E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Family photo/Courtesy of Bobbi Jamriska
Kristina Grill, 15, was murdered in 1993 by her ex-boyfriend, who was also 15 at the time of her death and 16 when he was convicted. She's seen in this file photo in Pennsylvania a year before her murder.
Nineteen years ago, Bobbi Jamriska's younger sister was found murdered in a Pennsylvania schoolyard. As Jamriska grieved, one thing brought her solace: When a court found her sister's 16-year-old ex-boyfriend guilty and sentenced him to life in prison without parole.
"When you get up every day, you think about what happened, but at least you know that there was that one constant, that life-without-parole was going to make sure that you never had to relive that part of it," said Jamriska, 40, who lives in Pittsburgh.
But three months ago, the Supreme Court struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles as cruel and unusual punishment. While the June 25 ruling wasn't necessarily designed to be applied retroactively, some youth advocates are trying to use it to free so-called "juvenile lifers," setting off a series of battles over what to do with the approximately 2,100 convicted murderers who were handed mandatory life-without-parole sentences for acts committed as youths.
For victims' families, the decision has had huge emotional, and in some cases, legal implications.
"After the [Supreme Court] ruling, everyone felt like they were reliving the trial phase and their loved ones' murder," said Jamriska, who traveled to Washington, D.C., with other victims' families to protest the ruling.
She is part of a support group called the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers.
"There were a lot of families who didn't have any idea that this was even possible," she said. "For them, it was literally one day business as usual, and then the next day, on the news, their whole world got turned upside down."
Pennsylvania, where Jamriska lives, has the biggest concentration of juveniles serving mandatory life sentences -- about 480 of them, the oldest of whom was convicted almost 60 years ago and is now in his 70s, according to the Juvenile Law Center. Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania began hearing arguments for why some of the lifers there should be paroled, including the ex-boyfriend who killed Jamriska's sister in 1993.
No one in the legal system told Jamriska that the parole arguments involved her sister's killer. She found out from a reporter's voicemail about three weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that lawyers were trying to get parole for him.
Jamriska was stunned, but she said a lack of communication is somewhat understandable.
Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins / teenkillers.org
Bobbi Jamriska, of Pennsylvania, right, and Jody Robinson, left, of Michigan, another member of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, are seen advocating for victims' families' rights on March 20, 2012, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., as the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether mandatory life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment for convicted juvenile murderers.
"There never was a contingency for if this person who was sent to life in prison with no parole is suddenly able to get out," she said. "The DA's office isn't really staffed to manage that influx of appeals and those victims who are trying to get information -- I don't blame them."
The state Supreme Court has put the arguments on hold and didn't give a timeline for a ruling. The Pennsylvania legislature still needs to come up with an appropriate alternative punishment for minors going forward.
"The sentencing scheme in Pennsylvania currently provides that for any individual, juvenile or adult, convicted of first or second-degree homicide must either receive a sentence of death or a sentence of life without parole. For juveniles, that mandatory sentence of life without parole has been declared unconstitutional," Marsha Levick, deputy director and chief counsel at the Juvenile Law Center, said. "We think the courts should look to the next most severe sentence that is statutorily available in the state. Here, that means a sentence for third-degree murder, where you have a maximum sentence of 40 years."
Levick suspects lawyers in other states will argue for that too. Since the Supreme Court ruling, North Carolina has passed a law replacing the mandatory life without prison sentence with a 25 years to life sentence; California's governor is currently evaluating a law that sets up two different schemes where parole eligibility comes in at either 15 or 25 years to life, Levick said. In all, 28 states still allow mandatory life-without-parole sentences for minors, a situation that will have to change.
"States can still impose life without parole," she said. "They just can't make it the only sentence available."
As some juvenile advocates try to undo sentences that have already been imposed, Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, 54, president of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, worries about the families of their victims.
"Whenever you reopen traumatic wounds or you're triggering a retraumatization, you're talking about something that is going to affect people's work, their sleep, their health, their marriages -- everything," she said.
Victims can only rely on each other for support, Jenkins said.
14 years old: Too young for life in prison?
"They don't register for victim notification and they don't monitor what's happening, and then you get these reactions like what we've been getting in our organization," Bishop-Jenkins said. "We've been trying very hard to find people to let them know that this multi-billion dollar campaign to free their loved ones' killers is going on and they're just shocked."
