annotated bibliography

The associated press, contributor  (2017, July 3). A state-by-state look at juvenile life without parole. Retrieved from https://www.apnews.com/9debc3bdc7034ad2a68e62911fba0d85

States are responding to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have found mandatory life-without-parole sentences unconstitutional for juveniles except for the rare homicide offender incapable of rehabilitation. After the latest ruling in January 2016 said those serving such terms must have a chance to argue for release one day, dozens of inmates have won new sentences and some, freedom while others wait or fight to have their sentences reviewed (Associated press contributor, 2017). The different states are revisiting court and legislative action to show this is unconstitutional because they are imprisoning these juveniles with life sentences in an extreme amount of number. Some have argued they are just trying to speed the process rather than looking at the effects. Out of all the states accounted for Pennsylvania is the state with the most prisoners serving mandatory life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles at the time of the January 2016 Supreme Court decision.

This source, The Associated Press, are similar to other sources in the field by speaking on the unconstitutional sentences for juveniles as a whole rather than focusing on just one particular case. This shows this source does not have bias. One way to tell is because they gave information about every state to show the people locked up since they were teenages to now where they are adults still trying to fight for a shorter sentence and possibly even getting out. Some success stories came from this by some of the offenders getting parole, some with shorter sentences , and a small percentage of them being released. As of the Supreme Court's new law, everyone who was sentenced to life without parole now have a chance to dispute and reason with the prosecutors and judges to have a better sentencing for the crimes they commited. This is a newer source so other sources have not responded. Strengths of this source is that your able to look at a summarization from state to state and see who had a impact on their state which cause them to change their ruling. Weakness is that it starts to get tiring looking at 50 states justices.

Overall, The Associated Press was a good source to gather information about to counter argue on to why I believe it should not be legal to give juveniles life sentences. This source helps to create many ideas to why this should not be legal because it shows many instances where punishment of juvenile offenders been occuring in myriad ways. I am particularly using this source to engage the audience about states they might be possibly from or have a relation with and show how state laws are affecting the future generation by giving life sentences rather than ways that can be more effective like rehabilitation.

Ford, M. (2017, July 14). The Reckoning Over Young Prisoners Serving Life Without Parole. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/juvenile-life-without-parole/533157/

The U.S. Supreme Court has spent a decade limiting the harshest sentence given to juvenile offenders. But state supreme courts are still grappling with how those rulings should play out. It’s been more than seven years since the U.S. Supreme Court began to chip away at life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders, and lower courts are still wrestling with how to apply the justices’ logic to the American criminal-justice system.(Ford, M. 2017). What is basically going on is that some states are going against federal laws trying to still implant their way of justice which consist of still giving juveniles life sentences. But, on a legislative level, their have been more states coming together in this process trying to abolish it as a statutory matter.

The Atlantic views on, the reckoning over young prisoners serving life without parole, is similar to other sources in the field because it relates back to court cases where juveniles took their cases all the way to the United States Supreme Court to get justice, and most of the time it became a success story which relates back to why the Supreme Court is chipping away at life-without-parole sentences. This Article shows some bias towards state supreme courts by mostly getting rulings from there rather than comparing the state court v. the U.S. court. This is a more current source to where another source have not responded. Strengths of this source is that it gives background information about the people who took part in the U.S. Supreme Court rulings but the weakness is that it mainly shows people vs. the state cases.

This source helps me plan to provide my counter argument by providing the statistics they showed about how many prisoners are currently serving life sentences, the number is a lot thinking about the fact they were juveniles. Yes, this is a helpful source because it will help me to formulate background information on past court rulings to explain why juvenile life sentences should unconstitutional in the states. I am using this particular source because it consists of being a good trade source and it is good for giving a general understanding for the audience they are aiming to reach.    

Quandt, K. (2018, January 31). Why Does the U.S. Sentence Children to Life in Prison? Retrieved from https://daily.jstor.org/u-s-sentence-children-life-prison/

In this Article from Jstor Daily, it explains why the United States sentence children to life in prison. The United States is the only country in the world that sentences people to die in prison for offenses committed while under the age of 18 (Quandt, K.). The United States have been trying to address how to make juveniles accountable for their crimes as early as 1899 when the United States jurisdictions began to create the first juvenile courts which made children accountable for their crimes. In contrast to this happening,  it diverted them away from adult prisons and stared them into juvenile facilities that were created.

