Categorically

Less Culpable

Children Sentenced to Life Without
Possibility of Parole in Illinois
The Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

Many photos throughout this book, including the cover photo, were generously donated by and are reprinted with permission from Steve
Liss, a Soros Justice Media Fellow, whose work has focused, in part, on documenting the lives of children in juvenile detention facilities. These
photographs were taken inside juvenile detention facilities, but the children depicted here are not serving life without parole sentences in Illinois.
This book also includes photographs of several individuals now serving sentences in Illinois of life without parole for crimes committed when
they were juveniles. Each of these images is used with the permission of the individual’s family.

About the Illinois Coalition
for the Fair Sentencing of Children

The Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of
Children is a network of attorneys, academics, child
advocates, and concerned citizens who believe it is
inappropriate to sentence children under the age of
18 to life in prison without parole. It is comprised of
the following member organizations:
■■

American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

■■

DLA Piper

■■

Human Rights Watch, Chicago Committee

■■

John Howard Association of Illinois

■■

Juvenile Justice Initiative

■■

Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender

■■

Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, University of Chicago School of Law

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

■■

Children and Family Justice Center, Bluhm Legal Clinic,
Northwestern University School of Law

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

1

Acknowledgments

Each member of the Illinois Coalition for the Fair
Sentencing of Children’s Advisory Board (listed
individually below) made a significant contribution to
this report over the past two years, providing research
strategy advice, identifying and organizing volunteers,
and offering valuable commentary on drafts.
In particular, Betsy Kalven of the Children and Family Justice Center
and Aarti Kotak of DLA Piper us llp handled the painstaking process of
identifying the inmates serving juvenile life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, investigating each inmate’s case, developing prisoner questionnaires,
and scheduling almost 100 prison interviews across the state. Elizabeth
Kooy of the Juvenile Justice Initiative analyzed the information gathered
through this process and produced the charts and maps included herein.
Anne Geraghty of DLA Piper was responsible for researching and drafting
the report. Her contributions to the success of this project were invaluable.
She received research assistance from Nicole Miller and Sarah Silins.

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

We are also grateful to Lauren Adams and Richard Klawiter, who were
integral to the creation and vision of the Coalition, as well as Alison Parker
and Deborah LaBelle, who provided us with our initial data about those
serving life sentences in Illinois.

2

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

Librarians and support staff at DLA Piper helped us
gather information on the individuals serving life without
possibility of parole, and Toni Curtis at the Children
and Family Justice Center provided valuable logistical
support throughout. Volunteers, including attorneys
and summer associates at DLA Piper, law students
from Northwestern University School of Law and the
University of Chicago, and attorneys from Vedder Price
and Goldberg Cohen traveled long distances to interview
almost 100 individuals. There are too many volunteers
to recognize each individually, but we could not have
completed the report without their generous assistance.
We are also grateful to Steve Liss, Soros Justice Media
Fellow, for donating his photographs to us, and to the
Illinois Department of Corrections for graciously allowing
us into their facilities for interviews. In particular, we
would like to thank Deanne Benos, Randy Grounds, and
Lori Killam.
Thank you to the family members of crime victims
who spoke with us over the past two years and educated
us about the perspectives and unmet needs of victims’
families. We have tried to fashion recommendations
that account for their concerns, and we hope that this
report will help initiate a constructive dialogue about this
complex and difficult issue.
Finally, we are grateful to all the prisoners in Illinois
serving juvenile life without possibility of parole, as well
as their family members, who took the time to complete
our surveys and to speak with us. Their honesty and
willingness to share their thoughts were critical to this
project as a whole.

Illinois Coalition for the
Fair Sentencing of Children
Advisory Board
Simmie Baer, Children and Family Justice Center,
Northwestern University School of Law
Elizabeth Clarke, Juvenile Justice Initiative
Bernardine Dohrn, Children and Family Justice
Center, Northwestern University School of Law
Shaena Fazal, John Howard Association of Illinois
James Ferg-Cadima, American Civil Liberties Union
of Illinois
Carolyn Frazier, Children and Family Justice Center,
Northwestern University School of Law
Anne Geraghty, DLA Piper
Jeffrey Howard, Law Office of the Cook County
Public Defender
Betsy Kalven, Children and Family Justice Center,
Northwestern University School of Law
Richard Klawiter, DLA Piper
Elizabeth Kooy, Juvenile Justice Initiative
Aarti Kotak, DLA Piper
Jackie McKay, Human Rights Watch,
Chicago Committee
Maaria Mozaffar, Human Rights Watch,
Chicago Committee
Randolph Stone, Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic,
University of Chicago School of Law
Anne Studzinski, Human Rights Watch,
Chicago Committee
Malcolm Young, John Howard Association of Illinois

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

3

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1	About the Illinois Coalition for the
Fair Sentencing of Children

  2	Acknowledgments
  7	Executive Summary
11	Chapter 1: The Law in Illinois
15	Chapter 2: “Categorically Less Culpable”:
Why Children Are Different

19	Chapter 3: Children Serving Life Without
Possibility of Parole in Illinois

31	Chapter 4: Illinois and the Origins of the
Juvenile Justice System

35	Chapter 5: National and International Trends
39	Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

5

“How can you say someone can’t change? That’s what life is.
We are all constantly learning and growing.”

* Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Damien P., serving life without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 25, 2006.

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

– Damien P., sentenced to life without possibility of parole for a crime committed when he was 16*

Executive Summary

What should we as a society do when our youngest
citizens commit the most serious crimes? In the late
1970s, the Illinois legislature answered that question by
passing a series of measures to address what was then
seen as an upward spiral in youth crime.1 The measures
included a provision that authorized—and in many
cases mandated—the sentence of life without possibility
of parole (LWOP) for persons as young as 13 years old.
Nearly 30 years later, the landscape has changed dramatically. Cuttingedge brain research has confirmed that adolescents are more susceptible to
rehabilitation than adults because their brains are not yet fully formed. The
United States Supreme Court has declared the death penalty unconstitutional
for juveniles, describing children as “categorically less culpable” than adults
and more likely to change as they mature.2 And there is a rapidly growing
consensus, within the United States and almost everywhere else in the world,
that sentencing children to life without possibility of parole violates universal
principles of human rights.
The United States is one of only two countries around the world that
continues to sentence children to life without possibility of parole. The
vast majority of those sentences are issued in the United States. Indeed, at
least 2,380 people in the US,3 compared with only 7 in the rest of the world,
currently are serving life sentences for crimes they committed as children.
Summary of OUR
Recommendations
to the Illinois
Legislature
• Pass legislation that abolishes the
sentence of life without possibility
of parole for children.
• Apply this new legislation
retroactively.
• Include victim notification provisions
in any legislation passed.

In 2006, Colorado outlawed juvenile LWOP outright. Similar legislation
is pending in Nebraska,4 Florida, Michigan, California, and Illinois,5 and
concerted efforts are being made to ban the practice in Iowa, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, and Washington as well.6
The Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children believes that, in
light of this gathering consensus, it is time to re-examine the well-intentioned
but failed policy of sending our most serious juvenile offenders to prison for
1. In fact, national violent crime rates have decreased dramatically over the past 15 years. US Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violent Crime Rates, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm.
2. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
3. Center for Law and Global Justice, University of San Francisco School of Law, Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prisons,
i (November 2007).
4. Joanne Young, Youth Shouldn’t Be Sentenced to Life Without Parole, Lincoln Journal Star, January 10, 2007
5. Human Rights Watch, When I Die, They’ll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life Without Parole in California, Vol. 20,
No. 1(G) 5 (January 2008).
6. Id.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

7

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

the rest of their lives with no possibility of presenting a
case for their release. Two fundamental principles guide
us in this belief:
■■

■■

8

Children are categorically less culpable than adults.
Through recent brain-scanning research, scientists
have confirmed that because children’s brains are not
yet fully developed, they lack the impulse control of
their adult counterparts and are more vulnerable to
peer pressure. Our state has recognized these inherent
differences between children and adults time and time
again. Illinois prohibits children from using alcohol,
voting, making decisions regarding health care, being
drafted, serving on juries, marrying without parental
consent, or signing contracts. In most instances,
children also are treated differently than adults when
they become involved with the criminal justice system.
Children are capable of change. Research also
confirms that, because children are not yet mentally or
developmentally mature, their identities are not fully
formed, and they are inherently capable of growth,
reform, and rehabilitation—if given the chance to
succeed. This principle is the bedrock of the juvenile

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

justice system, which originated in Illinois, and
has been reinforced by contemporary research on
adolescent brain development.
Today in the State of Illinois, 1037 people are serving
LWOP sentences for crimes they committed as children.
These individuals, all of whom entered prison as
teenagers, will mature into adulthood, grow old, and
die in prison. Regardless of their degree of involvement
in the crime, their achievements, age, or demonstrated
rehabilitation, they will never have a chance to appear
before a parole board.
Each of these 103 individuals is in prison because he
or she was convicted of murder. Most were convicted
of multiple homicides, and some were found to have
committed especially brutal acts. These crimes must be
dealt with seriously. However, providing these offenders
with an opportunity for parole through meaningful
periodic review does not suggest that they should be or
will be paroled. Offering the opportunity for parole simply
7. We made every effort to identify every person serving an LWOP sentence in Illinois. However,
because the Illinois Department of Corrections does not maintain information on the number
of people serving LWOP sentences, we were not able to verify our data, and the figure we
arrived at, 103, is therefore likely underinclusive. Furthermore, although in Illinois juvenile
court jurisdiction ends at the age of 17, this figure includes anyone who is serving an LWOP
sentence for a crime he or she committed while under the age of 18—which is used as the age
of majority in the United States and in the international community.