Family photo/Courtesy of Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins
From left to right: Richard Langert and Nancy Bishop Langert are seen on their wedding day in 1987 in Kenilworth, Ill., with Nancy's parents and sister, Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, far right. The Langerts were murdered by a 16-year-old in 1990.
There are potential legal issues too: Bishop-Jenkins' pregnant sister and brother-in-law were murdered in their home in Winnetka, Ill., 22 years ago. It was Bishop-Jenkins' father who found their bodies; his testimony served as crucial evidence in the initial trial. Eight years ago, her father died of cancer. She says the judge from the first trial has also died.
"My father was the best eyewitness to the carnage of the crime scene. We didn't videotape him talking about the crime," Bishop-Jenkins said. "We didn't get the transcript of what the judge said at the sentencing hearing where he gave this speech about if anybody deserved life without parole, he did."
She now fears she and her mom, 83, could have to face her sister's killer in sentencing hearings in court. And while she doubts he will be granted parole, she said she worries lawyers may try again every couple of years.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- 'Too holy' for sex? The problem of a married Jesus
- Michigan town rallies around teen pranked for homecoming
- 'Armed and dangerous' killer escapes Mississippi prison
- Looking for something to steal, man finds body in trunk
- Video: Good Samaritans tackle alleged gunman in Seattle
- Tree trimmer crushed to death by palm fronds
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
...
Finally the psychologists will be vindicated.
They have said for years that murderers can be rehabilitated.
This will prove how right they are and how wrong it is to lock kids up for life for a silly mistake.
Obama / Biden in 2012.
...
God, I hope you are be sardonic.
I would not put murder in the category of "silly mistake."
He is being sardonic for emphasis on the stupidity of those wanting to let calculated murderers off. Well done!
Jenn.S. and rachel,I think the word you want is sarcastic,not sardonic.
DAZ55: sardonic: grimly mocking or cynical
synonym: sarcastic
As anyone who actually READ the article can see, it is now only that judges will have additional sentencing options for juvenile 1sr degree murder convictions. They can still choose life without parole.
My fear is the "cruel and unusual" aspect determined of life without parole. So a judge sntences a violent deranged and dangerous juvie to life without parole (under the new guidelines, such judge OPTS for the severe punishment). How easy is it now going to be for the defense lawyer to argue that it's "cruel and unusual" and get it reduced?!? SCOTUS just gave a huge boost to appeal lawyers.
And THAT scares me - that the power has now been taken out of the judges hands altogether....
As anyone who actually READ the article can see, that is not what this ruling means at all. Go back and re-read it.
Baja, it says that mandatory life is cruel and unusual HOWEVER, scum-sucking defense lawyers will eagerly seize on the "cruel and unusual" and argue that if it is "cruel and unusual" for one 14 yr old, it's c&e for all 14 year olds.
Again and again the so called "Supreme Court" has shown they are out of touch, blinded by the smug feeling they get knowing they are the 'final arbiters' of all the laws of the land. Again they have demonstrated that a lifetime appointment is NOT in the best interests of this Nation.
Again and again the Supremes have demonstrated a cold indifference to the rules of life, forgetting they are out of touch, old in mind and body, trending toward senility and even worse have adopted a 'god like' persona.
These people should be vetted, should submit to drug testing, IQ tests and financial accounting. In addition they should be appointed for eight (YES, EIGHT) years. then they are gone.
These people have no realization of what current life is like as they live in a glass house in a vacuum.
Term limits are great for ALL elected and appointed FEDERAL PAYROLL employees.
As a lawyer, I have lost all faith in American legal institutions. The USSC is devoid of reason and good sense. Once an individual has murdered, he represents a danger to society for life. The Court is placing the rights of individuals on a much higher pedestal than the right of societal safety. It has the "everyone is a victim" mentality. The legal system is so corrupt, inefficient and costly that ordinary citizens can no longer participate. Mounting a legal defense against frivolous lawsuits can literally cost multiple scores of thousands of dollars. It has become extremely difficult--if not impossible--to obtain redress for wrongs committed against a person. The system has been so corrupted that only lawyers benefit--at the expense of justice, fairness and efficiency. The corruption of the legal system reflects the accelerating decline of American civilization. Though Rome's glory days lasted nearly 500 years, those of the U.S. will number considerably less than 100 (end of WWII until now). The U.S. will very soon be discarded on the scrap heap of once great nation states, and it will matter very little who wins the next presidential election. The election of Romney will only slow the decline, not reverse it.
the Supreme court needs term limits like the rest of the bums.