This source compares to other sources because it describes how several Supreme Court decisions and individual state laws have continuously tried to protect children from the most extreme sentences, but they have faced significant resistance from prosecutors and lawmakers. This article does not have bias because it mostly tries to reach to the audience and say why are our children (the kids of the United States) some of the only ones around the world that are experiencing such harsh punishment. This is a fairly current source to where no other sources have commentated on. Strengths of this source is that it shows the background of how juvenile justices started and became an issue. Weaknesses about it is that it is fairly short on information.

Thornberry, T. (1973). Race, socioeconomic status and sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Retrieved from Evanston, IL: Northwestern University

In this Criminology book professor T. Thornberry talks about how the juveniles to most likely be victimized will be the members of minority groups, migrants and people with limited economic means by the frustrated police officers in local communities. This particularly means the most people victimized will be african americans and latino. This means that even though juveniles as a whole are getting life sentences, african americans and latinos are getting harsher sentences while most of the time white offenders get things like probation and suspended sentences; suspended sentences happen when a judge waive the sentence a defendant received and allowed them to perform a period of probation instead.

This compares to other sources in the field because it shows how most of the teenagers being victimized are from urban areas. The source does not have bias but in the text it speaks about it saying how white people are most of the times more privileged than blacks in the juvenile justice system. This is a much older source so other sources have responded and followed up on more current information. Strengths of this source is that it is a scholarly source so the information will be more accurate but the weakness is that this information is over 40 years old which means some of the things spoke upon have been updated.

Although this source of information is pretty old, it still provides information for my counter argument. It does so because it still refers to the broader idea which is juveniles being imprisoned with harsh sentences. The whole idea this author was trying to bring forth is that minorities are targeted more and even though this was written over 40 years ago this problem still occurs today. I am using this particular source because I liked how it gathered information from different backgrounds of different groups and showed how, depending on you ethnicity and area your from, will determine who is the most targeted out of the group.

Kurlychek, M., Johnson, B. (07 March 2006). The Juvenile Penalty: A comparison of juvenile and young adult sentencing outcomes in criminal court. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00527.x                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

This article uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts (Kurlychek, M., Johnson, B.,2006).

This compares to other sources because it gives the perspective of juvenile offenders in adult court being punished severely. This source does not really experience bias because their main goal was comparing and contrasting the sentences of juvenile sentences and adult sentences. The juveniles are being accounted for acts they did, when in some instances they are too young to fully understand what is moral thing to do. This is a older source but I have not encountered any other sources directly responding. Strengths of this source is that it got its data from criminal court so it gives a inside look into how the court system are punishing these juveniles and its easier to compare it to other instances. Weaknesses would be that they summarize most of the information they find rather than giving it more detail.

Yes this source will help with my counter argument because it helps me to show how and give a better understanding of the judicial decision making process.This source is helpful because since it is comparing juvenile sentences to adults, which are being handled the same way if the child committed a homicide, which does not make any sense to charge a child under 18 the same as they would charge someone over the age of 20. To charge a child a life sentence that could be only 12 years old the same as they would someone in their 20s just does not seem right. I’m using this particular source because it’s a great scholarly source to compare the unfair rulings with juveniles and adults.

Fagan, J. (23 January 2007) When Kids Get Life. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/whenkidsgetlife/interviews/fagan.html

This source is an interview by a professor at Columbia Law School and its Mailman School of Public Health and serves as co-director of the Center for Crime, Community and Law. He is an expert on the juvenile justice system. In this interview he discusses the legal and social implications of sentencing juveniles to life without parole and the history of America's approach to young criminals (Fagan. J, 2007). Professor Fagan gets deep into expressing why americans are acceptable of the juveniles being tried as an adult approach. He says he believes it satisfies an urge for vengeance on the part of many people in the American public.

This source does not really compare to the other sources used because instead of the contributor of the article getting their information from other articles and statistics, this one is from an interview where all the matters discussed came from one source which was the professor being interviewed. This source shows a little bias because even though juveniles should still be accounted for the crimes they commit, it seems a little like the professor is showing these juveniles some favortism. It is a older source but since it was a recorded interview it was hard to tell if any other sources have directly responded. Strengths are this professor has a lot of experience with the criminal law so what he says is mostly accurate. Weaknesses are he began to talk more about the history of how juvenile courts were created and why.

