U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–327 PDF 2009

JUVENILE JUSTICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 4300 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 

Serial No. 110–205 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 4300, the ‘‘Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 

2007 ....................................................................................................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Bryan A. Stevenson, Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative, Montgomery, AL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Mr. Richard G. Dudley, Jr., M.D., New York, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 

Mr. Raphael B. Johnson, Juvenile Offender Reformed, Detroit, MI 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Elizabeth M. Calvin, Esquire, Children’s Rights Advocate, Children’s Rights 

Division, Human Rights Watch, Los Angeles, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 59 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 61 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 70 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 83 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

University of San Francisco Law Review, Volume 42, Spring 2008, Number 4, ‘‘Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice,’’ Connie de la 

Vega & Michelle Leighton 

(1) 

JUVENILE JUSTICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, Waters, Johnson, 

Gohmert and Coble. 

Staff Present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; 

Ameer Gopalani, Majority Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Majority 

Counsel; Mario Dispenza, Fellow, BATFE Detailee; Veronica 

Eligan, Majority Professional Staff Member; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; and Kelsey 

Whitlock, Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R. 

4300, the ‘‘Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 

2007.’’ 

The United States is the only country on Earth that sentences 

its children to die in prison. The only country. We now have over 

2,400 persons in prison serving sentences for life without parole for 

crimes they committed as adults. We are adamant that children 

are not mature enough to vote, to join the military, to smoke or 

drink, to enter into contracts, or to serve on juries; however, when 

it comes to being responsible for crimes, children can be and are 

sentenced to the harshest adult sentences short of death, life without parole. Sixteen percent of those serving juvenile life without 

parole sentences were between the ages of 13 and 16 at the time 

of the offense; 73 of them were only 13 or 14 years old at the time 

of the offense. The majority of these teenagers, it was their first 

conviction ever. Some of them were not the one that pulled the 

trigger; instead, they aided or abetted someone else, often older, 

who was the principal actor. Ironically, it is estimated that in 56 

percent of the cases with adult codefendants, the adult actually received a lower sentence than the youth. 

Many of these youth offenders share tragic stories of years of 

childhood abuse and neglect before their offense. Bryan Stevenson, 

2 

with the Equal Justice Initiative, will tell you about Ashley, who 

was abandoned by her mother at a crack house when she was in 

diapers, assaulted by her father so badly that she ended up in a 

hospital, and sexually assaulted at the age of 11 by her stepfather. 

At 14, she tried to escape the violence with an older boyfriend who 

shot and killed her grandfather and aunt. Because of Alabama’s 

mandatory sentencing law, she is now serving a sentence of life 

without parole. 

Other stories are equally tragic. Despite these horrific stories, 

there is hope that these youth offenders can rise above their pasts 

and their crimes and live productive lives. 

Teenagers act differently from adults because they are different. 

Through well-established scientific studies, we know that the frontal lobes of their brains, which are critical to controlling impulsive 

behavior and making good choices, are not fully developed. This 

will change as they become adults. 

Now, it was recognized by the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons the character of teenagers is not well formed, so they are not 

only vulnerable to maladjusted impulse behaviors, but are receptive to education, treatment, and rehabilitation. At the time of sentencing, it is too early to predict that there is no hope for a juvenile, and we should not at that stage throw away the key forever. 

Life without parole sentences also disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities. A study in California revealed that African American youth arrested for murder are almost six times more 

likely to receive a life without parole sentence than White youth arrested for murder. 

H.R. 4300 is a straightforward bill. It does not mandate the release of any juvenile. It merely requires States to provide all juveniles with a meaningful opportunity for parole at least once in the 

first 15 years of incarceration, and once every 3 years thereafter. 

If the States choose not to, they risk losing some of their Federal 

funding. 

The bill also requires the Federal judicial system to similarly 

provide a meaningful opportunity for parole for juveniles. There are 

35 individuals serving life without parole sentences that they received in the Federal system for crimes committed when they were 

juveniles. 

Finally, H.R. 4300 provides grant money to improve the quality 

of legal representation provided to juveniles charged with or convicted of life without parole sentences. 

I hope that my colleagues will support the bill, and now would 

be pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 

Judge Gohmert. 

[The bill, H.R. 4300 follows:] 

3 


HR4300-1.eps
4 


HR4300-2.eps
5 


HR4300-3.eps
6 


HR4300-4.eps
7 


HR4300-5.eps
8 


HR4300-6.eps
9 


HR4300-7.eps
10 

*The 2007 report, ‘‘Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-Year-Old Children to Die in 

Prison,’’ has been made a permanent part of this record and is archived at the Committee on 

the Judiciary. The report may also be viewed on the Internet at the following address: http:// 

www.eji.org/eji/files/20071017cruelandunusual.pdf. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And I would ask 

unanimous consent to submit an opening statement in writing. I 

need to do some more work on it. If that might be allowed—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. Within 5 days. 

But I would like to say in my capacity as a former judge, you 

know, I have wrestled with these issues of sentencing in a very 

personal way. And though I know that sometimes we here in 

Washington think that we have far greater knowledge and wisdom 

than anyone in any of the State governments, whereas when you 

reflect on it, perhaps the fact that they are working in the State 

and local government rather than being here may be evidence that 

they are more wise. 

But it is an ongoing struggle. Do we usurp the State authority 

and substitute our judgment for those States? I don’t think the 

Constitution provides for that. When it comes to juvenile justice, 

having seen families destroyed, lives destroyed, and I mean literally, people killed because someone was not tough enough with 

a juvenile who had already demonstrated that they were a dangerous threat to others around them, I know it is—I hesitate to 

interject the judgment of Washington for somebody on the scene locally. 

And I realize that there is some wisdom in saying the parole 

board should have more often reviews, and I appreciate that, but 

my thing is I am struggling with the bill not because things in it 

may not be a good idea, but it is the Federal Government telling 

the State government what they can or can’t do in their own constitutionally reserved cases. 

So I look forward to the testimony here, hearing from you, and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Without objection, all Members may include opening statements 

in the record at this point. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us today to discuss the legislation. Our first witness will be Bryan Stevenson, who 

is the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, and a professor of law at New York University 

School of Law. His efforts to confront bias against the poor and 

people of color in the criminal justice system have earned him dozens of national awards. In 2007, his organization published a report, ‘‘Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-Year-Old Children to Die in Prison.’’* The report is powerful and reveals the 

tragedy that has resulted from the political rhetoric of adult time 

for adult crime. Mr. Stevenson is a graduate of Harvard Law 

School and Harvard School of Government. 

Our second witness is Dr. Richard Dudley, who is a practicing 

psychiatrist whose practice involves both the evaluation and treatment of African American men and forensic practice. He has taught 

at the New York University School of Law and the City of New 

York Medical School at City College. During 2005 and 2006, he 

11 

served as a Commissioner on the Commission of Safety and Abuse 

in America’s Prisons. He has a medical degree from Temple University School of Medicine and completed his psychiatric residency 

at Northwestern University Institute of Psychiatry in Chicago. 

Next witness is Raphael Johnson from Michigan. At the age of 

17, he shot and killed someone, was convicted of murder, and sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison. He served 12 years, and has 

been out now for 4 years. He went to college and received a B.A. 

Summa cum laude from the University of Detroit Mercy, is now 

married with two children. He has his own company where he does 

motivational speaking and conflict resolution; works for Goodwill 

Industries of the Greater Detroit Area as a community reintegration coordinator, where he helps ex-offenders successfully reenter 

society. He is also working on a master’s degree. 

Our final witness will be Elizabeth Calvin, who works in the 

Children’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. She is the author of the Human Rights Watch report, When I Die, They’ll Send 

Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life Without Parole in California. 

She has also written a national practice guide for attorneys representing children, an assessment of the quality of attorneys representing youth, and a guide for reducing unnecessary detention of 

children. She is a founding director of a legal services program to 

address education and mental health and homelessness among juvenile offenders in Washington State. She has a B.A. in political 

science and a J.D. from the University of Washington School of 

Law and taught law school at Loyola School of Law. 

Now, each witness’s written statement will be made part of the 

record in its entirety, and I would ask each of our witnesses to 

summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help stay 

within that time, there is a lighting device in front of you which 

will start off green, switch to yellow when 1 minute is left, and red 

when 5 minutes are up. 

Do I understand that Dave Marsden from the Virginia House of 

Delegates is here? Dave? Good to see you, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. MARSDEN. Good to see you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Good to have you with us. 

Bryan Stevenson. 

TESTIMONY OF BRYAN A. STEVENSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE, MONTGOMERY, AL 

Mr. STEVENSON. I want to express my deep gratitude for you taking time to take on this very serious issue. As Chairman Scott indicated, there are 2,500 children in the United States who have been 

sentenced to life in prison without parole. There are hundreds 

more, thousands more, that have been sentenced to sentences of 

life imprisonment. And I do believe that this is a very critical issue 

that would benefit from this legislation which has been proposed. 

Let me first say that one of the big problems that I see as an 

attorney who represents this population a great deal is the profound absence of hope that seems to have demoralized whole communities. I go into poor sections across this country and poor 

neighborhoods and rural neighborhoods, and the thing that is most 

tragic to me is I meet 13- and 14-year-old children who tell me that 

they don’t believe they are going to live past the age of 18, and that 

12 

despair shapes the way they see the world. It is the way they organize themselves. They don’t talk to me about staying in school. 

