Life imprisonment in the United States
||This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (August 2009)|
There are many states in the United States where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence'", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence". Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served.
||This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (February 2008)|
In the 1860s, reformation became favored over penitence in American penology, with the role of prisons seen as reforming prisoners, who were imprisoned until reform was achieved. The concepts of parole and indeterminate sentencing were regarded as forward looking in the 1870s for these reasons. However, these ideals were not as successful as had been hoped - crime was not eradicated, reformatories had the same problems as prisons regarding politicization and underfunding, and indeterminate sentencing became undermined by prisoners, who quickly found that it was possible to "beat the system" by pretense, giving a better chance of winning parole. Many were soon back in custody. Similarly, prison authorities could twist it to their advantage by selectively denying parole. But the biggest cause of the reformatories' failure to live up to expectations was that despite the enthusiasm of reformers, and Brockway's call for an end to vengeance in criminal justice, those within the prison environment - both inmates and guards alike—continued to conceive of prison as a place of retribution.
Schick's case, and life imprisonment without parole 
In 1954, Master Sergeant Maurice L. Schick was convicted by a military court-martial in the brutal murder of an eight-year old girl, and sentenced to death. Six years later, the case was forwarded to Pres. Eisenhower for final review, and he commuted his sentence to confinement at hard labor for the term of his natural life, on the express condition that he "shall never have any rights, privileges, claims or benefits arising under the parole and suspension or remission of sentence laws of the United States ..."
Sgt. Schick began a legal challenge in 1971 which eventually reached the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutionality of his punishment: life imprisonment without parole. The court decided that to be so sentenced was constitutional, though Schick's sentence was given only cursory mention. Schick's ultimate fate is unknown though, had he been given an ordinary life sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 1969.
Despite the Schick opinion's lack of thorough analysis regarding life imprisonment without parole, an imposing amount of precedent has developed based upon it. After Furman v. Georgia, which put the constitutionality of the death penalty in question, life imprisonment without parole received increased attention from lawmakers and judges as an alternative to the death penalty.
Such penalties predate Schick. One early American case was Ex Parte Wells. Wells was convicted of murder in 1851, and sentenced to be hanged. On the day of his execution, President Millard Fillmore gave him a conditional pardon, and commuted his sentence to "imprisonment for life in the penitentiary at Washington." Wells appealed the conditionality of his pardon. The sentence was upheld, with no discussion by the majority of the purpose of the substituted punishment.
A few countries worldwide have allowed for minors to be given lifetime sentences that have no provision for eventual release. Countries that allow life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for juveniles include Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Cuba, Dominica, Israel, Nigeria, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and the United States. Of these, only the United States currently have minors serving such sentences. The University of San Francisco School of Law’s Center for Law & Global Justice conducted international research on the use of the sentence of life without parole for juveniles, and has found no cases outside of the United States in which the sentence is actually imposed on juveniles. As of 2009, Human Rights Watch has calculated that there are 2,589 youth offenders serving life without parole in the United States.
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that sentencing minors to automatic sentences of life without parole for crimes other than those involving a homicide (generally, first-degree murder, and usually with aggravating factors and/or accompanying felonies) violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment, in the case of Graham v. Florida. In finding that the US Constitution prohibits as cruel and unusual punishment a life without parole sentence for a juvenile in a non-homicide case, the US Supreme Court stated that "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against" juvenile life without parole "provide[s] respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions. In 2012, the Court considered whether to ban the automatic use of it completely as a sentence for minors, even in cases of aggravated first degree murder (what is usually called felony murder, capital murder, or murder with aggravating circumstances, and for an adult could mean a sentence of death or life without parole; the planned rape and murder of a young child or the planned murder of more than one person at a time—e.g., a couple in their house—would be two examples) where it is still a possibility. The Court had already made the death penalty unconstitutional for minors in 2005. In June 2012, the Court ruled that it could never be automatically used as a sentence for a minor (under 18), although the Court left room for it as a sentence that can eventually be given (for now) in certain first-degree murder cases once the judge has taken mitigating circumstances and other factors into account.
The United States' practice of sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates international standards of justice, as well as treaties to which the United States is a party. Each state must ensure that its criminal punishments comply with the United States’ international treaty obligations:
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the oversight Committee instructed the United States to: "ensure that no such child offender is sentenced to life without parole" [and] "adopt all appropriate measures to review the situation of persons already serving such sentences."
- The United Nations Convention Against Torture; the oversight Committee warned the United States that juvenile life sentences without the possibility of parole could constitute "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" for youth.