A 14 or 16 year term for any/all federal judges is plenty. That should apply as accumulation for life, not a new term for every level one might rise to. That would keep the federal judiciary refreshed every generation.
I would say only let them be paroled if they can find another country that they can live in with no opportunity to return to the US.
The US Supreme Court made it's decision, shut up and deal with it people. It's not like these criminals are going to get out in a few years. By the time they would even eventually come up for parole they will be elderly men. Most civilized societies realize that juveniles do not have the cognitive capacity as full grown adults and they should at least have a remote chance decades later to ask for forgiveness and be released, even if it is 50+ years later. I do not have an issue with them being released as old men. What harm are they then? We already have too many people in our prisons as it is. I mean people do drive-by-shootings that kill people in the inner cities every single day and they only get about 10 to 15 years in total on average. Where is all of your outrage about those cases people??
The time should pay for the crime.
Saying that someone who is 18 who murders someone deserves life without parole but a murderer who is just a year younger gets a shot at parole is inconsistent with the crime.
The crime is not the only thing to consider when sentencing. Don't be silly.
The crime is not the only thing to consider when sentencing.
It's a pretty big one. Murder is an entirely separate crime than say manslaughter.
Murder should be a one-time offense - no second chance to murder again. Same thing for rapists and pedophiles. Age should not matter with these crimes. People who commit these crimes are crazy/psycho - I don't care what age they happen to be when they commit the crimes! You can't fix crazy/psycho!
The only time I would think there might be an exception would be a fight situation where the person who killed another did so in defense of their own life.
When I was 13 I stole a half-slip printed like a collage of peacock feathers. I felt so guilty I never wore it and hid it in the bottom of my drawer and have remembered stealing as a terrible thing ever since. Funny, I had impulse control when I did it (knew I could not do it) and impulse control ever after (never stole again.)
There's no way I wouldn't have known that killing someone was wrong. Even some of the kids I thought I hated. There's no way I would have killed them. And I didn't.
No one will ever convince me that a 13 year old--let alone someone older--isn't responsible for deliberate, planned murder. That's just bull@!$%#.
Besides, letting them out is often just releasing an older sociopath to prey on the rest of us.
You should have gotten a good spanking for that theft. Interested? heh heh heh
Except that this isn't about juveniles who fully understand that they are committing murder, is it?
That's the rationale some use for letting them out early, Baja.
Baja, problem is that the lawyers have legitimized that as a defense. The way it works is, they get a couple doctors who claim that the teenage brain isn't fully developed and teens can't feel empathy until they are much older. What they're missing is, that doesn't make any difference. I don't care if a killer feels empathy or not, I just want the killer off the streets permanently. I feel the same way about insanity - I'd rather not have ANY killer running around loose, but having an INSANE killer running around loose is much worse than someone who killed for a specific reason!
Some people believe prison is supposed to "teach" the perpetrator a lesson. That's bullcrap. Prison is there to keep the perpetrator away from people who aren't criminals. Whether they "learn" anything from the prison experience or not is immaterial, in fact most of the skills learned in prison seem only to aid the criminal in committing more crimes when they get out, which is certainly what will happen when they start letting these murderers go.
No spanky Rachel?
Juvenile advocates, hogwash. Those appologists are murderer advocates abetted, in this case, by the Supreme Court. The court seems to have evolved into its own advocacy group for the perpetrators, certainly not the victims, of crime.
Public execution by hanging for the spectical and let the parents beat them while hanging with a "punk-be-good" stick.
What I see here is some lawyers that feed off the misfortunes of others because they get that steady paycheck to buy that summer home. These juveniles that murder should get life, they can not be rehabed and society shouldn't be subject to see if they are cured of evil murdering ways.
Again and again the so called "Supreme Court" has shown they are out of touch, blinded by the smug feeling they get knowing they are the 'final arbiters' of all the laws of the land. Again they have demonstrated that a lifetime appointment is NOT in the best interests of this Nation.
Again and again the Supremes have demonstrated a cold indifference to the rules of life, forgetting they are out of touch, old in mind and body, trending toward senility and even worse have adopted a 'god like' persona.
These people should be vetted, should submit to drug testing, IQ tests and financial accounting. In addition they should be appointed for eight (YES, EIGHT) years. then they are gone.
These people have no realization of what current life is like as they live in a glass house in a vacuum.
Term limits are great for ALL elected and appointed FEDERAL PAYROLL employees.