They don’t talk to me about this. They talk about ‘‘getting mine 

while I can.’’ And that hopelessness is something that is very, very 

tragic. And I think it is reinforced by the criminal justice system 

that takes kids and throws them away. 

And I believe that a sentence of death in prison imposed on 

someone as young as 13 or 14 is very, very hopeless. The tragedy 

is when I work with these young people even in the incarceration 

system, they become more hopeful at 21 and 22 behind bars than 

they were at 13 and 14 on the street. And it says something to me 

about the power of intervention. We do have kids that are at risk 

that do things that require punishment, but we can work with 

them. 

The tragedy of the law right now is that we condemn children 

as young as 13 to die in prison, and I would like to suggest to the 

judge in particular that the consequence of these sentences or how 

we got there was not the consequence of thoughtful decision-making by State legislatures. In the early 1990’s we began lowering the 

minimum age for trying children as adults with no consideration 

for how that would intersect with sentencing at the high end. A lot 

of States were concerned about giving more leeway to criminal justice policymakers on sentencing at the low end, thinking that the 

juvenile system was inadequate, but unfortunately, when we 

brought these kids into the adult system, they collided with another phenomena of the 1990’s, which was mandatory sentencing. 

And as a result of mandatory sentencing, about 70 percent of the 

cohort of 13- and 14-year-olds were sentenced to die in prison in 

proceedings where the judge could not consider their age, could not 

consider their status, could not consider the fact that they were 

first offenders or that an older codefendant got a less sentence. And 

I think that speaks to the need of reform. 

And one of the, I think, real serious problems that I hope this 

legislation can also help us address is the real problem of providing 

the kinds of assistance that these kids need. I represented a young 

man by the name of Ian Manuel, who was 13 years of age, in Florida, and he was charged with an aggravated robbery. And his lawyer actually urged him to plead guilty, which he did. And when he 

went before the judge, the judge sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole. Of course, you would never plead guilty for 

a life imprisonment without parole sentence, but because he was 

young, and because he was poor, that sentence still stands. He has 

had no opportunity to challenge. Even the victim in that case has 

joined the effort to try to get release for Mr. Manuel, but life without parole doesn’t facilitate that. And I see these cases playing out 

time and time again. 

Kids this age are very vulnerable to all of the problems of the 

criminal justice system, wrongful convictions included. I represent 

another 13-year-old by the name of Joe Sullivan, who was convicted of a sexual assault with two other young men who are absolutely convinced that Joe at age 13 did not commit a rape. But the 

DNA evidence that could exonerate him now, this was in the early 

1990’s, has been lost. And, of course, we don’t have the opportunity 

to challenge that sentence. And so parole would be an opportunity 

13 

for us to get sentencers and policymakers to deal with this case. 

But life without parole means you never are heard from again, and 

it is the silence surrounding this universe of young kids that I 

think makes reform so critically needed. 

One of the big challenges in providing assistance to this young 

group of people is the way in which they become very victimized 

in the adult prison system. As we all know, you are substantially 

more likely to be the victims of sexual assault, trauma, et cetera. 

Yesterday I got a call from one of our young clients in Alabama 

who was raped. We now assessed in our population of 13- and 14- 

year-olds that 70 percent have been victimized by sex crimes. 

A young client in Pennsylvania, Trina Garnett, 14 years old, 

Westchester, Pennsylvania, was trying to see a boy next door and 

was using matches to light her way to the bedroom. The house 

caught on fire. Two children were killed. She was charged with 

arson, murder; convicted of murder; sentenced to life imprisonment 

without parole at 14. She goes to the State penitentiary, where she 

is raped by a male guard. The State never prosecuted the guard. 

She is now 44 years of age, multiple sclerosis, a lot of disabilities. 

Correctional staff will tell you she is the first person who they 

would recommend for release, but life without parole doesn’t facilitate any review of that case, and as a result of that, we do believe 

this legislation is critically needed. 

There are so many instances where young kids are abused, neglected, victimized, traumatized in the streets and in the community, and their first attention only comes when they are accused of 

committing a crime. We think that we have to have sentencing for 

children that takes into account all of those factors and that allows 

us to create a sentencing regime that is responsive. 

One final example. I am representing a young man by the name 

of Antonio Nunez, who grew up in south central L.A., was shot several times at 13. His family tried to move out of the area, but because he had a sibling who was on probation, they were required 

to come back to south central L.A. He joins a gang, at 14 was 

brought in to attempt to commit a kidnapping. He was chased by 

the police, shots are fired, no one is injured, but because of California’s sentencing law, he goes to trial with his older codefendant, 

convicted of aggravated kidnapping, sentenced to life imprisonment 

without parole for a crime where there are no injuries. No injuries. 

The eighth amendment says that cruel and unusual punishment 

is prohibited. We believe that sentencing children 13, 14, 15, 16, 

and 17 to these kinds of nonreviewable, nonparolable sentences is 

cruel and unusual punishment. 

We do need leadership from Congress. Sentencing reform at the 

State level is very, very difficult. We live in an era where so many 

politicians preach fear and anger, and it creates an environment 

where good sentencing reform is difficult. We do need leadership. 

And I believe this bill represents the kind of thing, the kind of 

intervention that could make a huge difference in how States recover from this problem of a growing population of very young children who have been sentenced to die in prison. I really appreciate 

the Committee’s leadership on this issue, and I look forward to answering any questions that the Committee might have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. 

14 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevenson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRYAN A. STEVENSON


BAS-1.eps
15 


BAS-2.eps
16 


BAS-3.eps
17 


BAS-4.eps
18 


BAS-5.eps
19 


BAS-6.eps
20 


BAS-7.eps
21 


BAS-8.eps
22 


BAS-9.eps
23 


BAS-10.eps
24 


BAS-11.eps
25 


BAS-12.eps
26 


BAS-13.eps
27 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Dudley. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD G. DUDLEY, JR., M.D., NEW YORK, NY 

Dr. DUDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Scott, Members of the Committee, 

for having me here today. 

In the time allotted, I can only briefly summarize what behavioral science has to offer to your deliberations. Since behavioral 

science evidence as presented in Roper is considered relevant to the 

matter before you today, I have attached a copy of the brief submitted by the American Psychological Association and the Missouri 

Psychological Association that was entered in Roper to my written 

statement. I believe that that brief outlines the relevant behavioral 

science findings that support such different treatment of juvenile 

offenders in more detail and provides references for further exploration of the findings that are presented and discussed in that 

brief. 

In essence, child and adolescent growth and development is best 

understood as multiple parallel, but interacting vectors. These vectors include physical and biological growth; cognitive development, 

or the development of the ability to think; psychological development; social development; and moral development. It is important 

to note that while in some ways each of these vectors can be examined separately, each of these areas of growth and development 

does impact on the other, and that delays or impairments in one 

area can also result in delays or impairments in another. In addition to that, of course, stressful life events, biologically and nonbiologically mediated mental illness, et cetera, can also impact on each 

of these areas of growth and development. 

So bearing in mind the importance of this interaction between 

different areas of growth and development and other factors that 

can impact on them, clearly the two areas of adolescent development that are most central to the matter before you today are cognitive development and psychological development. 

We have long known that cognitive capacities increase during 

childhood and adolescence. For quite some time, we believed that 

this has to do with the continuing development of the brain, and 

now recent research made possible by the advances of technology 

has begun to provide a more clear picture of the differences between adolescent and adult brains. 

As Mr. Scott noted, we find that the brain is not fully developed 

until after adolescence, actually in the young adult years, and that 

the last area to be fully developed is the frontal lobes, which is the 

brain center for higher functions, which we call the executive functions, of the brain. Such executive functions include those brain 

functions involved in making rational decisions that are in one’s 

long-term best interests, being able to identify and consider reasonable options based on available information, weighing the pros and 

cons of each action. Executive brain functions are also involved in 

the planning and implementation of goal-directed or intended behaviors. Since impaired frontal lobe functioning has also been associated with impulsivity and difficulties in attention, concentration, 

self-monitoring, an increase in these capacities has also become associated with the maturation of the frontal lobes. So in short, children and adolescents do not yet have the physical brain capacity 

28 

for the type of decision-making we expect of adults and have legally 

held adults responsible for. 

The path to psychological maturity is at least partly influenced 

by these same biological brain development issues. More specifically, as the brain’s frontal lobes grow and the capacity for executive functions develop, the psychological capacity required for considering alternative courses of action also develops. So there is an 

increased capacity to restrain impulses, to inform the decisions 

that we make using a growing body of knowledge and information, 

to consider the impact of our decisions that they will have on others, and to consider the short- and long-term consequences of these 

decisions and actions. 

Psychological work of adolescents also includes the consolidation 

of one’s identity; therefore, adolescents are prone to experiment 

with different aspects of their identity. And if this consolidation of 

identity is complicated, that experimentation might become actual 

risk-taking behavior. And while that risk-taking behavior may 

cause the adolescent to get involved with the criminal justice system, more often than not these behaviors are transient expressions 

of the adolescent’s efforts to establish an identity instead of evidence of a more fixed, enduring behavioral disturbance. 

These far less than adult capacities of juveniles should clearly be 

taken into consideration when sentencing juvenile offenders. Most 

importantly, it should be recognized that adolescents do not have 

the capacity for decisionmaking and the forming of an intent that 

adults have. It should also be recognized that the transitory nature 

of adolescence is such that the adolescent who stands before the 

court on one day may become a very different and much more highly functioning young adult. 