Illinois should take a leading role in abolishing the
practice of juvenile life without possibility of parole
in the United States.

means providing them the chance and the incentive to
mature and prove they are capable of change.
Illinois should take a leading role in abolishing the
practice of juvenile life without possibility of parole in
the United States. In 1899, Illinois was the first state to
establish a juvenile court. Since that time Illinois has
maintained one of the largest and most sophisticated
juvenile justice systems in the nation. In 2006, our state
reaffirmed its commitment to balanced and restorative
justice for young offenders by forming the new
Department of Juvenile Justice and the Illinois Supreme
Court in People v. Miller8 already has recognized that—
at least in certain instances—mandatory life sentences
are inappropriate for juvenile offenders.

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

We urge Illinois lawmakers to begin an open dialogue
about this issue involving victims’ families as well as
prosecutors, defense attorneys, juvenile advocates, and
the families of those serving juvenile LWOP, to find a
mutually acceptable way of balancing the need for public
safety and punishment with the proud Illinois tradition of
giving child offenders a second chance.

8. 202 Ill.2d 328, 781 N.E.2d 300, 269 Ill.Dec. 503 (2002).

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

9

“And on the verdict of guilty of first degree murder… I sentence you
to a term of natural life in the Illinois Department of Corrections…
That is the sentence that I am mandated by law to impose. If I had my
discretion, I would impose another sentence, but that is mandated by law.”

* Brief of Petitioner at 10, People v. Allen, No. 92 CR 08607-02 (Dec. 13, 2002) (quoting trial judge).

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

– Honorable Thomas Dwyer, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, while sentencing
a 15-year-old accomplice to life without possibility of parole*

Chapter 1:

The Law in Illinois
In Illinois, children as young as 13 years old may be
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.9
Depending on the type of crime involved, the sentence
is almost always mandatory10 —as is the child’s transfer
from juvenile to adult court.11 Indeed, in the 103 juvenile
LWOP cases we identified, 95 percent were transferred
to adult court automatically, and 79 percent received
mandatory life sentences once they were convicted in
adult court. Thus, in almost all cases where children
face LWOP sentences, there is no point at which
either a juvenile or an adult court judge or jury can
consider the child’s age, home environment, degree
of involvement in the crime, rehabilitative potential, or
circumstances of the offense. The law simply dictates
that if the child commits one of the crimes outlined in
the statute, he or she is beyond redemption and is not
entitled to a second chance—ever.
This is true—at least for children 15 or older—even when the child is found
guilty under the exceptionally harsh accountability statute in Illinois, which
mandates that an accomplice receive the same punishment as the principal
offender, no matter how small his or her role in the crime.12 Thus, a child
15 or older may receive a mandatory life sentence for acting as a lookout or
for driving a getaway car for a robbery, even if he or she has no idea that the
principal is carrying a weapon.
In recent years, the Illinois Supreme Court and several circuit courts have
questioned the constitutionality and fairness of Illinois’ mandatory juvenile
9. 705 ILCS 405/5-130(1)(a); (4)(a) (providing for the mandatory transfer of children as young as 13 years old to adult court);
730 ILCS 5/5-8-1 (a)(1) (authorizing discretionary and mandatory life sentences for murder).
10. Illinois law dictates that mandatory life sentences be handed down in many cases, including cases of multiple homicide,
the murder of a police officer, or the killing of a young child during the course of a sexual assault or kidnapping.
730 ILCS 5/5-8-1. In other cases, the sentence is discretionary, such as when a single murder is accompanied by exceptionally
brutal or heinous behavior. Id.
11. 705 ILCS 405/5-130.
12. 720 ILCS 5/5-2; see also 405 ILCS 5/5-130, which exempts children under the age of 15 from automatic transfer requirements
when they are charged on an accountability theory.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

11

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

There are currently two ways juveniles
can be sent to adult court in Illinois:
1. Discretionary transfer: At the prosecutor’s request, the
juvenile court may transfer certain cases, after considering
individual characteristics, including seriousness of offense,
prior record, educational background, history of mental
health problems, age, and amenability to treatment.
2. Automatic transfer: When the State charges children
as young as 13 with certain crimes, transfer to adult
court is mandatory. Once the child is in adult court, adult
sentencing laws—including mandatory life without parole
penalties—apply.

In Illinois, over 95 percent of children serving life without
parole sentences were automatically transferred to adult
criminal court with no opportunity for a judge to review
the appropriateness of the transfer.
Almost 80 percent of children serving LWOP sentences in
Illinois received a mandatory sentence, meaning that judges
were permitted no leeway in the sentencing decision.

LWOP law. Several judges, such as Judge Thomas Dwyer
(quoted on the previous page), have announced in open
court that they would not impose life sentences for a child
defendant if they had the discretion to make that decision.
In one case, the Illinois Supreme Court found that a
mandatory juvenile LWOP sentence went too far to
comport with the Illinois constitution. In People v.
Miller,13 the Court considered whether a 15-year-old
boy who acted as a lookout during a multiple homicide
should receive life without the possibility of parole.
Under the law, the decisions to transfer the boy from
juvenile to adult court, to treat him just as harshly as if
he had pulled the trigger, and to impose a life sentence
all were mandatory. On review, the Court agreed that the
sentence was so disproportionate to the crime, especially
given the boy’s age and role in the crime, that it violated a
provision in the Illinois Constitution. The Court ordered
a lesser sentence.
In 2007, Illinois circuit courts relied upon Miller to strike
down mandatory life sentences in the cases of Marshan
Allen and Charles Green. Neither Allen nor Green were
the principal offenders in their cases; both had been
13. 202 Ill.2d 328, 781 N.E.2d 300, 269 Ill. Dec. 503 (2002).

12

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

In Illinois, children as young as 13 may be sentenced
to life without the possibility of parole. Depending on
the type of crime involved, the sentence is almost
always mandatory—as is the child’s transfer from
juvenile to adult court.

found guilty under an accountability theory.14 Green was
16 years old at the time of his crime. Allen was only 15.

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

These decisions, and especially the language in Miller,
highlight serious problems with the current sentencing
scheme in Illinois. Unfortunately, however, Miller is the
only juvenile life case that the Illinois Supreme Court
has ever agreed to hear. And, although there are many
people who, like Miller, are serving mandatory life
sentences in Illinois for crimes they committed at a very
young age, only two others—Marshan Allen and Charles
Green—have received hearings on the constitutionality
of their sentences. Currently, the only other option for
offenders serving juvenile LWOP sentences is to apply
for executive clemency. But clemency is not the answer. It
is granted only in the rarest of cases. Moreover, there is
a significant backlog of clemency petitions in Illinois that
have yet to be processed. Executive clemency is therefore
not a realistic means of fixing the systemic problem of
juvenile life without possibility of parole sentences.

In Illinois, juvenile court jurisdiction ends at the age of 17, so
anyone above that age is automatically sent to adult criminal
court. However, in the great majority of states, juvenile court
jurisdiction extends to the age of 18 and, under federal law,
children under the age of 18 may not be subject to the death
penalty. International law similarly defines a child as a person
under the age of 18. For purposes of discussing life without
parole, therefore, this report defines the term “juvenile” as
anyone under the age of 18.

“I am America’s child. You made this and now don’t
sweep it under the rug.”
Kentrell S.*
* I llinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Kentrell S., serving
life without possibility of parole in Illinois, August 30, 2006.

14.  People v. Green, No. 85 cr 2456 (Circuit Ct. of Cook County, Criminal Division, August 15,
2007) (order denying Motion to Dismiss Post-Conviction Petition); People v. Allen, No. 92 cr
8607 (November 29, 2007) (hearing on State’s Motion to Dismiss Post-Conviction Petition). Both
Allen and Green are awaiting resentencing pending the State’s appeals. Because neither has been
resentenced, we have included both in our count of individuals serving juvenile LWOP sentences
in Illinois.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

13

-Honorable James B. Linn, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County *

* People v. Miller, 202 Ill.2d 328, 781 N.E.2d 300, 269 Ill.Dec. 503 (2002).

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

“I have from the moment that the Jury came back with their findings
been very concerned about what this meant, what this meant to [the
defendant] as a child, what this meant to society at large, to be part of
a society where a 15 year old child on a theory of accountability only,
passive accountability, would suffer a sentence of life in the Penitentiary
without the possibility of parole… [I]n my mind this is blatantly unfair
and highly unconscionable, and let me state that I do not believe for a
second that Mr. Miller is innocent of these charges. I believe he received
a fair trial. I believe he was adequately represented. I believe he was
proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe he should suffer
harsh criminal consequences for acting as a look-out in this case, but to
suggest that he ought to receive a sentence of life without possibility of
parole, I find to be very, very hard to swallow to the point where I can
describe it as unconscionable.”