- The oversight body of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that juvenile life without parole is applied disproportionately to black minors, and the United States has done nothing to reduce what has become pervasive discrimination. The Committee recommended that the United States discontinue the use of this sentence against persons under the age of eighteen at the time the offense was committed, and review the situation of persons already serving such sentences.
The United Nations General Assembly has called upon governments to: "abolish by law, as soon as possible ... life imprisonment without possibility of release for those below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense."
International standards of justice hold that a juvenile life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is not warranted under any circumstances because juvenile offenders lack the experience, education, intelligence and mental development of adults and must be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
Use of life imprisonment sentence 
Although sentences vary for each state, generally the life imprisonment sentences are mandatory sentences for first degree murder, particularly when the first degree murder is done during the commission of another felony (the felony murder rule), and/or there are other aggravating circumstances present (such as is common for rapes which precede such murders, or the first degree murder of any law enforcement official or other public servant) in states without the death penalty, and as an (or the only) alternative sentence in states that have the death penalty and in federal and military courts.
A 2005 survey by The New York Times found that about 132,000 of the nation's prisoners, or almost 1 in 10, are serving life sentences. In 1993, the Times survey found, about 20 percent of all lifers had no chance of parole. By 2004, the number rose to 28 percent.
As a result the United States is now housing a large and permanent population of prisoners who will die of old age behind bars. At the Louisiana State Penitentiary (also known as Angola), for instance, more than 3,000 of the 5,100 prisoners are serving life without parole, and most of the remaining 2,100 are serving sentences so long that they cannot be completed in a typical lifetime. About 150 inmates have died there in the last five years.
Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences, so a life sentence from a federal court will result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant, unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President.
Three-strikes law 
Under some "three-strikes laws," a broad range of crimes, ranging from petty theft to murder, can serve as the triggering crime for a mandatory or discretionary life sentence in California. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions has upheld lengthy sentences for petty theft including life with the possibility of parole and 50 years to life, stating that neither sentence conflicted with the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Famous lifers without parole 
- John Gotti – Boss of the New York City Gambino crime family (after the murder of the previous boss, Paul Castellano), who died of cancer while in prison.
- Faisal Shahzad – The "Times Square Bomber", who attempted to detonate a car bomb in Manhattan's busy Times Square) on May 1, 2010.
- Lee Boyd Malvo – accomplice of the Beltway Sniper Attacks
- Terry Nichols – main accomplice to Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
- Ottis Toole – killer of Adam Walsh
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab – attempted to explode a trans-atlantic flight
- Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber – planting or mailing numerous home-made bombs, killing three people and injuring 23 others
||Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (July 2010)|
- In re Jeanice D., 28 Cal. 3d 210 (1980) ("25 years to life" is indeterminate life sentence implying that minor convicted of first-degree murder was eligible for commitment to California Youth Authority rather than determinate life sentence which would require incarceration in regular prison).
- A. E. Weiss, Prisons, A System in Trouble (1988), pp. 29–30.
- Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974).
- J. H. Wright, Jr, "Life Without Parole: An Alternative to the wien or Not Much of a Life At All?" 43 Vand. L. Rev. 529, 535 (1990).
- Social Security records report two deceased Maurice Schicks, neither apparently incarcereated
- Wright, supra, at p. 536.
- 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
- see Green v. Teets, 244 F2d 401 (9th Cir. 1957); United States v. Ragen, 146 F2d 349 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 325 U.S. 865 (1945); and State v. Dehler, 257 Minn. 549, 102 N.W.2d 696 (1960).
- 18 How. 307 (1856).
- See C. de la Vega & M. Leighton, Sentencing our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 983, 989 (2008). The research was conducted in 2007, updated in 2008 to clarify that Tanzania, South Africa and Israel do not allow juvenile life without parole, and cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 in Graham v. Florida. The University of San Francisco Center for Law & Global Justice continues to monitor international juvenile sentencing laws and practices.
- State Distribution of Youth Offenders Serving Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) Human Rights Watch, October 2 2009
- The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States Human Rights Watch, May 1 2008
- Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).
- Graham v. Florida, supra, 130 S. Ct. at 2034 (concluding that juvenile life without parole is unconstitutional for non-homicide crimes).
- International law and practice clearly reflect the sentiments of the Graham court regarding juveniles. Graham v. Florida, supra, 130 S. Ct. at 2030.
- Life Without Parole Death Penalty Information Center
- Wright, supra, at p. 559.
- To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars The New York Times, October 2 2005
- See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding life sentence for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, and obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses) and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding sentence of 50 years to life for stealing videotapes on two separate occasions after three prior offenses)