In addition, there is the related finding that these far less than 

adult capacities of juveniles compromises the ability of juveniles to 

adequately participate in all other aspects of the adult criminal 

process, including, for example, making important decisions about 

giving reliable statements, waiving rights, entering pleas, and accepting deals. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present to you, and I believe 

that the information gleaned from the behavioral sciences provides 

clear support for protecting juveniles through the bill that you are 

considering today. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Dr. Dudley. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dudley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. DUDLEY, JR. 

What we have learned from the behavioral sciences about child and adolescent 

growth and development clearly differentiates children and adolescents from adults. 

However, exactly how this knowledge should influence the administration of justice 

to children and adolescents is argued on an almost daily basis. It is argued in jurisdictions across the country in individual cases involving children or adolescents that 

we never really hear about; then there are the high profile cases involving children 

or adolescents, some of which have helped to evolve the law in this regard; and of 

course, this same debate often impacts on the work of legislators and government 

administrators. 

As you know, the most recent high profile case where the relevance of these issues 

were argued was ‘Roper v. Simmons’ (125 S. Ct. 1183), where the United States Supreme Court decided that the differences between adult and youth offenders were 

so marked and well understood that the court abolished the death penalty for juveVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:54 Feb 04, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\091108\44327.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44327
29 

niles. The behavioral science evidence presented in ’Roper’ is also relevant to the 

matter before you today—the sentencing of juvenile offenders to life without parole. 

In the time allotted for me today, I can only briefly summarize what the behavioral sciences have to offer to your deliberations. Therefore, I have attached a copy 

of the Amici Curiae brief from the American Psychological Association and the Missouri Psychological Association that was entered in ’Roper’ to my written statement. 

I believe that that brief expertly outlines the relevant behavioral science findings 

that support such different treatment of juvenile offenders in more detail, and provides references for further exploration of the findings that are presented and discussed therein. 

In essence, child and adolescent growth and development is best understood as 

multiple, parallel, but yet interacting vectors. These vectors include physical/biological growth, cognitive development or the development of the ability to think, psychological development, social development, and moral development. It is important to 

note however that while in some ways, each of these vectors can be examined separately, each of these areas of growth and development can and does impact on the 

others, in that delays or impairments in one area can also result in delays or impairments in other areas. 

Bearing in mind the importance of appreciating the impact of one aspect of development on another, clearly, the two areas of adolescent development that are most 

central to the matter before you today are cognitive development and psychological 

development. 

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: 

We have long known that cognitive capacities increase during childhood and adolescence; for quite some time it has been believed that this gradual progression towards an adult capacity for cognition parallels the growth and development of the 

brain during the childhood and adolescent years; but now, recent research, made 

possible by advances in technology, has begun to provide a more clear picture of the 

differences between the adolescent and adult brain. Of particular relevance to this 

discussion is the finding that the brain is not fully developed until after adolescence/ 

until the young adult years, and that the last area to fully develop is the frontal 

lobes, which is the brain center for higher functions of the brain, which we call the 

executive functions of the brain. Such executive functions include those brain functions involved in making rational decisions that are in one’s long-term best interests, such as being able to identify and consider reasonable options based on available information and weighing the pros and cons of each option. Executive brain 

functions are also involved in the planning and implementation of goal-directed or 

’intended’ behaviors. Since impaired frontal lobe functioning has also been associated with impulsivity and difficulties in attention, concentration and self-monitoring, an increase in these capacities has also become associated with the maturation of the frontal lobes. 

Simply put, what all of this means is that children and adolescents do not yet 

have the physical brain capacity for the type of decision-making we expect of adults 

and have legally held adults responsible for. It is also important to note that even 

once this biological brain capacity grows in, just like with any other mental function 

it takes some time and practice before the developing young adult can consistently 

and effectively employ this new brain capacity. 

PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT: 

The path to psychological maturity is at least in part clearly influenced by the 

above described biological growth and development of the brain. More specifically, 

as the brain’s frontal lobes grow and the capacity for executive functions develops, 

the psychological capacity required for considering alternative courses of action also 

develops. For example, there is an increased capacity to restrain impulses long 

enough to think through alternatives and make decisions; there is an increased capacity to inform those decisions using a growing body of knowledge and information; 

there is an increased capacity to consider the impact that one’s decisions will have 

on others; and there is an increased capacity to consider the short and long-term 

consequences of one’s decisions and actions. 

The psychological work of adolescence also includes the consolidation of one’s own 

identity, apart from simply being the child of one’s parents. Therefore adolescents 

are prone to experiment with different aspects of their identity, and if consolidation 

of an identity is complicated, that experimentation might become actual risk-taking 

behavior. Although such risky behaviors might cause some adolescents to get into 

trouble with the law, more often than not, such behaviors are transient expressions 

30 

of the adolescent’s effort to establish an identity instead of evidence of a more fixed/ 

enduring behavioral disturbance. 

ASSESSMENT OF ADOLESCENTS: 

Given all that is going on during the adolescent stage of growth and development—all of the above noted and the other aspects of development that I have not 

described here—and given that it is clear that the personalities of adolescents are 

not yet fixed/will continue to develop and evolve as they continue to mature, it is 

extremely difficult if not virtually impossible to consistently make long-term predictions about the future behavior of any given adolescent. In fact, many of us who 

evaluate adolescents involved in juvenile proceedings have found that between the 

time that the adolescent committed the offense and the time that he/she was evaluated and then appeared in court, the adolescent had already changed/continued to 

develop in significant ways. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE ACCOUNTABILITY: 

These far less than adult capacities of juveniles should clearly be taken into consideration when sentencing juvenile offenders. Most importantly, it should be recognized that adolescents do not have the capacity for decision-making and the forming 

of an intent that adults have. It should also be recognized that the transitory nature 

of adolescence is such that the adolescent who stands before the court on one day 

may become a very different young adult. In addition, there is the related finding 

that these far less than adult capacities of juveniles compromises the ability of juveniles to adequately participate in all aspects of the adult criminal process including, 

for example, making important decisions about giving reliable statements, waiving 

rights, entering pleas and accepting deals. 

I am here today because it is my opinion that when what we know about child 

and adolescent growth and development is taken into consideration, sentencing juveniles to life without parole is clearly inappropriate. 

Thank you. 

31 

ATTACHMENT 


B-1.eps
32 


B-2.eps
33 


B-3.eps
34 


B-4.eps
35 


B-5.eps
36 


B-6.eps
37 


B-7.eps
38 


B-8.eps
39 


B-9.eps
40 


B-10.eps
41 


B-11.eps
42 


B-12.eps
43 


B-13.eps
44 


B-14.eps
45 


B-15.eps
46 


B-16.eps
47 


B-17.eps
48 


B-18.eps
49 


B-19.eps
50 


B-20.eps
51 


B-21.eps
52 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Johnson. 

TESTIMONY OF RAPHAEL B. JOHNSON, 

JUVENILE OFFENDER REFORMED, DETROIT, MI 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify before you today. I give honor to God 

for giving me my life and for showing me the mercy that I have 

been shown. My name is Raphael Bernard Johnson, and I am before you as someone who as a teenager committed a horrible and 

senseless crime. An innocent person lost his life because of me, and 

that is something that I regret more than I can ever say, and it 

is something that I will remember for the rest of my life. 

I am a man who spent my young adulthood in prison. By the 

grace of God, I did not receive a life without parole sentence, and 

because of that I was released from prison and have dedicated my 

life to making amends. I would like to tell you my story in hopes 

that it illustrates just how important it is for young people to get 

second chances. 

I grew up in a Detroit neighborhood known for violence, guns, 

and drug dealing. My father went to prison when I was a baby. Although I had a loving mother who worked hard for our family, I 

now know that I direly needed a role model, and I searched for it 

in desperate places. As a child and youth, I looked to the streets. 

I thought that being a gangster would make me a man. 

My first arrest was at 12. At 14, I was sent to a boys’ home for 

4 years. There things did begin to look up for me. I was given a 

scholarship to attend a private high school, and I excelled. I was 

on the honor roll. I was captain of the football team. I even made 

it to homecoming king. I had a lot going on for me, yet still I was 

an adolescent who could not think clearly before he acted, and 

could not control his anger, and could not walk away from conflict. 

When I was 17 years old, at a party where I got into a scuffle 

and was thrown to the ground, in rage and fear I ran and got a 

gun, and I shot someone. It was the most cowardly act imaginable. 

What was in my head at that time? I didn’t think about my future. 

I didn’t even comprehend that I was ending someone else’s future. 

Later I learned that his name was Mr. Johnny Havard. I was tried 

as an adult and sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison. Had the outcome been slightly different, my sentence would have been life 

without parole. 

Like a lot of youths sentenced to adult prisons, change did not 

come immediately. Change took time. My thoughts began to go to 

the horrible realities of the losses I caused to the victim’s family. 

I even wrote letters trying to express my apologies. Each letter 

would be returned with an ‘‘address expired’’ stamp fixed to it. 

I realized that I could best serve Mr. Havard’s memory by changing myself. One thing I had going for me was hope. Because I had 

the chance of parole, a chance that thousands of young offenders 

serving life without parole do not have, I had hope. From day one, 

I saw the light at the end of the tunnel. I had something to work 

towards. And the dream of helping others and having a family and 

making a difference all seemed like a possibility. 