Chapter 2:

“Categorically Less Culpable”:

Why Children Are Different
Science has shown that teenagers are not yet completely formed, either
physically or mentally. Although children are able to grasp the concepts of
“right” and “wrong” at a very young age, the nuances of weighing longterm risks and benefits are lost on even late adolescents, making them more
vulnerable to peer pressure than adults, more prone to take risks, and less
likely to understand the perspective of others or the consequences of their
decisions. These traits are clear to anyone who has spent time with a teenager
(or remembers being one), and they are well documented in psychological
research. When asked questions designed to gauge one’s preference for
smaller, immediate rewards versus larger, long-term rewards, for example,
adolescents consistently take the immediate reward.15 In solving puzzles, they
are more apt to make the first move without planning ahead; in responding
to scenarios presented to them, they are more likely to focus on the benefits
involved and less likely to mention potential risks.16 Indeed, one study
estimates that only 25 percent of 10th graders think through the long-term
consequences of their important decisions.17 Research also has confirmed that
teenagers and college undergraduates are even more impulsive when they are
around their peers,18 and that they are around their peers most of the time.19
Not surprisingly, few of the inmates we interviewed acted alone in committing
their crimes; they almost always were in the presence of co-defendants.
All of these characteristics—peer pressure, the tendency to overlook risks
in favor of rewards, and impulsivity—are magnified in children who have
experienced trauma in their lives and, as described in more detail later in
this report, the majority of children facing life sentences have experienced
significant trauma or family dysfunction.20
Moreover, although young adults may look physically mature by the
time they reach 16 or 17, research shows that the emotional and cognitive
development process continues well into a person’s 20s. Thus, judges or
prosecutors may look at young adults and conclude they are mature enough
to suffer the full consequences of their actions, even though these young
adults may in all likelihood be developmentally well behind their adult
15. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, Issue Brief 3: Less Guilty by
Reason of Adolescence, at 2, available at: http://www.adjj.org/downloads/6093issue_brief_3.pdf.
16. Id. at 3.
17. The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International, 46 (2005) (citing Catherine C. Lewis, How Adolescents Approach Decisions: Changes Over Grades Seven to
Twelve and Policy Implications, 52 Child Development 538, 541-42 (1981)).
18. When presented with a simulated car-driving task, risk-taking behavior among adolescents and college students
(but not adults) increased when friends were present. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent
Development and Juvenile Justice, Issue Brief 3: Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence, available at: http://www.adjj.org/
downloads/6093issue_brief_3.pdf (citing P. Allard & M. Young, Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: Perspectives for
Policymakers and Practitioners, 6 J. of Forensic Psychology Practice 65 (2002)).
19. The time spent with one’s peers is twice as great during childhood as it is in adulthood. Id.
20. American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center, Adolescence, Brain Development, and Legal Culpability (January 2004)
(citing Chris Mallett, Socio-Historical Analysis of Juvenile Offenders on Death Row, 3 Juv. Corr. Mental Health Report
65 (2005)).

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

15

“When you’re young you think you’re untouchable.”
– Marcos G.*
Sentenced to life without possibility of parole for a crime
committed when he was 16.
* Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Marcos G., serving
life without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 20, 2006.

“There is… complete or near unanimity among all
50 states and the District of Columbia in treating a
person under 16 as a minor for several important
purposes… All of this legislation is consistent with
the experience of mankind, as well as the long
history of our law, that the normal 15 year old is
not prepared to assume the full responsibilities of
an adult.”
– United States Supreme Court, Thompson v. Oklahoma.*
* Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 824-825 (1988).

counterparts. Children also change rapidly. The young
adult who appears at sentencing—often months or years
after the crime—may well be far more mature than the
child who committed the act, a fact that may affect the
outcome of the trial and sentencing.21
Finally, psychological research proves that, for the very
reason that their characters are not yet fully formed,
children are uniquely susceptible to rehabilitation.
According to the American Psychological Association,
because children are considered “moving targets,”
psychologists are strongly discouraged from assigning
personality disorder diagnoses to children, and it is
virtually impossible to diagnose an adolescent as a
psychopath (indeed, several of the behaviors that are
indicative of psychopathy are considered normal in
21. Brief of American Psychological Association et. al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent at
3, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (No. 03-633). See Sarah Durston et al., Anatomical
MRI of the Developing Human Brain: What Have We Learned?, 40 J. Am. Acad. Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry 1012, 1012 (2001) (reviewing results of MRI studies of brain development in childhood and adolescence); Michael S. Gazzaniga et al., Cognitive Neuroscience:
The Biology of the Mind at 20-21, 138 (2d ed. 2002).

16

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

adolescents).22 If given the chance, even those young
adults who commit the most serious crimes are able to
grow into mature and responsible adults.
The Hard Science of Culpability
Within the past few years, cutting-edge brain imaging
techniques have given us an even greater understanding
of the developmental differences between teenagers
and adults. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
and other technologies, scientists have been able to
take virtual snapshots of the human brain at various
developmental stages.23 This research confirms that
the brain does not fully develop until late adolescence,
some time around or after the age of 18. Furthermore,
the portion of the brain that develops last is the frontal
cortex, which controls the mind’s executive functions,
including impulse control, risk assessment, and moral
reasoning. Because adolescents do not have fully
developed frontal cortices, they rely more heavily on the
amygdala, the brain’s much more primitive thought center
that responds to stimuli by triggering such impulses as
aggression, anger, and fear.24 In short, doctors have now

“I was completely in shock when I heard the judge
say natural life. I didn’t really understand until I was
put back in the holding cage and asked a guy in the
next holding cage how much time will I have to do.”
– Illinois Inmate serving Juvenile LWOP
“I realize now I cannot just go along with a crowd. I
realize that I am responsible for my own future. I
must become my own person.”
– Marshan A.,
in a letter to the judge who sentenced him.

22. Id. at 20-24.
23. For a good synopsis of this research, see Brief of American Medical Association et. al. as
Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (No. 03-633).
See also Sarah Durston et al., Anatomical MRI of the Developing Human Brain: What Have
We Learned? 40 J. Am. Acad. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 1012, 1012 (2001) (reviewing
results of MRI studies of brain development in childhood and adolescence); Michael S. Gazzaniga et al., Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind at 20-21, 138 (2d ed. 2002).
24. Id.

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

provided a medical reason for the various behaviors
identified by psychologists as typical in adolescents: they
are not capable of behaving like adults because they lack
the developed brain structure to do so.
It is these fundamental differences between children
and adults—both physical and developmental—that
have prompted legislators and policymakers to treat
children differently in a host of respects for the past
hundred years: children cannot drive, vote, sign

contracts, marry, drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes. For
these reasons, Illinois has treated children who commit
crimes differently for well over a hundred years, since it
established the nation’s first juvenile court system in the
late 19th century.

The Adolescent Brain
Recent brain research confirms what we already knew about teenagers:
Teenagers are not adults: Adolescent brains do not fully develop until after the age of 18.
Teenagers take more risks: The frontal cortex, which controls impulses and risk assessment,
is the last part of the brain to develop.
Teenagers overreact: Before the frontal cortex develops, children rely on the amygdala,
which triggers aggression, anger, and fear in response to stressful situations.
Teenagers change: As the frontal cortex develops, individuals become better at moral reasoning,
assessing risks, and controlling impulses.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

17

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

Chapter 3:

Children Serving Life Without Possibility OF

Parole in Illinois

Illinois has at least 103 child offenders serving life
without the possibility of parole for crimes they
committed before their 18th birthday.25 Only 6 other
states have more people serving juvenile life sentences.26
Juvenile life without possibility of parole sentencing disproportionately
impacts African Americans and Latinos in Illinois. Although Caucasians
make up nearly 90 percent of the entire population of this state,27 only 18
percent of those serving juvenile LWOP sentences are Caucasian. The
remaining 82 percent are either African American (72 percent) or Latino (10
percent). This racial disparity is especially strong in Cook County, where
64 of the 73 individuals sentenced to life without parole are youth of color.
Disproportionate impact on people of color is an issue across the country, but
the problem is especially stark in Illinois, where the percentage of African
American youth sentenced to life without parole far exceeds the national
average of 60 percent.28
A little less than half of those serving juvenile LWOP in Illinois were convicted
for crimes that took place when they were 17. Another 36 percent were 16 at
the time of their crimes, 12 percent were 15, and 4 percent were 14.29 There are
no individuals in Illinois serving LWOP sentences for crimes they committed
at the age of 13, although such a sentence is allowed under the law.
The vast majority, or 79 percent, of those serving life without possibility of
parole sentences were subjected to Illinois’ mandatory sentencing scheme,
and 95 percent were transferred to adult court without a hearing or any
possibility for the judge to determine age, maturity, mental ability, or degree
of involvement in the crime charged.
Only one of the 103 individuals serving a juvenile LWOP sentence is female.30
Nationwide, approximately one quarter of individuals serving juvenile life
without parole were convicted of felony murder, which means that they did
25. Although 17-year-olds are automatically treated as adults in Illinois when they commit criminal offenses, 705 ILCS 405/5-120,
laws in other states and across the world treat children under the age of 18 as juvenile offenders. For that reason, we include
17-year-olds in this report.
26. The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International 35 (2005). The six states which have more individuals serving juvenile LWOP are California, Florida, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania.
27. US Census Bureau, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Illinois, available at http://factfinder.census.gov/
servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US17&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U.
28. The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International, 28 (2005).
29. This is consistent with national statistics, according to which 16 percent of those serving juvenile LWOP sentences were 15 or
younger at the time of the crime. Id. at 25.
30. This comports with national statistics, which have found that child offenders serving life sentences are overwhelmingly male
(97.4 percent). Id.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

