In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

CA Appeals Court: Life Without Parole for 14-year-old is Unconstitutional

Jill

This is great news:

On April 30, 2009, a California appeals court struck down a life imprisonment without parole sentence imposed on Antonio Nunez, a 14-year-old child convicted of aggravated kidnapping. The court declared the sentence to be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the California Constitution.

In 2007, the Equal Justice Initiative challenged the life imprisonment without parole sentence imposed on 14-year-old Antonio Nunez, arguing that condemning young children to die in prison is unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court ordered further review of the case and today the Court of Appeal held that the death-in-prison sentence imposed on Antonio Nunez is “so arbitrary that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.”

EJI attorney Bryan Stevenson represents Antonio Nunez and argued his case at the Court of Appeal last October. “We’re very encouraged by the Court’s thoughtful and careful analysis of the issue presented by this case,” Stevenson said today. “Young children who commit serious crimes may need punishment but those punishments must be reasonable and thoughtful. Hopelessly condemning 14-year-old children to die in prison is at odds with everything our constitutional norms and values are designed to protect.”

Antonio Nunez spent his childhood in a dangerous South Central Los Angeles neighborhood. Shortly after his 13th birthday, Antonio was riding a bicycle near his home when he was shot multiple times in a drive-by shooting. His brother, who was 14 years old, ran to help Antonio and was shot in the head and killed. Antonio was critically injured and underwent emergency surgery to repair his intestines.

In the wake of his brother’s murder, Antonio suffered severe trauma and depression. After he was released from the hospital, Antonio left South Central and spent over six months with family in Nevada before he had to return to Los Angeles.

Within weeks of his return to his home in South Central, 14-year-old Antonio got into a car with two older men who picked him up at a party. One of the men later claimed to be a kidnap victim. When their car was chased by the police and shots were fired, Antonio was arrested and charged with, among other offenses, aggravated kidnapping.

No one was injured during the chase, but Antonio was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

The United States is the only country in the world where children as young as 13 and 14 are sentenced to die in prison.

Our criminal justice system is thoroughly backwards, and disturbingly barbaric. I’m glad to hear that Antonio no longer faces such an extreme sentence. And thank goodness for people like Bryan Stevenson and the rest of the staff and attorneys at EJI who do this difficult work every day. Please consider donating to support their efforts.

13 thoughts on CA Appeals Court: Life Without Parole for 14-year-old is Unconstitutional

  1. I find it disturbing enough to condemn teenagers to life without parole even when the circumstances suggest it might be warranted, such as a 16- or 17-year-old shooting someone to death. But if the description of the case in this post is even remotely accurate, slapping LWOP on a 14-year-old is simply outrageous.

    The politicians and judges who go along with this kind of harshness, just to appear tough on crime and win elections, are about one step higher on the moral scale than those judges in Pennsylvania who took bribes from prison contractors to lock up juveniles for minor offenses.

  2. What we need for kids is a middle tier of the justice system.

    Right now, juvenile court was designed for, really, childish pranks. Vandalism, petty theft, nothing serious, because no one imagined that children would commit horrible crimes (not that this case even *is* a horrible crime.) So when children commit rape or murder, we are appalled as a society, and fear the notion that these people would be allowed back into society when they turn 18 (especially if the crime was committed when they were 16 or 17)… so we try them as adults.

    But they’re not adults.

    We need a tier of the justice system designed for serious crimes committed by minors, which may be empowered to keep children past their 18th birthday but is never empowered to sentence them to life without parole. This 14-year-old boy should *never* have been tried as an adult. For what? Being in a car while someone was being kidnapped? That’s accessory to a crime at *best*. How can a 14 year old even seriously be considered liable for the kidnapping of an adult? He shouldn’t have even been found guilty, not if he got in the car *after* the guy had already been kidnapped. Honestly, the current juvenile system should have been adequate for a 14-year-old charged for being an accessory to aggravated kidnapping where no one got hurt.

    There are children (this isn’t one of them) who I absolutely think deserve to be locked up for a lot longer than the few years until they turn 18, but I’m finding it hard to imagine *any* child deserving to be put away for life without parole. Actually I have a hard time imagining that *anyone* should be put away for life without parole, so long as “out on good behavior” doesn’t mean, say, that rapists get out after 2 years… for crimes like rape and murder, I’d be comfortable with making people cool their heels for 20 years or so, but life? What’s a 47-year-old former gang member gonna do when he gets out of prison?

  3. Within weeks of his return to his home in South Central, 14-year-old Antonio got into a car with two older men who picked him up at a party. One of the men later claimed to be a kidnap victim. When their car was chased by the police and shots were fired, Antonio was arrested and charged with, among other offenses, aggravated kidnapping.

    No one was injured during the chase, but Antonio was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

    There are too many what-the-fucks in this story to even get started. First, why was this child even charged, much less convicted of a felony and sentenced to life? Second, how the hell do you get life without parole for kidnapping in California? Not one person in this case was even injured. Third, who the freak was this kid’s lawyer? And fourth…

    The United States is the only country in the world where children as young as 13 and 14 are sentenced to die in prison.

    Why in the hell is it legal in the States to lock up children under 15 for life?

    An overturned conviction doesn’t even come close to justice in this case. Someone should lose a job, and California should pay up some serious money.

  4. I agree with Alara. The legal system really needs a better way to deal with serious crimes committed by young minors; simply charging them as adults is cruel.