I took advantage of all available programming and became a certified carpenter, certified plumber, electrician, even a paralegal. I 

53 

read over 1,300 books. I thought about my faith and relationship 

with God. I was able do this in part because I had a strong support 

of family, friends, clergy, and even my father, who had transformed 

himself from a gangster into a State correctional officer for the 

State of Michigan. I focused on what I could do to right my wrong, 

to somehow atone for the innocent life I had taken. 

Twelve years after the senseless and unwarranted murder of Mr. 

Johnny Havard, I was released from prison. I have been out now 

for 4 years. I went to college, and last year I received my B.A. 

Summa cum laude from the University of Detroit Mercy. I married 

my childhood sweetheart Shannon, and she has given me two beautiful children. I started my own company, where I do motivational 

speaking and conflict resolution all around this country. I work 

with Goodwill Industries in Detroit, helping ex-offenders as a community reintegration coordinator. I am a published author. I expect 

to complete my master’s degree in December of 2008. My master’s 

project will result in a new book about successfully reintegrating 

offenders into society. 

I submit to you that everyone makes mistakes, errors in judgments and decisions that they wish they can take back at a later 

time. Perhaps this is especially true for young people. What I want 

to convey to you all is that for any juvenile offender who commits 

a crime as horrible and senseless as mine, there should still be 

some hope. 

I think about my actions that night every single day. I think 

about Mr. Havard’s mother, who once declared in a courtroom that 

she could never forgive me. Now, many years later, I have a deeper 

understanding of her pain, because when I look at my 2-year-old 

son and my little baby and imagine if a teenager took their lives, 

I think that I have a clearer sense of her hurt and her pain. However, I also can empathize with the errors of a misguided teenager 

who acts without thinking into the future and takes the life of another person. 

I humbly ask you all to vote for H.R. 4300, and do so in recognition that no adolescent is beyond hope of redemption. And every 

young person should have the chance to prove that they can change 

and be afforded the opportunity to make the difference. Thank you 

for listening. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAPHAEL B. JOHNSON


RBJ-1.eps
55 


RBJ-2.eps
56 


RBJ-3.eps
57 


RBJ-4.eps
58 


RBJ-5.eps
59 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Calvin. 

TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH M. CALVIN, ESQUIRE, CHILDREN’S 

RIGHTS ADVOCATE, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS DIVISION, HUMAN 

RIGHTS WATCH, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Ms. CALVIN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am here to support legislation that would provide a meaningful opportunity of parole for 

youth who have been sentenced to life in prison. 

The sentence of life without the possibility of parole is a sentence 

to die in prison. There is no time off for good behavior. There is 

no chance to prove that you have become a different person. Next 

to the death penalty, there is no harsher condemnation. 

The Federal Government and 39 States sentence youth under the 

age of 18 to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In some 

States, those children are as young as 13 years old. The United 

States stands alone in the use of this sentence. No other country 

uses this sentence with children. Here we have over 2,500 individuals who are serving life without parole with no chance for release 

for crimes that they committed when they were under the age of 

18. In the rest of the world there are zero. 

H.R. 4300 would ensure that young offenders are held accountable for their actions, that they face severe penalties. But what this 

bill does is recognize that young people are different than adults. 

They are different in their ability to change. 

This bill provides incentives for people to work toward rehabilitation while in prison. It is not a get out of jail free card. It is a 

chance to earn one’s freedom through rehabilitation. A parole hearing will decide whether a person should be released and whether 

they have been rehabilitated or not. It will also provide opportunity 

for the victim or victim’s family members to be heard. 

Human Rights Watch has investigated the use of life without parole in the United States since 2004. Based on our research, we 

support the passage of H.R. 4300 for three primary reasons. The 

use of this sentence for juveniles is frequently disproportionate, it 

is racially discriminate, and it is in violation of international law. 

One example of the disproportionate use of this sentence is the 

case of Sara K. Sara was raised by her mother, who was addicted 

to drugs and abusive. At age 11, Sara met G.G., a 31-year-old man. 

Soon after, he sexually assaulted her, and he began grooming her 

to become a prostitute. At age 13, Sara started working as a prostitute for G.G. He continued sexually assaulting her and using her 

as a prostitute for almost 3 years. Just after she turned 16, she 

took a gun and shot and killed G.G. And she is serving life without 

parole. 

Life without parole was created for the worst criminals, but our 

research in the United States has found that this sentence is routinely used with young people who have never before been in trouble with the law. We estimate that nationally 59 percent of youth 

who get this sentence are first-time offenders, without even a shoplifting on a criminal record. 

Additionally, our research has found that these young people 

often acted under the influence, or in some cases the specific direction, of adults. For example, in California we found that an estiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:54 Feb 04, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\091108\44327.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44327
60 

mated 70 percent of cases in which a teen acted with a codefendant, at least one codefendant was an adult. More disturbing than 

that is the fact that, in these cases, 56 percent of the time the 

adult got a lower sentence than the juvenile. 

Also troubling is the fact that often youth are sentenced to life 

without parole when they were not the primary actor in the crime. 

They were not the trigger person. They were not the person who 

physically committed the crime. For example, nearly half the youth 

sentenced to life without parole surveyed in Michigan were sentenced for aiding and abetting or for an unplanned murder that 

happened in the course of a felony. 

We also have serious concerns that racial discrimination and disparities plague the sentencing of youth to life without parole 

throughout the United States. On average, across this country 

Black youth are serving life without parole at a per capita rate that 

is 10 times that of White youth. Many States have racial disparities that are far greater than that. 

Finally, we support H.R. 4300 because international law prohibits life without parole for people who commit their crimes under 

the age of 18. Oversight and enforcement bodies for two treaties to 

which the U.S. is a party have found the practice of sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole to be a clear violation of U.S. 

treaty obligations. 

H.R. 4300 would provide meaningful opportunity for parole to 

youth offenders, and we urge your support. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Calvin follows:] 

61 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH M. CALVIN


EC-1.eps
62 


EC-2.eps
63 


EC-3.eps
64 


EC-4.eps
65 


EC-5.eps
66 


EC-6.eps
67 

Mr. SCOTT. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony. We will now ask you questions under the 5-minute rule. And 

I wanted to follow up with Ms. Calvin. 

When this bill was introduced, I understood that there were 12 

out of 2,225 people serving life without parole sentences around the 

world, 12 were outside the United States. Are you disagreeing with 

that or giving updated information? 

Ms. CALVIN. Yes, sir, this is updated information. As of February 

2008, every other country in the world has—who had been using 

this sentence for juveniles has changed their laws and applied it 

retroactively. So there are now, to our knowledge, no other juvenile 

offenders serving life without parole outside of the United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. And can you state the two treaties that you cited that 

we are in violation of? 

Ms. CALVIN. It would be the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights and the International Covenant to Eliminate Racial 

Discrimination. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Dudley, is there any deterrent effect that life without parole 

would have over a juvenile rather than life with parole? 

Dr. DUDLEY. Well, going back to what I was explaining about the 

capacity for juveniles to make decisions and to think through decisions and to consider the issues involved therein, it would be equally as difficult for them to consider the bad possible consequence or 

outcome as it is for them to consider any other possible outcome 

of their behavior. So it is really the difficulty they have in identifying those options, considering those difficulties, holding them in 

their head, weighing the pros and cons. It is the process that they 

have difficulty with. So that piece of information really doesn’t help 

juveniles like it may help adults. 

Mr. SCOTT. So the idea that we would change a penalty from life 

with parole to life without parole would not reduce crime? 

Dr. DUDLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Stevenson, are there complexities in dealing with juveniles 

that we would want to help attorneys get through that may not 

apply to adult court? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, Chairman Scott. That is one of the reasons 

why I am so pleased that the legislation attempts to do something 

about the counsel problem we have surrounding young kids. Most 

adult defenders, historically, have had no experience dealing with 

young kids, especially kids as young as 13 and 14, but any juvenile. 

There are special needs. This is a client population that has very 

unformed understanding. They have not been acculturated to the 

criminal justice system. Their decisionmaking is really unformed. 

Most of my clients had no idea what life imprisonment without parole meant at the point of their sentencing. We have got several 

cases where they didn’t even understand what that means, and 

they kept asking, well, when do I get out? When do I get out? 

So lawyers working with this population have special needs. Particularly because there is such a high percentage of abuse and 

trauma in this cohort, you have got to be prepared to deal with 

people who are very, very fragile, very, very damaged. And a lot 

68 

of defenders don’t have that preparation. And so the counsel problem is a huge one. 

I should just note that, for example, in our cohort of 13- and 14- 

year-olds, most of these kids never had an appeal filed where the 

issue of their age was raised. In fact, we have got these 2,500 kids 

doing life without parole, over 2,000 of them do not have access to 

legal representation. And because they have been in prison now for 

more than a year or 3 years or 5 years, their ability to get access 

to counsel is very, very difficult. So the counsel problem is extremely important to recognize. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is false confession a unique problem with juveniles? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Absolutely. There is a lot of research. Richard 

Leo and some others have documented the problem of juvenile confession and statement. You know, without a parent, without a 

strong guardian to help kids manage criminal justice system decisionmaking, which they are entitled to, you are at great risk. And, 

of course, unfortunately, with this population they don’t have 

strong parents. They don’t have strong guardians that come. In 

fact, Joe Sullivan, the 13-year-old I mentioned to you, his father 

picked him up when he found out that he was going to be charged, 

took him to the police station, pushed him out of the car and then 

left. And so when he interacted with the police department, he had 

no parent or guardian there. And that is very common in this universe of kids that are dealing with these very extreme sentences. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Johnson, did you have any experience in prison—I understand that you had to shorten your statement briefly and had 

a comment on the confinement in prison. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I particularly—I had only three misconducts 

in prison. As I mentioned before in my statement, being sentenced 

as a young person going into adult system is—change don’t come 

easy. And so I did acquire some misconducts. One of the 

misconducts I acquired was a fighting misconduct, an assault, and 

a threatening behavior. Out of 12 years, that in normal cases 

would be considered good, but in my case I would end up doing 6 

years in solitary confinement because of those misconducts. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all for your 

testimony. 