19

Juvenile LWOP by Race
Caucasian
19
18%
African American
Latino
10
10%

Latino
African American
74
72%

Caucasian

In Their Own Words:
Interviews with Individuals Serving
Life Without Possibility of Parole
Sentences in Illinois

Juvenile LWOP by Age
Age 14
4
4%
Age 15
12
12%

Age 17
Age 16

Age 17
50
49%
Age 16
37
36%

Age 15
Age 14

Of course, statistics can only tell us so much about
those serving life. For that reason, the Coalition felt
it was important to interview those serving juvenile
LWOP sentences in Illinois.35 We wanted to learn about
these individuals who were convicted of such serious
offenses at such a young age. What led them to where
they are now? What were their crimes? What are their
lives like now? What, if anything, have they done to
try to better themselves while in prison? Their answers
to these questions provide a snapshot of a group of
individuals who, for the most part, have deeply troubled
pasts, who are trying to cope with their sentences, and
who still hold out hope that some day they will be given
a second chance.

not intend to commit murder, but killed someone during
the course of another felony, such as a robbery.31

Facing a Sentence of Life Without
Possibility of Parole

Although only 13 of the 83 inmates we spoke with in Illinois
told us they were found guilty under an accountability
theory, meaning that they were not the principal actors in
their crimes, the number is likely higher.32

Almost every prisoner with whom we spoke needed to
grapple with the impossible reality of spending life in
prison. Coping with this sentence was especially difficult
in the first few years after their sentences. One young
man, Jamie J., spoke about the misdirected energy he
had after he arrived, telling us that at the age of 15 he
felt written off and “helpless.”36 Others told us they had
considered committing suicide and that they had to
struggle every day to find some purpose in their lives.

Across the country, well over half of the individuals
serving life without parole sentences (59 percent)
received life sentences for their very first criminal
conviction,33 and, in one quarter of the years between
1985 and 2001, children were actually more likely to be
sentenced to life without possibility of parole than their
adult counterparts.34
31. Id. at 27-28. We were not able to gather information on the number of individuals serving
juvenile LWOP sentences who were convicted of felony murder in Illinois.
32. There is no way to discern from court records whether individuals were convicted under an
accountability theory because the forms do not specify the theory under which a person was
convicted. For that reason, we had to rely on individuals to self-report on accountability.
Unfortunately, we did not gather this information consistently from the inmates because our
questionnaire did not include a question about accountability, and only a few reported on
accountability during their interviews.
33. Id. at 28.
34. The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Human
Rights Watch and Amnesty International, 33 (2005).

20

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

After just a short time in prison, many of the inmates said
they began to lose touch with family and friends. Most
Illinois prisons are in remote parts of the state, far from
the places where offenders grew up—typically so distant
that often inmates only receive visitors once or twice a
year, if at all. Although these inmates attempt to maintain
35. Although we made every attempt to collect surveys from and interview every individual
serving juvenile LWOP sentences in Illinois, we only were able to collect this information
from 83 of the 103 individuals we identified.
36. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Jamie J., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 25, 2006.

Almost every prisoner with whom
we spoke needed to grapple with
the impossible reality of spending life
in prison.

ties to family and friends through the mail, many lamented the fact that their
letters went unanswered. Joseph A. explained his frustration with rules that do
not allow him to receive or keep pictures of his family—keepsakes that he felt
could motivate him to improve himself.37
Several of the individuals we interviewed commented on how frightening it
was to go to prison as an adolescent. Cedric C. described some of the older
inmates as “predators,” who would target new inmates who seemed young
and weak.38 Demetrius J. explained that he had to grow up fast in prison
because some inmates seek to exploit naïve prisoners; in prison, he “couldn’t
think like a kid anymore.”39

Education in Prison
Because everyone we spoke with was incarcerated at a young age, all spent
the years most crucial to cognitive and skill development behind bars.
Education is, of course, key to that development, but these offenders had little
or no access to educational programs, and told us that programs often were,
and are, expressly denied to those serving life without parole sentences.

Used with permission.

Indeed, their fears often proved to be well founded. Richard H. lost all his upper
front teeth when a fellow inmate beat him with a baseball bat.40 Others were
targeted with violence when they separated from or refused to join a particular
gang. Still others told us of the constant threat of sexual abuse in prison.

Vincent P., now age 44, is serving a
life without parole sentence for a crime
committed when he was 17.

One inmate, for example, attempted to enroll in GED classes offered at his
correctional institution. The prison policy gives enrollment preference to those
with less time to serve, so his life sentence meant that he might not ever make
it to the top of the list. Nicolas M. also described his difficulties in gaining
access to the prison’s GED program. He stated, “The officials say there are
more important people that need to take these classes that actually have a
chance to get out someday.”41 Anthony S. told us he wanted to become a
barber in the prison, but that he could not because it was considered vocational
training—which would be of little use to an inmate serving a life sentence.42

37. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Joseph A., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, July 19, 2006.
38. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Cedric C., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, June 27, 2006.
39. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Demetrius J., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, July 21, 2006.
40. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Richard H., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, October 17, 2007.
41. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Nicholas M., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, July 13, 2006.
42. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Anthony S., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, July 27, 2006.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

21

The jobs I’ve held—janitor, the general store—which consisted of loading
and unloading trucks, storing food, filling racks, etc, the furniture factory,
making different types of office furniture, and right now I am currently a
clerk … . Nothing I’ve shown since being here shows or says that I cannot be
rehabilitated, returned to useful citizenship.”

Inmates also described the lack and the increasing elimination of educational
and vocational programs offered in prison. For example, James W. said
that once he obtained his GED, he exhausted the possibility of any further
education—the only other educational programs available are classes aimed
at those inmates who read below a 6th grade level.43 Cedric C. wished he was
able to take college courses, saying “That really hurt me, because how are you
going to rehabilitate or reform yourself without education?”44

Used with permission.

Those who were unable to access education or find a prison job told us of
the boredom they faced every day simply trying to pass the time. Darnell F.
spends most of his time sitting in his room watching television, writing, and
waiting for “chow.” In fact, he described waiting for chow as his full-time
job.45 James W. described prison as “not living, just existing.”46

Joseph W., now age 33, is serving a juvenile
life without parole sentence for a crime
committed when he was 17.

In spite of these obstacles, many inmates were motivated enough to seek
out educational opportunities for themselves. Several had found and paid
for correspondence courses through which they were able to receive a high
school diploma or take college classes (although others told us they could not
afford these programs). Some said they spent much of their time reading or in
the library. Vincent P. said that he reads “all day, every day.”47 More than one
individual wanted to become a writer, and several inmates told us that they
wrote poetry.

Used with permission.

Those who have been able to participate in educational and work programs
have found them to be an important step on the path toward rehabilitation.
John H. told an interviewer, “I got my GED while I was in the county jail
and went on to become a tutor for the GED instructor for the remaining time
I spent in the county jail. From there I came to prison and it took almost two
years to get a job but I’ve worked consistently since then. Out of the 13 years
and 5 months I’ve been locked up, I’ve worked about 11 years and a few
months. The jobs I’ve held—janitor, the general store—which consisted of
loading and unloading trucks, storing food, filling racks, etc, the furniture
factory, making different types of office furniture, and right now I am
currently a clerk … . Nothing I’ve shown since being here shows or says that I
cannot be rehabilitated, returned to useful citizenship.”48

Jaime H., now age 27, is serving a juvenile
life without parole sentence for a crime
committed when he was 17.

