old and there is a reason the supreme court decided that we can’t give life sentences without parole to juvenile offenders. The sad fact is, our prison system punishes, it doesn’t rehabilitate. Buffer’s life would probably be over if he was enmeshed in the system for 50 years and therefore I think the Illinois Supreme Court should consider this ruling unconstitutional. I understand however that there is a legitimate counter argument since legally 50 years is not life without parole and secondly, where would one draw the line? The rationale behind the Miller v. Alabama ruling was that automatic life without parole removed a trial court’s discretion to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances which arguably this Trial Court did. Further the defense argument can be a slippery slope where if the Court rules 50 years is effectively life, what about the next case that argues 45 years is “life.”  Clearly this case may not not fit a typical Miller v. Alabama analysis, and many may agree that Buffer’s life should effectively be over and I understand their reasoning. I just don’t think that’s what we should strive for our prison system to look like. 

*This is the opinion of Jake Morask. As usual, if you have any questions or legal issues please do not hesitate to contact us at laura@lauralaw.net or call us at 847-696-7185.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.