Yes, this interview will provide information for my counter argument because he basically describes how juveniles getting life sentences are only for vengeance. He professor J. Fagan says how vengeance is a very powerful motivator and we get extreme vengeance, for kids who have committed serious crimes. Yes this interview is a helpful source of definitions. I am using this source because it is a really good source of information. It has basically all you need to know about juveniles life sentences, juvenile courts and even the history about it. This information is a strong contributor to how I will counter argue that juveniles getting life sentences should not be legal.

Penn Live Contributor. (03 August 2017). These teen killers from central Pa. may get a chance at freedom. Retrieved from https://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/08/juvenile_lifers_pennsylvania.html

Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court barred mandatory life sentences in juvenile cases, and in 2016, made it clear this applies retroactively. According to Pennsylvania Department of Corrections officials, the state has 517 inmates who were sentenced to life for crimes committed when they were juveniles. Under the Supreme Court ruling, 58 of them have been released and 116 of them were re-sentenced so far.Since the department started keeping count, three have died in prison, with one of those cases being a suicide.Here's a look at the juvenile lifers from central Pennsylvania Dauphin, Cumberland, Perry, York, Lancaster and Lebanon counties and where their potential re-sentencings stand (Pennlive Contributor, 2017),

This source compares to other sources in the field because it connects with how most of the people facing the life sentences are black or latino, they even include photos which makes it easier to notice the pattern. It has bias because it is mainly focusing on juveniles getting a chance at freedom rather than focusing on why they were imprisoned in the first place. This source is fairly new, no other source have directly responded. Strengths of this is that it shows adults and their background to why they was incarcerated in the first place. Weaknesses is that some of the inmate information is very short.     

Yes, This source about teen killers, who are now grown, from central PA possibly getting a chance at freedom will provide information for my counterargument. It will help me show how these prisoners have been facing very long sentences for more simple crimes like robbery which seems to be the most common where they could have just had some guidance rather than life sentences. Yes this is a helpful source do definitions. I am using this particular source because I was interested in what the juvenile justice system in PA would look like and to get a better understanding of PA laws.       

Hasselle D.  (04 November 2017) Juvenile life without parole still administered too heavily, children's rights advocates say. Retrieved from https://www.theadvocate.com/gambit/new_orleans/news/the_latest/article_87f868c7-1e26-5344-88c5-851dece13322.html

Earlier this year, the Louisiana Legislature was tasked with enforcing U.S. Supreme Court rulings mandating that children be sentenced to life in prison in only "rare" and "uncommon" instances. Now, children’s rights advocates say the state is failing to comply, as prosecutors are still asking for juvenile life without parole in more than 30 percent of all cases that have in recent years been made eligible for reconsideration. "The District Attorneys are not using their discretion as the Supreme Court mandated nor are they heeding the explicit will of the legislature,” said Jill Pasquarella, attorney at Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights. “The legislation means nothing if the state does not comply with the Constitution in practice” (Hasselle D.,  2017)

This source compares to other sources in the field by comparing different court cases to the broad topic of why juveniles getting life sentences are unconstitutional. This source does not really show any bias because rather than just agreeing with one side of the argument about, if it should be legal to give juveniles life sentences, they say how it is rare for them to even be sentenced to life in prison but the states are failing to comply. This is a newer source where articles have directly responded. Strengths of this source is that it shows not all the time are juveniles given life sentences for serious crimes. Weaknesses is that most of the article was cited from other articles.

This source will provide information about my counter argument about how prosecutors are not exactly “playing by the rules” which means they are still giving life sentences even after they were ruled out in particular states. Yes I would say this source is a helpful source of definitions. I am using this particular source because it shows how prosecutors and the judicial branch does not always agree. Even though the judges do the ruling, the prosecutors are the ones who determine the juvenile sentencing whether they get life sentence with parole, life sentence without, or just probation. They sometimes try to come to an agreement with the defendant where the defendant take the plea deal but is offered a less harsh sentencing. This source will sorta help to explain how the prosecutors are the most important role in the courtroom so they are mostly responsible for juveniles getting life sentence rather than the judge.