22

|

43. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with James W., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, October 17, 2007.
44. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Cedric C., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, June 27, 2006.
45. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Darnell F., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, November 8, 2007.
46. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with James W., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, October 17, 2007.
47. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Vincent P., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, December 12, 2007.
48. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with John H., serving life without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 9, 2007.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

Hope for the Future
Almost everyone serving a life without possibility of
parole sentence holds on to the hope of one day being
released. The inmates were able to give us a detailed
description of what their lives would be like if they
were given a second chance. Their aspirations were
straightforward. They wanted to get married, find jobs,
and spend time with their families. Interestingly, many
interviewees expressed a strong desire to reach back
into their communities and work with vulnerable young
people, to try to help them work through the problems
our interviewees faced at their age and to prevent them
from making the same mistakes they had made.
Jamie J. painted a vision of his life as a barber in his
neighborhood and the role he would want to play as a
caregiver for his mother, who had brain surgery five years
ago. He hopes to become a neighborhood mentor for
adolescents who are on the wrong path.49 Albert K., who
since entering prison has become a certified automotive
technician, spoke of finding a job on the outside working
on cars, working as a prison minister, and becoming a
community activist. “I know I can be a valuable asset
to a lot of people,” Albert wrote. “If I am just given the
chance, I will be.” Marshan A. told us his hope of one
day being free keeps him motivated to stay in school
and better himself. “The worst part of being in prison is
simply not knowing if I will ever be free,” he told us. “I
want to get my own room and driver’s license. One day I
want to get married and have children. I just want to live
a normal life.”50
Others, such as Anthony S., spoke of all of the experiences
they had missed and that they would miss in the future:
“It was like I was so young… I didn’t get a chance to
experience so many things. Like to go to a basketball
game. I see people on TV doing things that I never got
to do. I never had a college experience. I didn’t go to
prom. I miss having a family. I don’t even know a lot of
49. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Jaime J., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 25, 2006.
50. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Marshan A., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 7, 2006.

my extended family because I never got a chance to meet
them. I won’t be able to have kids, a wife, or anything.”51
Life Before Prison
Although many interviewees painted rosy pictures of
what their lives would be like should they some day be
released, most people we spoke with acknowledged that
they had faced serious challenges during childhood. A
large percentage were former gang members who had
turned to gangs at a young age, including several as
young as 8 years old. They attributed their decision to
enter a gang to either the death of a parent or the lack
of strong parental support due to physical abuse, drug
addiction, or absence. Major family disruptions were
common. Kenneth B. said he joined a gang when he was
12, just after his father died of cancer.52 Another former
gang member told us his mother was a drug addict, and
his father died when he was 5 years old. Robert H., who
joined a gang at age 10, began suffering from depression
when he was 8 and felt he had no adult to talk to.
His mother, he said, was a good woman, but worked
a factory job and was never around. His father was
completely absent from his life. The only other adults in
his life were his uncles, who were heavily involved in a
gang.53 A large number of these inmates also came from
extreme poverty. Many interviewees joined a gang after
they began selling drugs to pay for basic necessities,
like food and shelter.
Almost all the inmates we spoke with told us that their
lives as children were so filled with violence that violence
seemed normal to them. Robert H. said that, during his
childhood, “every day my main goal was to survive.”54
Those who were in gangs told us that being shot at (and
even actually shot) was a common occurrence, and all
had close friends and/or family members who had been
51. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Anthony S., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 27, 2006.
52. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Kenneth B., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 8, 2007.
53. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Robert H., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, October 3, 2007.
54. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Robert H., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, October 3, 2007.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

23

Juveniles Serving Life Without Possibility of Parole, by State

✪

North Dakota

Washington

Minnesota

✪

Montana

✪

✪

✪
Idaho

Oregon
✪

Michigan
✪

Wyoming

✪

✪

✪
✪
California

Nebraska

✪

New York

Iowa

✪

✪
Colorado

Utah

Maine
Vermont
✪
✪
New Hampshire

Wisconsin

✪
South Dakota

Illinois

✪

Nevada

Kansas

Ohio
✪

✪
Indiana

Missouri

Pennsylvania
✪
West Virginia
✪

✪
Kentucky

✪
Arizona
✪

✪
Oklahoma

New Mexico

Maryland
✪ ✪

✪

Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island

✪
New Jersey

Delaware

Virginia

✪
Tennessee
North Carolina
✪
Arkansas

South Carolina
✪
Mississippi
✪

Alabama
✪

Georgia

Texas
✪

Louisiana

✪

Individual juvenile serving LWOP
State where juveniles cannot be sentenced to LWOP
State with no juveniles serving LWOP

∞

killed by gun violence. Darnell F. joined a gang at age
10 and said he had been shot at more than 20 times. At
age 13, he was shot in the leg. Although he had friends
who were killed in gang violence, including one killed
while sitting right next to him, it didn’t make him sad
because “that was life.”55 Fred W. also said that in his
neighborhood, being shot was an ordinary part of life,
and that he did not know anyone who had not been shot.56
William N. told us that when he was growing up, people
walked around in his neighborhood wearing bulletproof
vests. “It was like living in a war,” he reflected.57 Marcos
G. said that after he joined a gang at age 14, he began
witnessing violence regularly, including beatings with
baseball bats and shootings. He observed: “It’s sad when
something that depraved gets natural.”58
A common psychological reaction to frequent exposure
to such extreme trauma is to become desensitized to
55. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Darnell F., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 9, 2007.
56. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Fred W., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 16, 2007.
57. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with William N., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, October 30, 2007.
58. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Marcos G., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 20, 2006.

24

|

Florida

State with unavailable data

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

it, and this was true for many of the inmates we spoke
with. To deal with these levels of trauma, many turned
to drugs or alcohol, often at a very young age. Joseph A.
started drinking every day after his father abandoned his
family at age 12, and, soon thereafter, he also began using
marijuana and cocaine.59 Darrell C.’s mother was a drug
addict, and his father was killed when Darrell was very
young. By age 15, he was an alcoholic himself. He told us:
“I was very serious about drinking. That was breakfast.”60
Marcos G. also described alcohol as “breakfast,” and said
that by age 15, he was drinking 20 to 30 shots of grain
alcohol a day.61
In all, 78 percent of the individuals we spoke with
admitted to using drugs or alcohol before entering prison,
and at least 64 percent said they had become heavy
abusers of drugs and alcohol by the age of 17.
Throughout all of the trauma that pervaded their lives,
many yearned for a normal life. Darrell C. said that he
59. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Joseph A., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 19, 2006.
60. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Darrell C., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 8, 2007.
61. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Marcos G., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, July 20, 2006.

Almost every inmate we spoke with told us that
their lives as children were so filled with violence
that violence seemed normal to them.

was always envious of kids who had backpacks, because
kids who had backpacks had parents who cared about
them. “I wanted to have that backpack on. I wanted to be
that individual going home and having my mom and dad
say, ‘Where your homework at?’”62
We were surprised to find that 24 percent of the people
we interviewed had parents who were addicted to drugs
or alcohol. Often, these parents failed to feed, clothe,
and provide for their children. Lindsey C.’s mother was
a drug addict and was dating a man high up in a gang.
When Lindsey was growing up, drugs were always
present in the house, and Lindsey said he would stay up
at night trying to protect his younger brother and sister
from the gang members hanging out at his house.63
Others were victims of horrific abuse at their parents’
hands. Eric P., who was convicted of murdering his father
and stepmother, told us he was regularly beaten by his
father, who also beat his mother, once causing her to
miscarry a baby.64 When Corey J. was 7 or 8 his abusive
mother stripped him naked and sat him down on a lit
stove.65 Eric R.’s drug-addicted mother stabbed him in the
leg with a knife.66
Few of the inmates were enrolled in school when they
were arrested. While 62 of the 83 we spoke with told us
they had completed some high school, a large percentage
dropped out in the 9th grade. The little time they did
spend in school was a struggle. Nineteen of the 83 said
they did not make it past primary school.
Although 35 percent of the individuals we interviewed
had been in a formal special education program at some
point, it was apparent that many others had learning
disabilities that had gone unnoticed or untreated.
Kenneth B. was in “7th or 8th” grade when he was
62. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Darrell C., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 8, 2007.
63. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Lindsey C., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 15, 2007.
64. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Eric P., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 16, 2007.
65. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Corey J., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 15, 2007.
66. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Eric R., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, December 12, 2007.

Common characteristics of those
serving juvenile LWOP
64% reported serious alcohol and drug abuse issues
during childhood
24% had parents who were abusing drugs or alcohol
35% had been enrolled in special education classes
23% never made it to high school

arrested at age 16. Although he reports having a hard
time “understanding certain things I’ve read and making
sense out of it,” he never had been enrolled in special
education classes.67 Vincent P. never received special
education services, even though he was illiterate in the
9th grade and did not learn how to read or write until
he entered prison.68 Michael C. was just 14 when he was
arrested. He had been expelled from the 6th grade, was
failing all of his classes, and was told that he had a “low
I.Q.” But he never received special education services.69
As a result of the trauma they endured as children,
many of the inmates admitted that their lives became
increasingly destructive as they reached adolescence.
They joined gangs, began selling drugs, became heavy
drug users, and dropped out of school. A significant
number—including many of those who professed
innocence—told us they were so out of control, they were
glad that they ended up in prison; they felt it was the best
thing for them at the time, and, in some cases, may have
saved their lives.
Trial and Conviction
Due to their age, lack of education, and in many
cases their serious learning disabilities, few inmates
67. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Kenneth B., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 8, 2007.
68. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Vincent P., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, December 12, 2007.
69. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Michael C., serving life
without possibility of parole in Illinois, November 8, 2007.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

25

Many inmates impressed upon us how much they had changed since
their arrest. They accepted responsibility for their actions and admitted
that they deserved to be in prison for some portion of their adult lives.

understood or actively participated in their own trials. Most wished they
had testified in their own defense, but did not because their lawyers told
them not to. For example, David E. did not testify at his trial because his
attorney discouraged him from doing so. He said he felt like “he didn’t have
a choice” about testifying “because he didn’t know better.”70 Few had any
comprehension of the sanction they were facing. One inmate told us that
after he received his life sentence, he went back into his cell and asked a
fellow inmate how much time he would have to serve. Gary C. recalled that
he “knew what the rights said, but not how to exercise them.” He went on to
say “I [was] 14. I never really learned how to ask for help… I had a hard time
asking for help. I would have accepted it, but I couldn’t ask.”71

Used with permission.