This is exactly why juveniles commit the crimes that they do in today society and in the number of crimes they commit. They know they will get a light sentence if they get caught.
We will never learn.
Gangs most certainly take advantage of juveniles getting lighter sentences when they send them out to rob, steal, deal, and kill. THE adult banger don't want to go do the hard time when there are kids to do their dirty work for them. Then these kids grow up and do the same thing to the next generation. When a gang member commits a crime the whole gang should go down for the same thing. Maybe stop a lot of violence in this country!!!!
But three months ago, the Supreme Court struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles as cruel and unusual punishment. While the June 25 ruling wasn't necessarily designed to be applied retroactively, some youth advocates are trying to use it to free so-called "juvenile lifers," setting off a series of battles over what to do with the approximately 2,100 convicted murderers who were handed mandatory life-without-parole sentences for acts committed as youths.
um old enough to play the game of murder old enough to serve life
these judges have no brains a murder is a murder age is pointless ,unusual punishment ? think of the person that was murdered by the child idiot
brainless judges
some judges need to get a job sweeping halls
Well maybe someday their loved ones will get killed by a kid. Let's hope! But isn't freaking murder CRUEL & UNUSUAL? It would seem that way to me. Punishment SHOULD fit the crime. DEATH=DEATH! If there's no doubt, kill the murder by like means. They ax Granma, do the same to them, it's only fitting, and it isn't unusual to that killer. WAKE UP!
Execute them. I've never heard of an execute murderer killing again.
Whether these murderers were underage or not, they still killed people! Bottom line, they are killers and are to be punished. Bleeding hearts of judges and lawyers alike should be made to keep these "juveniles" in their own homes for at least 2 years before they are allowed out or set free. Make that into law and see how fast they turn it around.
There are more pressing concerns, in this country, than wasting time on convicted criminals and their so called "rights", they gave those up when they cut poor Aunt Martha's throat for drug or booze money...
Gosh golly - I thought the GOP leaning Supreme Court was supposed to be tough on crime. This is about as liberal as you can get.
Not every juvenile who murders someone is worth saving.
I bet Scalia didn't vote for it.
The punishment fit the crime. What's cruel and unusual that?
Either lower the legal age limit for minors to become adults or shut the hell up and accept the Supreme Courts ruling. If you want to prosecute younger people than you must allow younger people to be adults sooner.
That's a weak arguement. Right from wrong is learned at an early age, that knowlege is not bestowed on you just by turning 18 years old. If a minor uses a hand gun to murder two people - a gun doesn't just fire on it's own while aimed at two separate people - the shooter knows it's a wrong before the act. The minor took away two victims life and liberty, why shouldn't that minor be deprived of his own liberty at the least? He wasn't facing execution. I don't see anything cruel and unusual about a life sentence for such a murderer.
And if you think that just because a government organ decides something-or-other that all should just shut the hell up and accept it, you are a mindless sheep of the field. At least here in the US, gov't. can and will bow to public outrage and pressure - but only if the non-sheep speak out.
I am so torn on one hand you have the victims and their families who never get any recourse on the other the question of rehabilitation and is it possible? If it is possible does it even matter ?
Haven't been a huge believer in the Court since Bush v. Gore (and most recently, Citizens United), but they got it right (i.e., correct) on this one.
It shouldn't be the only sentence available---they should also have the death penalty option as many deserve it!
Each case is different. If there was some type of fight and an accident happened. or some type of fight and some type of self defense, I would hope the DA would go for manslaughter 2 or something. However, if a kid kills in cold blood, even if drunk or on drugs, sorry, life . If any kid is that psycho, then get him out of society. He / she killed someone. Life in prison is what they deserve.
How about we look at history and see the trends of letting juveniles who commit adult worthy crimes go and see how many have reformed or "grown up" to be better people. How many were right back in jail for similar or worse crimes. That will help answer the question on whether or not a young teen should have life without parole.
the case here though is... if a person commits a crime when they are young but has the potential to be a benefit to society then parole should be available. If a person has the ability to change then they most likely should get a 2nd chance. Too many idiots posting on this board blanket everyone into one category and can't control their emotions when trying to think. To me that is being no better than the person who acted on impulse in the first place.
If you are going to change the law fine. Just do not change the law retroactively. Those who are serving life sentences for murder should continue serving the sentences. Their victims certainly are not going to get time off for good behavior and they are sure as h*ll not going to be coming back because they were too young to die.