Dr. Dudley, is it possible to identify antisocial personalities, or 

what used to be sociopaths, as juveniles? 

Dr. DUDLEY. Well, technically you can’t diagnose a personality 

disorder until the postjuvenile time period. So we are talking about 

19-year-olds—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I was just wondering if there has been any studies showing that you could make indications as to those who would 

follow that path. 

Dr. DUDLEY. No, you can’t really do that. Even for children who 

have conduct disorders, it is difficult to determine kind of which 

way they are going to go until their personality is much more fixed, 

and that just simply doesn’t occur that young. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I would just submit that even though I am not an 

M.D., and am certainly not a psychologist, and hear Mr. Johnson’s 

69 

case, the scenario, that doesn’t sound like anybody that is going to 

end up being a sociopath. I mean, he has so many positive things 

in his life going, but rage, anger, hate, that is not one of the 

positives. But it seems like the indications are when people act out 

of rage, anger, hate, that is a whole lot different from somebody 

that could control their conduct, but just would as soon do wrong. 

In Texas while I was a judge, I don’t think they have it now, we 

didn’t have life without parole for juveniles or for adults, so I am 

not as acquainted with that. But I am curious, Mr. Stevenson. You 

mentioned in your statement there are some that can be sentenced 

to life without parole as a juvenile without injury. Can you give me 

an example of what crime could produce no injury and still get life 

without parole? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. The case I mentioned is the case of Antonio 

Nunez in California. California has a set of laws that—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. What is the crime? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Aggravated kidnapping. It was an older man 

who was at a party, he saw this young kid, put them in the car—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. No, I understand once you tell me what the crime 

could be. Then I could see all kinds of scenarios there. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Yeah. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And that is unusual to have a sentence to that extent without an injury. And I understand the frustration sometimes in dealing with State laws. 

But, Mr. Johnson, if I could ask, you made a number of references that indicate religion has assisted you greatly in getting to 

this point where, you know, you seem like the kind of guy you 

would love to sit around and visit with or go have a meal or something. What is your religion that has helped you so? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, right now I am a Muslim. I was raised as 

a Jehovah’s Witness. I went to a Catholic school. I went to a Baptist school. So I got a variety of religions inside of me. But right 

now I do—I am a member of the church, I am a member of the 

mosque, I am a member of Sacred Heart Church in Detroit. I am 

a Muslim. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But I accept the beliefs of everyone, as long as it 

is only one God. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Well, I was just curious. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. People have got to have hope. 

With regard to the Federal intervention here again, that is where 

my concern is. If there needs to be reform, it seems like it should 

be a concerted effort, including maybe some of us here, without extortion, this needs to be reformed. 

Another concern I have, I know in Texas there was tremendous 

pressure, as well as other States that have the death penalty for 

adults, that, gee, you ought to go to life without parole. And the 

thing that crops up in my mind is if we come back and basically— 

and I know it is not considered blackmail or extortion, but basically 

we are saying you want the money you come to rely on and is so 

critical to your programs and helping those that you have been 

helping, then you have got to change this law. 

70 

I am wondering, well, if States like Texas went to the life without parole instead of the death penalty, doesn’t this open the door 

to the Federal Government coming in and saying, now that you 

have done away with the death penalty, you got life without parole, 

now we are going to force you to even undo that? It is just once 

you start this Federal intervention into State laws, then even 

though I have great concerns about the same issues you are concerned about, there does seem to be some real injustice in some of 

these cases, but like in Mr. Johnson’s case, if I am the judge, and 

I have got discretion, I hear the positive things in his life, and I 

go this is not somebody we need to lock up because he is going to 

continuously be a threat to society. This young man has some real 

potential, because he has already begun to show it. 

I see my time has expired. I have expressed to you some of my 

concerns about Federal intervention, though I also—you have 

touched a nerve with some of your concerns about the need for 

some State reform. And I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have 

my opening statement included in the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank Chairman Scott for his leadership on H.R. 

4300 in cosponsoring the legislation and for holding this important hearing. 

Imposing punishment incommensurate to an offense is an injustice that no society 

should embrace. Yet for some reason, we in the United States continue to sentence 

juveniles to life without parole, while every other nation has dispensed with it. They 

recognize as I hope we will recognize that sentencing juvenile offenders to life with 

no hope of parole is quite simply such an injustice and it is so because of three overall reasons. 

First, punishment should be in proportion to a offender’s culpability. This is acknowledged in our common law history far before our republic was founded and 

today, science has proved that youngsters simply do not have the brain development 

that enables them to appreciate the consequences of their decisions the way adults 

can. 

Life without parole has historically been reserved for those offenders who commit 

murder or other violent crimes either with malice aforethought or depraved indifference for their actions. But, juveniles do not have such mental capacities as adults 

have. Consequently, juveniles cannot be culpable to deserve life with no hope of parole because they cannot have the requisite intent to commit a crime befitting that 

punishment. 

Second, punishment should have a deterrent effect. This is to protect society by 

discouraging would-be criminals in a general deterrence and by incarcerating those 

who show no propensity for change in specific deterrence. But again, science and 

statistics show us that life without parole for youthful offenders has no general deterrence effect because as I have said, youngsters typically do not appreciate the 

gravity of circumstances. 

Moreover, statistics show us that juveniles are the segment of the population that 

most readily responds to intervention, counseling and training. In fact, the vast majority of youthful offenders mature and commit very few offenses by the time they 

reach their mid 20s even without being imprisoned. And if an offender does not mature to the point of diminished recidivism, a parole hearing could determine that 

fact and deny parole. So, the incarcerating someone well past his or her 20’s with 

no hope of parole serves no necessary specific deterrent effect. 

71 

Third, any criminal justice system practice should be administered equally upon 

all members of society. But, of course this is not the case with sentencing as African 

Americans make up a disproportionate number of the prison population in this 

country. And this disproportion is particularly high in juvenile incarceration. In fact 

in some states, African-Americans are up to 48 times more likely to be sentenced 

to life without the possibility of parole than white offenders. Now, I am anxious to 

find out through our witnesses exactly why this is the case but, in my opinion, this 

simply cannot be and even-handed administration of practice. 

In sum, we have a criminal sentencing practice that sends youngsters to die in 

prison before they have the capacity to fully grasp the gravity of their offenses while 

they still have a chance to turn their lives around. The sentence is unnecessary because the likelihood of recidivism diminishes over time even without the incarceration anyway and the sentence is imposed on African-Americans at a rate far exceeding white defendants. 

I am very much looking forward to discussing these issues today because I am 

at a loss to understand how we can call this justice. We need H.R. 4300. A meaningful chance at parole would at least give youthful offenders hope and an incentive 

to engage in programs to turn their lives around, particularly because they are at 

the age where they are most likely to do so. We have seen enough young talent go 

to waste in prison. 

Again, I thank Chairman Bobby Scott for holding this important hearing and I 

yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. And begin with a focus on our legislation to 

change this incredibly inhumane practice, but to suggest that there 

are many, many other parts of the criminal justice system that do 

not meet the fairness test, is not constructed to rehabilitate whatsoever, and is also contrary to the stated goals of the reason we 

have a criminal justice system in the first place. 

And so I wanted to point out that on September 26th, Friday of 

this month, the Congressional Black Caucus’s 38th annual 5-day 

event includes a day in which the whole justice system is up for 

review. Chairman Bobby Scott and myself, Maxine Waters, many 

Members in the Congress, and Judge Louie Gohmert is being invited this year, although he may have been there before, but we 

want to continue examining the larger considerations. It is at the 

Washington Convention Center. In addition, we will have the Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, CURE, where Charlie and Pauline Sullivan have been working with us for, I think, 

more than 15 years, to put it mildly. And we will also have Marc 

Mauer and The Sentencing Project. And we would like to extend 

our invitation to all of you as witnesses. And there are many others. 

We have had more hearings of significance on the criminal justice system under Chairman Scott than any time in the course of 

my career here, which dates back to an unusually long and unspecified period of time. I will not go into the compromise at the 

Wormley Hotel in a Presidential dispute that occurred quite a way 

back. But the point is that what we are challenged to do is to go 

beyond documenting and talking about this among ourselves. 

The one thing I want to recommend that I discussed with the 

gentlewoman from Los Angeles, Maxine Waters, is the creation of 

a database that incorporates all of these transgressions of justice 

so that they are not episodically related at a hearing there, and at 

the CBC, and at two or three, four dozen of the other hearings; 

that there is a bank where people of critical judgment can examine 

how extensive the miscarriages of justice are that occur in the 

American process. 

72 

In addition, we have what is to me a resurgence of police violence 

in this country that is going on. When I have Sheila Jackson Lee, 

Maxine Waters, Eddie Bernice Johnson that come to mind immediately who are saying we have got police problems going off the 

roof, they are out of control; we have a sentencing structure that 

has been—we have been attacking it for literally two decades now; 

all of these things suggest one thing to me, and I would like to just 

get your responses to anything that I may have said, but what it 

says to me is we need a new way to approach the resolution of the 

problems of which we are all familiar. 