Accepting Responsibility

Mark C., now age 43, is serving a juvenile
life without parole sentence for a crime
committed when he was 16.

Many inmates impressed upon us how much they had changed since their
arrest. They accepted responsibility for their actions and admitted that they
deserved to be in prison for some portion of their adult lives. Joseph A., for
example, said he accepts that he should not be released now, and he is not
asking anyone for that, but that a sentence of a set number of years would
motivate him to live a productive life in prison and provide him with hope for
the future.72
We asked those individuals who accepted responsibility how much time they
felt would be appropriate for them to serve. Their answers ranged between 10
and 20 years.
Of course, not every person we spoke with accepted responsibility, and a
significant number professed their innocence. Although it is unlikely that
such a large number of those serving juvenile life without possibility of parole
sentences are innocent, there are several who have raised serious doubts about
their innocence. In fact, Northwestern University School of Law’s Center on
Wrongful Convictions recently agreed to take cases on behalf of two Illinois
inmates serving juvenile life without parole sentences.
In looking back on our interviews, we remain aware of the severity of the
crimes for which those we interviewed were convicted. Some of the people
we met have done little to further themselves while in prison and have a long
history of disciplinary violations while there, or they have accepted little or
no responsibility for their crimes. For a small number of individuals whom
70. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with David E., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, December 12, 2007.
71. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Gary C., serving life without possibility of parole in Illinois, October 3, 2007.
72. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Joseph A., serving life without possibility of parole in
Illinois, July 19, 2006.

26

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

Number of Juveniles Sentenced to
LWOP in Illinois by County and Race
Jo Daviess Stephenson
Boone McHenry
Winnebago
Carroll

Ogle

Whiteside

Lee

Kane

DeKalb

DuPage
Kendall

Rock Island

we encountered, it is realistic to
conclude that no independent review
of their case will ever likely lead to
their parole. We are advocates for
the abolition of juvenile life without
parole sentences, but we are not
advocating for the wholesale release
of everyone serving a juvenile LWOP
sentence. All we propose is that each
individual should have a chance to
prove to a parole board that he or
she is rehabilitated and poses no
continued threat to public safety,
and that the possibility of release be
realistic and regularly considered.73

Henry

La Salle

Putnam
Stark

Kankakee
Livingston

Peoria

Woodford

Tazewell

McDonough Fulton
Hancock

Menard

Cass

Brown

Ford
Vermilion

De Witt

Logan

Champaign

Piatt

Sangamon

Morgan

Pike

Iroquois

McLean

Mason
Adams

Grundy

Marshall

Knox

Schuyler

Douglas

Macon

Christian

Moultrie

Cumberland

Macoupin
Calhoun

Effingham
Madison

Clay
Marion

St. Clair
Washington

Randolph

Latino
African American

Clark

Jasper Crawford

Bond

Clinton
Monroe

Edgar

Coles

Shelby

Greene

Caucasian

Cook
Will

Bureau

Mercer

Henderson

Lake

Lawrence
Richland

Wayne Edwards
Jefferson

Perry

White
Hamilton
Franklin

Williamson
Jackson
Saline Gallatin

Each dot represents one individual

Union

Alexander

Johnson Pope

Hardin

Massac

A Note About Methodology
This report is based on data gathered through Illinois Department of Corrections
profiles, newspaper articles, published court decisions, surveys of those serving
juvenile LWOP sentences, and in-person interviews with inmates, family members,
and victims’ families.* As part of our research, we sent surveys to all of the 103 individuals serving juvenile LWOP sentences and obtained a completed survey from or
interviewed 83 individuals. Much of the information we gathered from the surveys
and interviews was self-reported and not available through public records; we were
therefore not able to verify all of the information we collected.

73. Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007, General Comment No. 10, CRC/C/GC/10, para. 27.

* We made every attempt to identify and interview every person who is serving a life sentence in Illinois for a crime
committed as a juvenile. Despite our best efforts, however, it is likely that we missed some individuals who are serving
this sentence. A few others declined to be interviewed. Thus, while this report provides information about the majority of
juvenile lifers in Illinois, it does not reflect information about every person who may be serving a life sentence for a crime
committed before he or she reached age 18.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

27

Those Most Affected by
Juvenile Lifers’ Crimes

Number of Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole
In Illinois, by Year and County

Prisoners’ Family Members

12

10

8

6

Other
Cook

4

2

04

20

02

03

20

20

00

01

20

20

98

99

19

19

96

97

19

19

94

95

19

19

92

93

19

19

90

91

19

19

88

89

19

19

86

87

19

19

84

85

19

19

82

83

19

19

80

81

19

19

78
19

19

79

0

Number of Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole
In Illinois, by Year and County
12

Cook
Bureau

10

DuPage
Henry
Jackson
8

Kankakee
LaSalle
Macon
Madison

6

Marion
Peoria
Richland
St. Clair

4

Tazewell
Union
Vermilion
Will

2

In addition to interviewing inmates
serving juvenile LWOP, we contacted
inmates’ family members to learn
how the life without possibility
of parole sentence had affected
them. Although many of them
were unreachable,74 we were able
to conduct some interviews. Those
with whom we did speak told us how
difficult it has been to cope with
their family members’ sentences.
Virginia C., Mark C.’s mother, told us
she thinks about her son’s sentence
“constantly.”75 Joseph A.’s brother and
sister-in-law said they felt “helpless”
seeing Joseph struggle in prison,
knowing there was nothing they could
do for him.76 Anabel P., Jaime H.’s
mother, told us she still cries all the
time over the loss of her son and that
her life “can never go back to normal”
as long as he is incarcerated.77
Like the inmates, the family
members also said it was difficult
to visit because the prisons are far
away. Mark C.’s mother, for example,
visited her son every week when he
was in Joliet, Illinois, just one hour
from her Chicago home. Now that he

Williamson
Winnebago
Woodford
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04

0

28

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

74. As mentioned earlier in this report, many of the individuals we spoke with have parents who are deceased or
addicted to drugs or alcohol, or they have lost touch with
their families.
75. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children,
interview with Virginia C., in Illinois, November 9, 2007.
76. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with David and Sue Fuentes, in Illinois, December
1, 2007.
77. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children,
interview with Anabel P., in Illinois, December 11, 2007.

The actions of the inmates described in this report
created enormous pain for the victims’ families, who must
deal with the loss of a loved one for the rest of their lives.

is in Pontiac, she is not often able to visit him.78 Evelyn
W., Joseph W.’s mother, said that although she has trouble
getting to Pontiac, she makes a point of visiting him
every year for his birthday. When she visits, they have a
routine: She puts her hand on the glass, then he puts his
hand on the glass and she tells him she loves him. “Joseph
has so much to offer the world,” she told us, adding that
she just “wants him to be able to come home.”79

participate and be heard at any hearing that might result
in release; anguish at the prospect of having to appear and
potentially re-appear before the Prisoner Review Board or
any releasing authority in order to object to release; and
frustration or a sense of betrayal at the prospect of release,
no matter how remote, of an offender whose original
sentence to life was promoted as providing a victim’s
family member with satisfaction or peace of mind.

Victims’ Family Members

It will be a challenge to design any modification to life
sentences imposed for juvenile murder that will satisfy
the concerns of all victims’ family members, even as
it is clear that some victims’ family members want the
issue of life without parole sentences to be revisited. We
are hopeful that many of these issues can be addressed,
however, by limiting the frequency with which a prisoner
is allowed to request review or appear for a hearing;
ensuring notice of hearings to all concerned parties;
providing family members the option of participating;
giving assurances that all facts, including those
pertaining to the crime and those pertaining to the
prisoner’s conduct in prison, will be considered by the
reviewing authority; permitting the use of videotaped
victim impact statements which can be used so that
family members need not testify on multiple occasions;
and employing an initial screening process before an
individual becomes parole-eligible that does not require
the presence of victims’ family members.

