Letters to the Editor: The Supreme Court’s life without parole ruling is painfully ironic

To the editor: The Supreme Court decision upholding a life sentence with no possibility of parole for a defendant who was 15 when he killed his grandfather is notable for several reasons.

Earlier Supreme Court decisions said that such sentences should be extremely rare and limited to cases where the judge deemed the defendant “permanently incorrigible.” Furthermore, such sentences are more common in southern states like Louisiana and Mississippi, and a staggering 70% of juveniles receiving life without parole are people of color.

Lastly, the fact that five conservative judges chose Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to speak for the court in this case is painfully ironic. The message that children who commit grave offenses might not deserve a second chance for redemption was delivered by the privileged former teenage beer drinker himself.

Ramona Saenz, Alhambra

..

To the editor: I am sad to see attacks on the decisions permitting resentencing of defendants under age 18. Many “life without possibility of parole” sentences have been revisited, as they should be.

But what of the almost-juvenile, someone who is convicted at just a few months past 18 years of age? I propose reexamination of life without parole sentences for all defendants under 21, based on psychiatric examination, how they have conducted themselves as inmates, and what kind of family and support systems exist for them.

We have better uses for taxpayer money than providing decades of room and board for many who, with supervision and support, could become productive members of society. Kavanaugh himself was hit with allegations of misconduct that allegedly took place when he was younger than 21 (which he denied), and now he sits on the Supreme Court.

We should not draw lines between under 18 and 18 plus a few months. In general, we should permit reconsideration of sentencing up until the age we allow people to start consuming alcohol.

Mike Schaefer, San Diego