I am by no means a Huckabee supporter, but I am going to defend him in his decision to commute alleged police shooter Maurice Clemmon's sentence from 108 years to 47 years, which made him immediately eligible for parole.
Although it is difficult to puzzle out the facts about Clemmons' criminal history because the news accounts and Huckabee's own account are conflicting, it appears to go something like this:
In 1989, at age 17, Clemmons and two friends confronted a woman in a parking lot and Clemmons said he would shoot the woman if she did not give him her purse. He had no gun, and she refused to hand him the purse. She said he punched her in the head, took the purse, and fled.
Shortly before this, he had been charged with burglary, theft of property, and possession of a gun on school grounds; it is not clear if these crimes all occurred at the school. According to newspaper accounts at the time, Clemmons said he was "beaten by dopers" and brought the gun to protect himself.
In 1989, Clemmons was convicted of the earlier crimes for sentences totaling 48 years; and in 1990, he was convicted for the purse snatching incident, for sentences totaling 60 years. He was tried separately for each count, and thus convicted of several felonies. Some sentences were concurrent and others were consecutive. Cumulatively, they totaled 108 years.
It is worth noting that Clemmons was not charged with assaulting the woman--only for property crimes and possessing a gun. That is not to say Clemmons was a nice kid. He allegedly threw a chunk of metal hidden in his sock at a guard and is said to have tried to grab a gun from a guard who was transporting him to court. He was never charged for these incidents, however.
In 2000, Huckabee commuted Clemmons' sentence to 47 years; he did not release Clemmons. That was the unanimous decision of the parole board, which granted him parole on July 13, 2000. The prosecutor objected, but since when do prosecutors not object when a sentence is commuted or a defendant released? Prosecutors have objected to the release of convicted people conclusively exonerated by DNA. Therefore, the prosecutor's feelings about Clemmons can be disregarded.
The Circuit Court Judge supported Clemmons' bid for clemency, calling the sentence "excessive."
Did I mention that Clemmons was black? According to Huckabee, this factored into his decision; he felt Clemmons had been sentenced so harshly because of his race:
They would have seen a 16-year-old kid commit crimes of which, normally, there would have been a few years. And if he'd been white and middle class with a good lawyer, he'd have gotten probation, a fine and some counseling. But because he was a young black kid, he got 108 years! People don't go to prison for murder with that sort of sentence.
Huckabee is right. Even violent criminals rarely receive a sentence so harsh. Ignoring that, however, is it justified to sentence a minor as an adult to life in prison, particularly for a nonviolent crime?
The lawyers who argued on behalf of Joe Sullivan and Terrance Graham before the Supreme Court last month do not think so. According to Newsweek, even Iraq and North Korea do not sentence juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
There are about 2,500 juveniles (ranging in age from 13 to 17) currently sentenced to life in prison in the United States. No other country in the world currently has adolescents serving this sentence, reports the Frank C. Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic.
At least 135 countries have expressly rejected these juvenile sentences through their domestic legal commitments, de la Vega reported in a 2008 article. But besides the United States, 10 other countries have laws that could permit such sentencing procedures; however, none have juvenile offenders who are currently serving such a sentence. These nations include Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brunei, Cuba, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Sri Lanka.
Sullivan was 13 when he participated in a home invasion with two older accomplices who fingered him as the violent rapist of the 72-year-old homeowner. His prior record included convictions for 17 serious offenses, and he was convicted of this crime, as well.
Graham was nearly 18 when he was convicted of robbery, assault, and several home invasion burglaries. He was already on probation for a violent crime and was sentenced to life without parole.
It sounds like a no-brainer--why would we want these violent criminals released? Why shouldn't they be in jail for the rest of their lives?
According to scientists, it is because the adolescent brain is not fully formed in areas responsible for impulse control, ability to resist peer pressure, and ability to consider the future, and they are therefore less culpable for their actions than adults:
Compared to adults, adolescents are more susceptible to peer influence, less oriented to the future, more sensitive to short-term rewards, and more impulsive," says a study on adolescent development by Dr. Laurence Steinberg, professor of psychology at Temple University.
Our laws recognize that juveniles have substandard decision-making skills and a greater tendency to behave impulsively. That is why the drinking age is 21 and many states have enacted graduated driver's license programs so that minors cannot drive uninhibited until age 18. You cannot buy cigarettes at 18, and you cannot even vote. You are not liable for the contracts you sign before the age of 18.
In 2005, the Supreme Court acknowledged that it was unconstitutional to put someone to death for a crime committed as a juvenile. Why? If juveniles are equal to adults, why should there be a distinction? That is one of the arguments put to the Supreme Court on these cases.
The lawyers also argue that we cannot predict what kind of person a 17-year-old will grow up to become. Just ask former republican senator Alan Simpson, who opposes life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders:
When I was a teen, we rode aimlessly around town, shot things up, started fires and generally raised hell. It was only dumb luck that we never really hurt anyone. At 17, I was caught destroying federal property and was put on probation. For two years, my probation officer visited me and my friends at home, in the pool hall, at school and on the basketball court. He was a wonderful guy who listened and really cared. I did pretty well on probation. At 21, though, I got into a fight in a tough part of town and ended up in jail for hitting a police officer.
Several states agree with Simpson, according to the Atlantic Monthly (I encourage you to read this article in full):
Texas...this year banned life without parole for juveniles...Colorado took a similar step in 2006, and Montana recently changed its laws to open the possibility of parole for some juvenile lifers. Bills seeking to eliminate the sentence, or at least narrow those to whom it can be applied, have also been introduced in Congress, as well as the state legislatures of California, Florida, Michigan, and at least 8 other states. And last April, a California appellate court struck down a life without parole sentence imposed on a man for a kidnapping he was involved in at age 14, declaring it to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.
Nobody is arguing that juveniles should not be punished for their crimes--only that they should be given the opportunity to try to redeem themselves. When Huckabee commuted Clemmons' sentence to 47 years, he was giving him that chance. After the parole board released Clemmons, it was not long before it became clear that he was not likely to reform, and several other legal/law enforcement bodies made mistakes that let a dangerous adult criminal back on the streets to commit his worst crime: the murder of 4 officers.
We cannot condemn the racism of the judicial system, particularly in regard to juveniles, yet fail to acknowledge the unfair harshness of Clemmons' initial sentences. Black (and Hispanic) juveniles are arrested and convicted at a much higher rate than their white counterparts. They are more likely to be tried in juvenile court and more likely to receive harsh sentences:
The study also found black juveniles were more likely than their white counterparts to be tried in the adult court system, stating: "In states such as California and Pennsylvania, black youth are more than 20 times as likely to receive life without parole sentences when compared to white youth."
In Louisiana, Human Rights Watch reports that "79% of juveniles serving live without parole are black, although African Americans constitute only 30% of Louisiana's population."
It is tempting to make political hay when given ammunition against a prospective republican candidate for president--particularly one whose views are as repugnant as Huckabee's. But for me personally, it would be intellectually dishonest to castigate Huckabee for his action in this situation yet oppose life sentences for juveniles, oppose putting juveniles in adult prisons, and oppose racial inequality in America's justice system.
So, Keith Olbermann, if you are reading this, I hope you will reconsider your Huckabee bashing on this issue.