The actions of the inmates described in this report
created enormous pain for the victims’ families, who
must deal with the loss of a loved one for the rest of their
lives. For many, the anguish never ends. In assessing how
best to create a meaningful review of juvenile LWOP
sentences, it is essential to consider how these crimes and
their aftermaths affect the victims’ families.
Not surprisingly, the opinions of victims’ families about
life sentences for juveniles vary. In a recent Human
Rights Watch Report on juvenile LWOP in California,80
which profiled five family members of victims murdered
by teenagers, opinions ranged from unwavering support
for life without parole without any consideration of age
to the belief that the juveniles involved in the murder of
their family member should be considered for release
after a passage of time. The variation is most painfully
apparent in cases of intra-family murders, which place
family members at nearly irresolvable odds over the issue
of parole for a relative who killed another relative.
As disclosed in reports, published statements, and our own
discussions with the families and friends of victims of
juvenile homicides, the issues that the families of victims
are most concerned with include fear for personal or public
safety; the minimum length of time that a juvenile offender
should serve before he or she is given any consideration
for release; the desire for notice and the opportunity to
78. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Virginia C., in Illinois,
November 9, 2007.
79. Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children, interview with Evelyn W., in Illinois,
November 9, 2007.
80. Human Rights Watch, When I Die They’ll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life in
California, Vol. 20, No. 1(G) 5 (January 2008)

The concerns of some victims’ family members will be
met if it is understood that, even with modifications to
current law to permit review of life sentences imposed
for juvenile crime, some juvenile offenders will spend
the rest of their lives in prison and will never be able to
come home.
Most importantly, an open process that takes into account
the opinions and sentiments of victims’ family members
as well as the lesser culpability of juvenile offenders and
the fundamental standards of human rights, is critical to
the fair resolution of the juvenile LWOP issue.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

29

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

Chapter 4:

Illinois and the Origins of the

Juvenile Justice System

Prior to 1899, all children in conflict with the law in the
United States were treated the same as adults; there
was no court set up specifically for children. In 1899,
the nation’s first juvenile court was established in Illinois,
and other states began to follow shortly thereafter. The
juvenile justice system was founded on the idea that
childhood is a distinct phase of life, that juveniles are less
culpable for crimes and more amenable to rehabilitation
than adults,81 and that rehabilitation, not punishment,
is the proper way to handle deviant—even grave—
behavior among youth.82 Eventually, the system which
began in Illinois—in which most children accused of
crimes were removed from adult courtrooms, adult jails,
and adult poorhouses—became a nationwide standard,
and an international model. In fact, Illinois pioneered
one of the nation’s most durable and effective legal
reforms—the juvenile court.
In 1903, just four years after the establishment of the first juvenile court,
Cook County began transferring children to its adult court system for trial
and sentencing. In 1906, Illinois lawmakers decided that boys in conflict with
the law all would be treated as adults. For those under 17 years old, however,
transfer was reserved only for the most serious offenders, and children were not
sentenced to life without possibility of parole with any regularity.
This remained true until the late 1970s, when, in response to perceived
increases in both juvenile and adult crime, state legislators began touting
“tough on crime” positions. In 1996, Congressman Bill McCollum warned
a House of Representatives subcommittee to “brace yourself for the coming

81. Hillary J. Massey, Disposing of Children: The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole After Roper, 47 B.C. L.
Rev. 1083 (September 2006).
82. Wayne A. Logan, Proportionality and Punishment: Imposing Life Without Parole on Juveniles, 33 Wake Forest L. Rev. 681,
685 (1998).

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

31

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

generation of ‘super-predators’”83 in this country.
The mood washed across the nation, and punishment
for children who committed serious crimes became
much more severe.84 In fact, by 1994 there was no
wave of youth crime, and no emerging generation of
superpredators. In the years between 1986 and 1993,
the small number of gun homicides committed by youth
tripled—but that tragic rise was only temporary. In the
next decade, youth crime plummeted,85 including violent
youth crime. Still, the notion that there was a juvenile
superpredator crime wave took root in the media, among
politicians, and with the public. Legislatures across the
US began lowering the minimum age for adult criminal
court jurisdiction, authorizing automatic transfer
from juvenile to adult court for increasing numbers of
specified alleged crimes, giving prosecutors greater
discretion to file charges against children in adult court,
and incarcerating juvenile prisoners in adult prisons.86
83. Human Rights Watch, No Minor Matter: Children in Maryland’s Jails (November 1999)
(quoting House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Hearings on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act, Serial No. 104-68, 104th Cong., 2d sess., 1996, p. 90 (statement of Rep. Bill
McCollum, chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, House Judiciary Committee)).
84. The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Human
Rights Watch and Amnesty International, 3 (2005).
85. Id. at 15.
86. Id. at 17.

32

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

States also increased the rate at which they sentenced
children to life without the possibility of parole. From
1962 to 1981, an average of two juvenile life without
parole sentences were handed down per year in the US.87
In 1989, the number of child offenders who received life
sentences climbed to 50, reaching an all-time high of 152
in 1996.88 Although the total number of extreme sentences
handed down per year has since decreased, annually the
rate at which children receive this sentence is at least
three times higher than it was 15 years ago, and it is again
on the rise.89 For example, in 1990, 2,234 children were
convicted of murder nationwide and 2.9 percent of them
received life sentences. In 2000, only 1,006 children
were convicted of murder, but the rate of those who were
sentence to life more than tripled, to 9.1 percent.90
As in the rest of the country, in Illinois, several failed
policies led to a major increase in the sentencing of
children to life. In 1978, Illinois abolished its parole
system in favor of a determinate sentencing scheme with
life without possibility of parole as a mandatory sentence
87. Id. at 31.
88. Since 1996, the number of children sentenced to life without possibility of parole has
been decreasing annually. By 2003, the number of child offenders receiving the sentence
was 54. Id. at 31.
89. Id. at 32.
90. Id.

In Illinois, several failed policies led to a major increase
in the sentencing of children to life.

for those convicted of more than one homicide. In 1982,
Illinois passed its first automatic transfer statute, whereby
children charged with certain crimes would automatically
be tried as adults, regardless of their culpability in the
crime. Additionally, the late 1980s and 1990s saw a huge
increase in children being charged under the Illinois
accountability statute, which both in trial and sentencing
treats accomplices exactly the same as the principal
actors in the crime. Under the combination of the
accountability statute, the mandatory sentencing laws,
and the automatic transfer provision, juveniles charged
as accomplices are held accountable and sentenced
as principals without regard to their age or level of
involvement in the crime. Often this means they are held
accountable for actions of adult principals.
The case of 15-year-old Marshan A. provides one
illustration of this phenomenon. Marshan was charged
as an unarmed accomplice alongside a co-defendant who
shot and killed two individuals. First, under the Illinois
accountability statute, Marshan was charged with and
convicted of the two murders, even though he was not
armed. Because he was 15 years old and charged with
murder, Illinois law then required that he be transferred
from juvenile to adult court; the judge had no discretion
in the matter. Once under the adult court sentencing
scheme, when Marshan was convicted of the crime of
murder, it was mandatory that he would be sentenced
to life without possibility of parole. The convergence of
these three independently drafted laws means that some
children, engaged in a minor way in crimes that became
far worse than they might ever have anticipated, must
spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Juvenile LWOP Statistics
Individuals Sentenced to LWOP as Juveniles in Illinois:
BY Age at Time of Offense

AGE
Age 14

4

4%

Age 15

12

12%

Age 16

37

36%

Age 17

50

49%

Total

103

Individuals Sentenced to LWOP as Juveniles in Illinois:
BY Race

RACE
African American

74

72%

Latino

10

10%

Caucasian

19

18%

Total

103

Individuals Sentenced to LWOP as Juveniles in Illinois:
By County

County
Bureau
Cook

County
1

Peoria

1

73

Richland

1

DuPage

3

St. Clair

4

Henry

1

Tazewell

1

Jackson

1

Union

1

Kankakee

2

Vermilion

1

LaSalle

1

Will

1

Macon

3

Williamson

2

Madison

3

Winnebago

1

Marion

1

Woodford

1

Mandatory versus Discretionary Juvenile
LWOP Sentences in Illinois

JLWOP
Mandatory

81

79%

Discretionary

21

20%

1

1%

Unknown
Total

103

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

33

“I hope that the defense will appeal. It is with total reluctance that I enter
this sentence.”*

* Rudolph Unger, Judge Reluctantly Sentences Retarded Youth to Life in Killings, Chicago Tribune, Chicagoland, Page 6, Zone C (September 16, 1988).

34 |

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

– The Honorable Richard Neville, imposing a mandatory life without parole sentence on a mentally retarded youth.

Chapter 5:

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL

TRENDS

National Trends
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Roper v. Simmons, that
subjecting juveniles to the death penalty was contrary to “evolving standards
of decency.”91 In doing so, the Court reaffirmed its longstanding position that,
when dispensing justice, the legal system should hold children to a different
standard than the one imposed on adults. “When a juvenile offender commits
a heinous crime,” the Court explained, “the state can exact forfeiture of some
of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his
potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.”92
In the wake of the Roper decision, lawyers, activists, and lawmakers in
several states began to question whether life without parole sentences for
children fit with the ideals set forth in the decision. In Kansas, legislators have
passed a bill which exempts children from life sentences.93 Colorado recently
passed legislation that prohibits life without parole for juveniles and provides
for a mandatory review hearing 40 years from the time of sentencing.94
Florida also considered (but did not pass) legislation that would have banned
juvenile life without the possibility of parole.95
Michigan is also working on changing its law. The state legislature recently
re-introduced legislation that would prospectively prohibit sentencing a
juvenile to life in prison without possibility of parole and that would grant
inmates who have served at least 10 years of a juvenile life sentence the
chance for parole.96 This legislation would give juveniles sentenced to life
the opportunity to show a parole board that they have been rehabilitated and
deserve a second chance. A Nebraska legislator also recently introduced
legislation which would enable inmates sentenced to life for crimes they
committed when they were between 16 and 18 a chance at parole after 25
years, and those younger than 16 a chance at parole after 20 years.97 Finally,
California is taking steps to alter its law. The California Senate’s Public
Safety Committee passed the Juvenile Life Without Parole Reform Act
(Senate Bill 999), which would replace life sentences for children with a
sentence of 25 years to life, contingent on the person’s rehabilitative ability.98

91. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
92. Id. at 555.
93. The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International, 89 (2005).
94. C.R.S.A § 17-22.5-104 (IV) (2006).
95. Hillary J. Massey, Disposing of Children: The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole After Roper, 47 B.C. L.
Rev. 1083, 1086 (September 2006).
96. Brian McVicar, Fight for Juveniles’ Second Chance Renewed—Bill Would Prohibit Sentences Without Chance of Parole,
Capital News Services, Lansing State J. Apr. 1, 2007.
97. LB 843, Nebraska State Legislature, www.nebraskalegislature.gov (January 10, 2008)
98. Human Rights Watch, California Takes Step to End Life Without Parole for Children—Subcommittee Approves Senate Bill 999,
Apr. 17, 2007, available at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/17/usdom15726.htm.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

35

Juvenile LWOP per Country

Juvenile Serving LWOP

The tide is turning in the court system as well. In
sentencing a 13-year-old to life with the possibility of
parole, the Nevada Supreme Court characterized life
without parole as a “denial of hope; it means that good
behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it
means that whatever the future might hold in store for
the mind and spirit of [the defendant], he will remain
in prison for the rest of his days.”99 The Supreme Court
of Kentucky abolished the sentence in 1968, stating: “it
is impossible to make a judgment that a fourteen-yearold youth, no matter how bad, will remain incorrigible
for the rest of his life.”100 And the Supreme Court of
Indiana has found exceptionally long prison sentences
constitutionally impermissible for children.101
The Rest of the World
There are currently 2,381 child offenders serving
life without possibility of parole in the United States,
including at least 103 serving life sentences in Illinois.
In the rest of the world, the total number of children
serving life sentence is 7. All of them are in a single

99. Naovarath v. State, 105 Nev. 525, 779 P.2d 944, (Nev. 1989).
100. Workman v. Kentucky, 429 S.W.2d 374, 378 (Ky. 1968).
101. See Towbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138 (Ind. 1999).

36 |

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

country—Israel.102 Life without parole sentences
are explicitly banned for both juveniles and adults
in Austria, Ireland, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, and Canada (which requires access
to the parole system 5 to 10 years after a child has been
sentenced).103 In Canada, the most serious penalty for
youth offenders is life imprisonment. However, the
individual becomes eligible for parole within 5 to 10
years.104 Further, the sentence can only be imposed if
the offender was transferred to adult court and then
convicted of first or second degree murder.105
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), cited
by the Supreme Court in Roper, prohibits sentences
of life without parole for juveniles outright.106 In
February 2007, the Committee on the Rights of the
Child reinforced this prohibition in a General Comment,
reminding member states: “No child who was under the
age of 18 at the time he or she committed an offence
should be sentenced to life without the possibility of
release or parole. For all sentences imposed upon children
102. Center for Law and Global Justice, University of San Francisco School of Law, Sentencing
Our Children to Die in Prisons, i (November 2007).
103. Second Chances –Juveniles Serving Life Without Parole in Michigan Prisons, 21 (2004).
104. Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1994, State Party Report: Canada,
CRC/C/11/Add.3, para. 351.
105. Id.
106. Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 37, para 1, Nov. 20, 1989.

As in the rest of the nation and the rest of the
world, there is a growing consensus in Illinois that
life without possibility of parole sentences are
unacceptable for children.

the possibility of release should be realistic and regularly
considered.”107 The United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing
Rules) require that detention of children should be limited
to the shortest length of time necessary to protect society,
and imposed only as a last resort,108 and the United
Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived
of their Liberty (Riyadh Guidelines) require children to
be treated humanely and sentenced in proportion to their
age at the time of the offense. The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States
is a party, requires that in sentencing children states
must “take account of their age and the desirability of
promoting their rehabilitation”109 —a practice that by
definition cannot be done when, as in Illinois, life without
the possibility of parole sentences are mandatory for most
youthful offenders.

sex offenses.111 In 2006, Illinois also established a new
Department of Juvenile Justice, which will act separately
from its adult corrections counterpart, and will focus on
appropriate treatment for children in conflict with the
law. The legislature has commissioned a report on further
improvements that need to be made to state statutes that
call for the transfer of children from juvenile to adult
court. The report is due to be released in August 2008.
And, as mentioned earlier in this report, several Illinois
courts have questioned the constitutionality of the Illinois
juvenile LWOP laws. In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court
reduced the life sentence of a 15-year-old after finding
that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the
crime he committed. Two Illinois Circuit Courts recently
relied on that 2005 decision to grant new sentencing
hearings to individuals serving life without parole
sentences in Illinois.

Indeed, outside of the United States the practice of handing
down juvenile life sentences has become so rare that it is
now illegal as a matter of customary international law.110

Building on these reforms, in January 2008 the Illinois
legislature introduced legislation that would abolish life
without parole sentences for child offenders.

Trends in Illinois
As in the rest of the nation and the rest of the world,
there is a growing consensus in Illinois that life without
possibility of parole sentences are unacceptable for
children. In 2004, Illinois lawmakers began to seriously
question the unfairness and unintended consequences
of automatically trying youth as adults, and provided
judges with discretion in some cases to return youth
to juvenile court. In 2006 and 2007, the legislature
recognized its failed policies with regard to juvenile sex
offender registration and passed laws that acknowledged
the rehabilitative potential of children charged with

107. Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007, General Comment No. 10, CRC/C/GC/10,
para. 27.
108. UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules),
Rule 17.1, 1985; UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh
Guidelines) at 201, 1990.
109. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 14, para. 4, Dec. 16, 1966.
110. See, e.g., The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the
United States, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, 107-108 (2005).

111. See, e.g., Sex Offender Reg-Delinquent, Pub. Act No. 095-0513, SB 1509 (effective
date 6/1/2008).

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

37

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

38

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

Chapter 6:

CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
In 1899, Illinois established the nation’s first juvenile
court and became recognized as the country’s leader in
juvenile justice reform. The principles which guided the
establishment of the first court were simple: because
children are still developing and are inherently capable
of rehabilitation, and because they are categorically less
culpable than adults, the justice system should focus on
sanctioning and reforming rather than solely punishing
those children who commit crimes.
Over 100 years later, Illinois continues to be guided by these same principles—
in most cases. The practice of sentencing children to life without parole is
a unique departure from that philosophy and an aberration in our system.
We urge Illinois to once again lead this country by formally abolishing the
practice of sentencing children to life without possibility of parole.
We ask that legislators, policy makers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys
open a dialogue with children’s advocates, as well as victims’ families, in
working toward a solution to this problem.
As an initial matter, we recommend several concrete steps:
For legislators:
■■

■■

■■

■■

■■

Pass legislation that would set the age of the child at the time of his or her
offense plus one year as the maximum amount of time a child would serve
before having the opportunity to appear before a parole board. In other words,
if a 15-year-old commits a serious offense, he or she would become eligible
after 16 years, a 16-year-old would be eligible after 17 years, and so on.
Apply this new legislation retroactively to all Illinois children sentenced to
life for committing a crime when under the age of 18.
Include victim notification provisions in any legislation passed, and provide
safeguards to minimize the impact of parole hearings on victims’ families.
Eliminate all mandatory life sentences for juveniles from the Illinois
sentencing scheme, and instead give judges the discretion to determine
whether a given sentence is appropriate for a particular child.
Require that age be considered as a factor in every stage of criminal and
juvenile court proceedings.

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

|

39

Photo by Steve Liss; used with his permission.

For the Illinois Supreme Court:
■■

■■

Grant Petitions for Leave to Appeal filed by any
person who has received a life sentence for a crime
committed while under the age of 18.
Create a mechanism whereby every child sentenced to
life automatically is entitled to full review of his or her
direct appeal by the Illinois Supreme Court, without
having to file a Petition for Leave to Appeal.

For practitioners:
■■

■■

40

Educate judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in
adolescent development and the differences between
children and adults.
Make representation of children who are eligible for
life sentences a specialized practice area, much in the
way that death penalty defense is specialized.

|

Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

February 2008
The Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children includes:
■

American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

■

DLA Piper

■

Human Rights Watch, Chicago Committee

■

John Howard Association of Illinois

■

Juvenile Justice Initiative

■

Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender

■

■

 Children and Family Justice Center, Bluhm Legal Clinic,
Northwestern University School of Law
Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, University of Chicago School of Law

Please read more about the Coalition at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/cfjc/jlwop

The Coalition wishes to thank DLA Piper for its generous support for this publication.

DLA Piper
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1293
T +1 312 368 4000
F +1 312 236 7516
www.dlapiper.com

By valuing people, clients, and community, DLA Piper is committed to making the world a better place. Our culture and policies encourage pro
bono service, volunteerism, and charitable giving because community involvement is an essential part of who we are. It is part of our roots and
a growing part of our impact, and our community endeavors that mean so much to us. For more information about our pro bono work in the
United States, please see http://www.dlapiperprobono.com/.
DLA Piper us llp practices law in the United States, and together with other related entities is a member of DLA Piper, a global legal services
organization. In support of our Global Sustainability Initiative, this is printed on recycled paper. Attorney advertising.
Copyright © 2008 DLA Piper us llp | 00000