It means that we are talking unsatisfactorily to those people— 

and I know these things have historical cycles where there is let’s 

have mandatory minimums. We are now coming into a new period 

where most people, including the Supreme Court, are looking with 

obvious skepticism on their value. There are other people that are 

coming around, we may be going through a cycle, but the legislative process consists of more than just hearing the wrong thing and 

creating the right thing to go along with it, because that can go on 

indefinitely. 

Fifty years from now there will be another Subcommittee Chairman. I will probably likely be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee still. But that is a bionic consideration that we need not go 

into here now. But we can do this; we could go on for a century 

of hearing, of criticizing, documenting, introducing remedial legislation, and this keeps going on. 

We build walls, libraries become full of all this, but there has got 

to be in the legislative process—if there is to be success, there has 

got to be an analysis of what it takes to lead to success. And obviously, the first thing involved in that is being able to talk to those 

forces and parties and individuals in law, in the legislative process 

that can change things. And so I would like to, if I can get the additional time, Mr. Chairman, just starting with Elizabeth Calvin, 

Esquire, just go down the row here to see if any of these notions 

cause any reflection on the part of any of our distinguished witnesses. 

Ms. CALVIN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with you more 

about the importance of having solid data about what is going on 

in our country, in particular in how children and young people are 

being treated in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. I can tell 

you from my experience of gathering data in California, it took me 

9 months to get the Department of Corrections to give me data that 

is public record. And part of that was—well, I think there were a 

number of reasons. But it was a struggle. And I think we in many 

cases do not have enough information. 

I would like to, Mr. Chairman, if I could—pardon me, I should 

have asked this earlier, I have submitted two Human Rights Watch 

reports that detail the data that we have been able to find nationally as well as in California. I would like to submit those as a part 

of the record. One is ‘‘The Rest of Their Lives: Youth Serving Life 

Without Parole in the United States,’’ and the other is the one focused on California, ‘‘When I Die, They’ll Send Me Home.’’ 

73 

*The Human Rights Watch reports submitted by Ms. Calvin have been made a permanent 

part of this record and are archived at the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection.* 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Chairman, as you were speaking, I began to 

reflect on the things that I experienced in prison, what I can do in 

relation to all of this or what I can add on to that. 

What I believe, in collecting the data, you know, there is no system set up throughout the entire United States whereby we can 

see what they are actually doing in prison. And as Judge Gohmert 

hinted to, it makes those who are part of the fact-finding hearing 

process, it makes it difficult for them to ascertain who can be let 

go or who can be given a second chance. And I think that if a program is set up inside the system all around this country that can 

ascertain and keep data and information about who is going to college, who is helping out with other prisoners, who is involved in 

correspondence courses, who is involved in vocational training, who 

is involved in extracurricular activities outside of the normal prison, I think that would alleviate a lot of hardships and headaches 

when it comes to the decision-making process of who we can let go 

and who we can’t. Thank you. 

Dr. DUDLEY. I certainly agree with the issue of the importance 

of collecting data, but I think one of the things that we also need 

to focus on is the collecting of data that hasn’t been collected or 

that would be extremely difficult to collect. 

One of the things that I didn’t talk about in an attempt to be 

brief was just the assessment of adolescents, and this would have 

been more in response to your question, Judge Gohmert, that, you 

know, one of the characteristics of adolescents is that they have so 

much difficulty managing their feelings. And you know, they act 

up; they defend against them in really just kind of outrageous ways 

because they can’t handle some of the hurt and some of the things 

that they have. And that is why they give us all such headaches, 

you know, whether they are in trouble or not. And so some real assessment about what even the anger that appears to be there actually means. Is that just a way of I am so hurt that, you know, I 

can’t tell you that? And what I am giving you is all of this kind 

of apparent anger? 

I mean, I have lost count over the years of the number of adolescents who appear angry and bitter and closed and unopen, but 

when you actually can manage to get past that in the evaluation 

process, how they break down and cry, and what appeared to be 

this anger and hostility really is something very different than 

that. 

And so data about how we fail really in even assessing these adolescents when they present in court is just not even available. But 

I suspect that we would find out, and anybody who works with adolescents will tell you this, that we are notoriously poor at really 

being able to tell you where an adolescent is at that time and that 

they are going to change so much. And so the notion of taking another look when they are a little older, because they can look so 

crazy at 13, and then a couple years later look so different, is what 

makes this legislation make so much sense. 

74 

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, Chairman Conyers, I also agree wholeheartedly that this problem reflects a broader set of problems that 

we see in the criminal justice system that I absolutely agree needs 

to be addressed. I am delighted to hear about the CBC gathering, 

because I think that is very important. You know, I think some of 

the transformation, I think, can come through some of these sorts 

of responses. 

The four things that I see that kind of permeate the criminal justice system and that are certainly present here have to do with 

counsel. We can make the criminal justice system function better 

if we approach this problem of poor people not getting the legal 

help they need in a very different way. We have a criminal justice 

system in this country that is incredibly wealth-sensitive. Our system treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor 

and innocent. Culpability is not what shapes the outcome, it is 

wealth. And I think we have to understand that when we think 

about reform. 

Second is race. There is real consciousness about race in the 

criminal justice system. Young men of color, Muslim men, African 

American men are presumed guilty. And so the lawyer has to overcome a presumption of guilt, which is not the way our system is 

set up, and as a result of that, lawyers fail to meet that burden. 

And we see that represented in the prison system. In this cohort 

of 13- and 14-year-olds, all of the 13-year-olds are Black. All of the 

kids who have been sentenced to die in prison at 13 and 14 for nonhomicides are kids of color. All of them. And it reflects the way in 

which we can demonize and devalue and use race as a lens for 

that. 

One of my real strong recommendations is that we have got to 

find a way to make confronting race bias a priority. You know, I 

do death penalty cases, and my great frustration is we see gross 

evidence of racial bias all the time. I have got a case going to the 

eleventh circuit next month where a prosecutor in Selma, Alabama, 

a majority Black county, used all of his peremptory strikes, the discretionary strikes to pick a jury, to exclude 23 of the 23 Black people qualified for jury service. When he was asked to give a reason, 

he said, the first six people I struck were because they, quote, look 

of low intelligence, end quote. Nothing in the record to support 

that. And the State courts have affirmed that conviction and sentence, the Federal court has affirmed that conviction and sentence. 

And we are going to the eleventh circuit next month, and I am 

fearful that this man on death row could have that sentence affirmed because of proceduralism. We have now insulated claims of 

race bias from substantive review through the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act and other procedures. So I think that is an 

important concern. 

And then finally, the last two things, I think, to be transformative, we have got to restore a culture both in the criminal justice system and out that recognizes what we should all know and 

understand, and that is that each person is more than the worst 

thing they have ever done. Your worst act is not all you are. And 

if we have that consciousness, I think we can make sentencing 

more fair. 

75 

And then finally, I think we have to have this transformative 

idea that we grew up with, a lot of us, which is that you don’t judge 

the civility of a society, you don’t judge the character of a society 

by how you treat the rich and the affluent and the powerful and 

the privileged; you judge the character and civility of the society by 

how you treat the hated, the imprisoned, the poor, the 

disenfranchised and the marginalized. 

I think if we have those principles in mind, we can do some of 

the transformative work that I agree desperately is needed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from California Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to first thank you for your work and your courage, 

and to simply say what most of the people in this room already 

know. There are not many elected officials who are willing to take 

on these issues and be identified as someone who is fighting to provide justice for people who have committed serious crimes. The 

body politic has developed over the years in such a way that you 

are thought to be soft on crime, and it is used against you in campaigns. And so most of our elected officials don’t have the courage 

to even stand up when it is quite obvious that there is something 

terribly wrong in the criminal justice system that is sentencing 

children to life in prison and other kinds of biases that are seen 

in the criminal justice system. 

So our Chairman really is—Mr. Scott, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, is to be congratulated. But, of course, he has taken on 

the work of John Conyers, who has been doing this work for years. 

When I first met John Conyers 100 years ago, he was out there 

alone practically in this country doing this kind of work. 

So I am very, very pleased to join with them and all of our efforts 

in trying to deal with the criminal justice system, whether it is 

talking about children who are sentenced to life without parole, or 

mandatory minimum sentences as relates to crack cocaine, all of 

these things we work on. And we are usually battling against a 

mind-set in the body politic that is not prepared to just do the right 

thing. It is very, very difficult work. 

I thank you all for being here today. 

And, Mr. Johnson, I thank you for telling your story and sharing 

that information with all of us. Despite the fact that most of the 

people that you see up here are committed and dedicated to trying 

to deal with these problems, we don’t often have an opportunity to 

let people really know what is going on as we try and accomplish 

these things. 

Now let me just say this: This bill is extremely important. And 

when you describe what is happening in the criminal justice system and you talk about young children who are raped and abused 

and developed and trained to be prostitutes, it is unimaginable that 

judges and juries would not take all of that into consideration. But 

I know it happens day in and day out. 

I have worked, you know, in the feminist community and with 

women for a number of years. And as you know, you began to see 

a number of cases where women committed murder against men 

who were acting this way and treating them this way, abusing 

76 

them. And we had cases where there had been years of abuse; and 

women finally—some of them acted out. 

And, you know, the women’s community kind of got together and 

supported many of these women who were convicted. And I think 

there have been some cases where their sentences have been modified or overturned, et cetera. 