    That said, the excerpted story downplays Nunez’s role in the incident. He didn’t just randomly get in a car with strangers; he and an accomplice kidnapped a businessman and he shot at police with an AK-47 during the ensuing car chase. The case can be made for fair and appropriate punishments for minors convicted of serious crimes without pretending that said crimes didn’t happen.

  5. It doesn’t hurt that the voters have passed various “tough on crimes” ballot initiatives including Prop 21 which took discretion on whether to charge juveniles from 14-17 in juvenile or adults courts away from judges (who used provisions of the Health and Welfare Codes) and handed it off to prosecutors, most of whom ran on “tough on crime” platforms.

    It happened in Orange County, hardly surprising. One of the most conservative counties in the state. And laws allow accomplices to crimes committed by others to be charges as if they committed the crimes themselves. This has been applied to murder cases particularly involving gangs and even rapes. If a person holds a gun on a woman who’s being raped by another man, he can be charged with rape as well. And convicted.

    Plus it’s 10 years per gang enhancement and 10-20 per use of a firearm. That adds up to a very long sentence. I don’t think it’s life in prison without parole as would be given in a capital case which under California law, it’s not (those are restricted to certain murders, treason, perjury that gets a person executed by the state and trainwrecking where there’s loss of life). I think it’s a “life” sentence because of all the sentences adding up to hundreds of years in prison with no parole likely for many years. Plus the “truth in sentencing” law requires 85% of prison terms to be served before being eligible for release.

    I don’t agree with the sentencing given in this case and I’m not keen on enhancements although hate crimes is an enhancements but I’ve seen, heard and read of this happening many, many times. This is not an anomaly but is almost being treated as if it were.

  6. I think the court is right in this situation- I agree with them that it’s shocking and absurd to punish this incident more harshly than murder, for a start. But this presser didn’t pass the smell test for me, so I did a little more hunting.

    Some facts the press release didn’t mention:
    –Nunez was sentenced in 2003, at age 16. He’s now in his 20s. That may or may not influence your opinion, but it annoys me that the press release spins it for maximum outrage by making it sound like he was 14 when tried and sentenced. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/us/california-teenager-given-life-sentence.html)

    -“He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time” may have been Nunez’s version, but the case proved at trial was a wee bit different. There’s some dispute over whether Nunez was found responsible in the initial kidnapping, but here’s what’s undisputed: police were called in and located the defendants as they drove around the city. The kidnappers opened fire on the police- Nunez was firing at the police with an assault rifle. A car chase ensued, and Nunez and his buddy eventually bailed out and ran. Their guns, along with the handcuffed victim, were found in the car. Nunez may have told the trial court this was all a plot set up by the victim, but the jury evidently wasn’t impressed enough to find him not guilty, and it’s rather disingenuous for the press release to cite only the defendant’s version when his story has already been found to be bs by a court of law. By the way, this all comes from the facts cited by the court, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G040377.PDF

    The appellate court found “The evidence does not support, however, petitioner’s suggestion that he acted without significant culpability because he was influenced” by the victim and the co-defendant.

    Again, I agree with the court in this case. But please, EJI, let’s discuss the WHOLE situation, not just a redacted version that makes your client look as innocent as possible.

  7. Again, I agree with the court in this case. But please, EJI, let’s discuss the WHOLE situation, not just a redacted version that makes your client look as innocent as possible.

    I agree—the conviction and sentence in Nunez’s case are bad enough without EJI playing fast and loose with the facts. But whoo—it was easy for me to believe the sanitized version. the justice system is so screwed up that

  8. Again, I agree with the court in this case. But please, EJI, let’s discuss the WHOLE situation, not just a redacted version that makes your client look as innocent as possible.

    I agree Lindsay—the conviction and sentence in Nunez’s case are bad enough without EJI playing fast and loose with the facts of his involvement. But whoo—it sure was easy for me to believe the sanitized version. The justice system in this country is just that screwed up!

  10. LIndsay, thanks so much for posting more info. When I was originally reading the story I was like, “What, what, what, I don’t understand!” Thanks for clarifying some things.

  11. I don’t think the article misrepresented the facts — it was clear from the text that jury found the boy guilty. And it was the aggravated kidnapping charge that resulted in the mandatory LWOP (Radfem is wrong saying it was not a real LWOP).

    It is not up to EJI to decide who lied and who told the truth — as long as they make it clear what the jury decided.

    Also, keep in mind the court opinion found it plausible that the boy did NOT KNOW they were chased by police (the cars were mostly unmarked and visibility was poor) plus the boy CEASED shooting after police put their lights on. This was a boy who was gunned down when 13 and saw his brother get murdered. This kid had plenty of reasons to be paranoid. It is not an excuse but it is clearly a mitigating factor for a 14-year-old child.

  12. BTW, compare this case with the treatment of Spc. James Barker and Sgt. Paul E. Cortez. They planned and executed the murder of a 14-year-old girl and her family (including a 6-year-old sister) so that they can rape the girl. The actual murder were done by a 3rd soldier (the rape by all) but it was fully planned by all.

    Their sentence? Possible parole in 20 (Baker) and even 10 (Cortez) years!

    But hey, 13 and 14 year-old children who never killed or raped anyone are clearly far more culpable and guilty than these soldiers!

    This is mockery of justice, pure and simple.

  13. I note that the USA is not the only country to sentence 14 year olds to LWOP. Australia does the same, a 14 year old was sentenced to and still is serving LWOP for the 1986 rape and murder of Janine Balding in NSW.

Comments are currently closed.