We have not had a lot of advocates for children who get sentenced to these long terms or life without parole. This effort that 

you see here is a kind of a renewed or maybe first-time real effort 

to take a look at this. 

I know that there are some Members who have voted from time 

to time when these issues were before us, but you would be surprised that some of our Members who consider themselves progressive, who represent communities where this is most likely to happen because they represent poor people and people of color, have 

voted the opposite direction. And there is one person whose name 

I won’t mention who is no longer here that just infuriated me because of what happened on the Senate side with this issue several 

years ago. 

But having said all of that, yes, data, information, all of that is 

important. But the kind of change that we need in the criminal justice system demands that there is more diversity in the system. 

When you look at the criminal justice system, when you look at the 

prosecuting attorneys, when you look at people who have the ability to make decisions such as you are describing about what is 

going on in Alabama, what you will find is that there is no diversity on these—you know in many of these counties and these 

judges, et cetera; and we have got to work harder at that. And, of 

course, we have got to continue to try and elect people to office who 

will have the courage to do the right thing. 

I know I haven’t asked you one question and the reason I haven’t 

asked you any questions is because I know all the answers. I have 

been here long enough to know what is wrong with this system. I 

have been here long enough to have heard these cases. And so 

don’t think that because I didn’t ask you I am not interested. I just 

have to tell you and admit, I know. 

So thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the gentleman’s comments. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I am sorry. I didn’t notice Mr. Coble was here. Excuse me. 

The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I was at an Intellectual Property Subcommittee hearing, and I apologize for my belated arrival. I have 

no questions for the moment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, you say you spent 12 years in prison? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

77 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. And how old were you when you first 

went in? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Seventeen, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Seventeen. And how would you describe what rehabilitation programs were available to you in the 

early phases of your incarceration? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is unique that you asked it in that way because that is when it was available, in the early years of my incarceration. 

When I first went into prison as a teenager, there was vocational 

training. There was carpentry, there was plumbing, there was electrical engineering, there was opportunity to be a paralegal, certified through a school of law out in Dallas. 

That changed in 1995 where those programs were alleviated to 

prisoners who were serving time inside of closed custody prisons or 

maximum security prisons. And those opportunities were only afforded to those who were given life sentences and sentenced to low 

or medium or camp status facilities. 

So the majority of my rehabilitation, if you will, came about from 

the initial stages of my incarceration where those programs were 

available; and I just had the spirit to continue them on. 

I think when you talk about rehabilitation, Mr. Johnson, I think 

that is—in this instance, in 2000, I think that is an individual 

choice. It is an individual determination. And to get back to your 

question, I don’t think that the system now—I don’t know whether 

it is finance or whatever it may be—is designed for that. 

And if I may add, if you have an individual that does take advantage of whatever, whether it is a correspondence course or whether 

it is reaching out to a victim’s family, becoming a part of a victim’s 

group or whatever, it should be applaudable because it is almost 

nonexistent today in the system. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Can you tell me whether or not there 

were any persons below the age of 17 who were incarcerated with 

adults while you were—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly. 

Yes, sir. I was sentenced and sent to what is called Michigan Reformatory. It has since shut down, and then it has reopened in the 

last couple of years. 

But the Michigan Reformatory is a particular prison where individuals 16 to 21 years old were housed. There were a couple thousand of us there at one time. You had 16, me, 17, 18, you had individuals 19. So all over the system now that has changed where you 

can go just about anywhere. And I believe that is the same way nationwide where there is young adult offenders, 16 years old or 17, 

that is currently housed in the same cell blocks, the same facility 

or institution, as those who are adults. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Any comment on that, Ms. Calvin or 

Mr. Stevenson? 

Ms. CALVIN. Well, I would add on both points, first, it is consistent with the investigation that we have done across the country 

that in many cases people, young people, who are serving life without parole do have less access to rehabilitative programming than 

other prisoners. And as one young man in California told me, those 

programs are for people who are going to get out. So if there are 

78 

limited programs, people are essentially moved to the bottom of the 

list if they have a life without parole sentence. 

With regards to juveniles being held with adults, I think that is 

something that is different from State to State. And I can tell you 

in California, that is something that has changed, and to our 

knowledge, people are 18 before they are put into adult prisons in 

California. I know that there are other States that this is not true 

for. 

I would point out, however, that even 18-year-olds face a lot of 

violence and threats when they enter in prison. As one person told 

me, he still did not have facial hair, and was essentially learning 

to shave in prison and was small in stature at age 18. And even 

though that comports with the Federal law on mixing people under 

the age of 18 with adults, that still is a very serious matter for 

those States that are putting away 18-year-olds. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Representative Johnson, I will just add that in 

15 of the 19 States where we have done work representing 13- and 

14-year-old kids sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, 

there was incarceration of very young offenders with adults. And 

part of it has to do with the sentence. 

Life without parole is the harshest sentence you can get. In 12 

States it is the maximum sentence. And they have classification 

systems; the Departments of Correction around the country have 

moved to a classification system, which I applaud, where they try 

to segregate prisoners based on the level of offense. And they dictate that by sentence, so if you have a sentence of life without parole, you are going to be thrown in with the worst offenders in the 

system. And unfortunately, most of these States—again, because 

they haven’t thought this stuff through—have not created exceptions for very young offenders. 

So a lot of my clients were in the State penitentiary, the worst 

State penitentiary at 15, 16, 17 years of age, which is why we have 

found such a high level of sexual assault, rape, abuse, et cetera, because you are just very vulnerable at that age in these kinds of institutions. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Mr. Stevenson, you reported that all 

of the incarcerated juveniles below the age of 14 in this country are 

persons of color? 

Mr. STEVENSON. That is correct. We have identified eight young 

people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. All of them are African American. 

We have identified nine young people—and this is in the cohort 

of 13 and 14-year-olds. We have identified nine young people who 

have been sentenced to life without parole for nonhomicide offenses—robbery, the kidnapping cases I mentioned. All of those 

children are kids of color. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. This is more than just disproportionate sentencing. It is almost exclusive sentencing for young African Americans and Hispanics. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. That is certainly true. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas is recognized. 

79 

Mr. GOHMERT. Just in response, there has been so much talk 

about racial bias. And you know, the comment that racial bias, Mr. 

Stevenson, is, there is racial bias in our justice system. 

I would acknowledge there is some that—let me tell you, the first 

job I had as a lawyer was as a prosecutor in a small town, three 

small counties. And the main racial bias that we fought at that 

time was the lack of prosecution of African Americans who attacked African Americans. It was, ‘‘Well, they just do that kind of 

thing,’’ was the comment. And I was proud to work for a DA that 

said, everybody is entitled to be protected by the justice system. 

And we turned that around. And so I have seen that. 

But at the same time, when I hear a blanket allegation that the 

justice system—and we hear anecdotal indications and then even 

sometimes spouting statistics. If an African American victim comes 

in and says, it was an African American that hit me, I see no need 

to go looking for White people as the perpetrators of the crime. 

So to see more about the issue of race, it would seem you would 

need to find out, you know, what race actually did the crime; that 

the problem may not be necessarily with the justice system, but 

what is causing so much more crime in one racial community or 

among one race more than with another. 

And so, anecdotally, I feel compelled to tell you, in my courtroom 

I tried three capital murder cases. Two were White and one was 

an African American defendant. Two got the death penalty. One 

didn’t. The two White men got the death penalty, and it was appropriate. And it was—well, and then as far—I was subpoenaed one 

time because there was a blanket attack. People were encouraged 

at some seminar: Go after your county because the judge doesn’t 

pick the grand jurors, but they do pick the grand jury foreman. 

Then you can show that they are racially biased. I could have cared 

less what race my foremen were. I wanted the best, most organized 

person. 

They decided they didn’t need me after they found out I had actually appointed more African Americans to foreman because just 

out of the panel that was selected by the commissioners, I knew 

those people and I knew they were the best organizers. And I repeatedly had prosecutors who made sure I got the right foremen on 

that grand jury. 

One other thing: I was court appointed to represent one death 

penalty appeal. I didn’t want it. I went over and begged the judge, 

‘‘I don’t do criminal law as a rule. Please.’’ And he said, ‘‘You will 

do a good job. I know you will be fair. So now you have got it.’’ 

The defendant was African American and had been sentenced to 

death. I could have cared less what race he was. He got tremendous representation. I poured my whole heart and soul into it because he didn’t get a fair trial. And the justice system did the appropriate thing; the case was reversed. 

So when I hear, you know, these blanket allegations, you know, 

the system is just biased, I feel like I have got to provide a defense 

because it isn’t across the board. There are very, very fair aspects 

within the justice system itself. And I hope we can root out where 

the causes for racial bias are and work on those. 

And, frankly, I believe sometimes it is born out of the legislation 

here, because I am—one of the most frustrating things that 

80 

brought me to Washington, I was seeing far too many people who 

were from families where someone had been lured into a life of dependency on the Federal Government because they were told, why 

don’t you go have a baby out of wedlock and you will start getting 

a check. 

And they found out that wasn’t enough money to live on. They 

went and had another child and another child, and there was no 

hope for these people. And so they turned either to crime or welfare 

fraud, ended up in my court. They were lured into that way of life. 

Instead, we should have been providing incentives to finish your 

education. We will help you with child care so you can reach that 

God-given potential. We didn’t provide them hope; we provided 

them a rut they couldn’t get out of. So those are the kinds of things 

I want to guard against. 

And, Mr. Johnson, when I hear that your father was an encouragement to you, that is what I wish we could provide more incentives for more fathers to do instead of providing more incentives 

like a marriage penalty. 

There is still that. You want to be married, you are going to pay 

a financial penalty. So I hope we can work together to help provide 

more reasons for hope and less reasons for injustice. 

But I thank you for the second round. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Just to follow up on that, Ms. Calvin, were you involved in the 

California study? 

Ms. CALVIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And did that reveal that African American youth arrested for murder were almost six times more likely to receive a 

life sentence without parole than White youth arrested for murder? 

Ms. CALVIN. Yes, that is true. Could I explain a little bit about 

it? It is pretty remarkable data. 

We first looked at the ratio, the per capita ratio. And as I mentioned earlier, we found nationally it is 10 times more likely. In 

Connecticut, a Black youth is 48 times more likely to get the sentence than a White youth. In Pennsylvania, they are 21 times more 

likely. 

We looked specifically, because I think some people may argue, 

well, don’t more Black people commit more crimes? But when we 

look specifically at youth who are charged with murder and we 

compare Black youth who have been charged with murder with 

White youth who have been charged with murder, there is still a 

huge difference. 

And so, for an example, Black youth in California are nearly six 

times more likely to get life without parole, those who have been 

charged with murder, than the White youth charged with murder. 

And I don’t think there is an explanation other than discrimination. 

I would like to say one thing, because I think you raise a very 

serious point. Across this country there are dedicated public defenders and other attorneys who are working long into the night 

to help people. But there are many, many, many cases in which 

young people are being told to plead guilty to a life without parole 

case or something else that is very serious. 

81 

In California, we have data on more than half the cases, and it 

is our estimate that in 45 percent of the cases the attorney for the 

child at the sentencing hearing did not argue for a lower sentence. 

So—the person who is in the courtroom there for that individual 

did not argue for a lower sentence, so there is something very, very 

broken. 

Mr. GOHMERT. In those cases, was there an appeal by a different 

attorney? 

Ms. CALVIN. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Because normally we would try to make sure 

there was a different attorney that handled appeals so you could 

point out those kinds of things. That is almost per se malpractice. 

Ms. CALVIN. Yeah. In my understanding of California law, they 

typically do have a different attorney for the appeal because they 

need to be able to look at—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. It would be per se malpractice if you didn’t argue 

for a lower sentence. I just can’t imagine that not being an issue. 

Ms. CALVIN. It is horrific. I think someone who has been an attorney understands just how deeply wrong that is, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Did you have a final comment? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. Just to follow up on that. I mean, I think 

you are right, Judge, that that would be required. Unfortunately, 

without again an engagement in the particular problems that these 

cases present, we have seen a lot of these appeals, and the issues 

you would expect to be raised don’t get raised. And, of course, there 

is no right to counsel then for collateral review. So most of this universe of 2,500 kids have never had their cases on these kinds of 

issues reviewed substantively. 

I also want to commend you because I think that you are right 

in recognizing the complexity of race. A lot of it is—when I talk 

about bias, I am also talking about underprosecution of cases involving minority victims in some jurisdictions. Some folks have 

done some things about it. You have identified your work. 

When we think about these issues, we recognize that we are not 

always talking about conscious, insidious, intentional racial bias. 

We are talking about systems that operate in a way that disadvantaged youth of color and people of color and folks just having got 

to it. 

You talk about jury selection. That is one of the issues we do a 

lot of. In virtually all of the counties where I practiced there are 

huge disparities between the percentage of people of color in the 

county and the percentage of people of color on the jury pool. And 

that means that you see this lack of diversity that Congresswoman 

Waters was talking about. 

So I do think that all of that is part of the picture that we have 

to address. I don’t mean to suggest that it is all willful, intentional 

and malicious. But it is consequential, and I think we are seeing 

some of those consequences with these data and with these sentences. And I do believe it really does require some attention and 

effort by this Congress and by others who recognize the importance 

of a just system that does not demonize on the basis of race. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Dudley, did you have a final comment? 

82 

Dr. DUDLEY. I think the thing to add to that is that this issue 

that we have been discussing here, toward the end, is not really 

correctable by, you know, mental health evaluations and assessments of adolescents. And in that case, race really does matter because we want to have an ethno-culturally competent evaluation on 

top of all these other difficulties related to assessing adolescents 

that I have alluded to before. 

Unless you have someone who is competent to handle evaluations of these kids of color, they won’t be able to engage them, they 

won’t be able to kind of open them up and find out what is, in fact, 

really going on. And they could be misperceived as having difficulties they don’t really have or not being able to be responsive to 

interventions that might be available to them or helpful to them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. Members may have additional written questions for our witnesses, 

which we will forward to you and ask you for answers as promptly 

as possible so that the answers may be part of the record. Without 

objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 week for the 

submission of additional materials. 

Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(83) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

Today, the Crime Subcommittee is holding a legislative hearing on H.R. 4300, the 

Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act. This bill requires states to 

give parole reviews to juvenile offenders who are sentenced to life with parole—a 

sentence that is generally reserved for offenders who have committed murder. 

H.R. 4300 requires states to provide parole reviews to these dangerous offenders 

at least once during their first 15 years of incarceration and at least once every 

three years thereafter. If a state does not comply with this federal directive, the bill 

mandates that the state lose 10% of its Byrne JAG funding. 

This bill seeks to regulate a prerogative—sentencing of convicted criminals—that 

is exclusively a state issue. Unless their laws violate a constitutional right, states 

have exclusive control over the prosecution and sentencing of defendants within 

their jurisdiction. 

In the 1990’s, the overwhelming majority of state legislatures appropriately adopted sweeping changes to their juvenile criminal codes to properly address what the 

juvenile justice system had overlooked: that protection of public safety is of paramount concern whether the offender is juvenile or an adult. 

These state legislatures revised their codes to allow juveniles charged with serious 

violent crimes to be tried as adults to ensure that a juvenile offender was not sentenced less seriously for their criminal behavior solely because of their age and perceived immaturity. 

Presently, 39 states allow for juveniles to be tried as adults and sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole if they are convicted of violent crimes such as 

murder. In some states, a sentence of life without parole is mandatory if a juvenile 

is convicted of certain crimes; in other states, the sentencing judge has discretion 

as to the sentence. 

When prosecutors determine whether it is appropriate to charge a juvenile defendant as an adult, they consider a number of factors. Included in those factors 

are the nature and circumstances of the offense, the impact of the offense on the 

victim, and the juvenile offender’s criminal history. 

As a result of this deliberative process, very few juveniles are charged as adults. 

According to the National District Attorneys’ Association, most jurisdictions in 

America prosecute only one to two percent of juvenile criminal offenders as adults, 

and in some jurisdictions this percentage is even lower. 

Groups advocating the passage of H.R. 4300 argue that because the United States 

is the only country where juveniles can be sentenced for life without parole, we 

should change sentencing structure. 

However, the simple fact of the matter is that most state legislatures—and the 

constituents that they represent—have determined that tough sentencing is required to (1) punish offenders that have committed murder and other violent crimes 

and (2) to deter others from committing similar crimes in the future. 

I am concerned that H.R. 4300 is an unfunded mandate that would impose costly 

financial obligations on a number of states. Eleven states and the District of Columbia have determinate sentencing systems that do not allow parole. In order to implement the requirement of H.R. 4300, these states would presumably have to create, 

fund, and maintain a parole board to conduct hearing for juvenile LWOP offenders. 

Further, a federal mandate that a state provide parole reviews for one class of 

offenders that is not available to other offenders could create equal protection issues 

within that state. 

84 

H.R. 4300 also violates the principles of federalism that are the foundation of our 

legal system. It is inappropriate at best and unconstitutional at worst for Congress 

to seek to regulate the manner in which states determine appropriate sentences for 

state crimes committed and prosecuted within their jurisdiction. 

A lot of legislation in Congress uses the ‘‘carrot and stick approach’’ to encourage 

states to adopt policies favored by Members. However, H.R. 4300 takes the ‘‘stick 

only’’ approach. The bill unreasonably threatens to withhold Byrne JAG grants from 

the states unless they comply with its mandates. This threat forces the states to 

make the impossible decision of substituting Congress’s judgment regarding sentencing for its own or risk losing important funds that help state and local law enforcement officials accomplish their mission. 

For these reasons, it is unlikely that I can support this bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

85 


ZZZ-1.eps
86 


ZZZ-2.eps
87 

f 


ZZZ-3.eps
88 

f 


AA.eps
89 

f 


BB.eps
90 


CC-1.eps
91 


CC-2.eps
92 


CC-3.eps
93 


CC-4.eps
94 


CC-5.eps
95 


CC-6.eps
96 


CC-7.eps
97 


CC-8.eps
98 


CC-9.eps
99 


CC-10.eps
100 


CC-11.eps
101 


CC-12.eps
102 


CC-13.eps
103 


CC-14.eps
104 


CC-15.eps
105 


CC-16.eps
106 


CC-17.eps
107 


CC-18.eps
108 


CC-19.eps
109 


CC-20.eps
110 


CC-21.eps
111 


CC-22.eps
112 


CC-23.eps
113 


CC-24.eps
114 


CC-25.eps
115 


CC-26.eps
116 


CC-27.eps
117 


CC-28.eps
118 


CC-29.eps
119 


CC-30.eps
120 


CC-31.eps
121 

f 


CC-32.eps
122 


DD-1.eps
123 

Æ 


DD-2.eps