The Supreme Court Said Their Sentencing Was Unconstitutional. But They’re Still Behind Bars.

Katie Rose Quandt, In These Times •
illustration of young man's profile

Art by Emmanuel Ignatius Bwibo

Efrén Pare­des Jr.’s life out­side prison was over before he was old enough for a driver’s license.

With no crim­i­nal record, 15-year-old Pare­des worked part-time as a bag­ger at a Michi­gan gro­cery store. One night, after hours, his co-work­er was shot and killed dur­ing a rob­bery. Pare­des, who main­tains his inno­cence, was charged as an adult and con­vict­ed in a wide­ly pub­li­cized 1989 tri­al, in which the rap lyrics he copied into a high school note­book were used against him as evi­dence of pre­med­i­ta­tion. The judge gave Pare­des the manda­to­ry sen­tence for first-degree mur­der in Michi­gan: life with­out parole. 

More than two decades lat­er, the U.S. Supreme Court began a series of deci­sions that would all but deem that sen­tence uncon­sti­tu­tion­al for minors. But of the more than 2,800 peo­ple sen­tenced to life with­out parole as juve­niles in the Unit­ed States, approx­i­mate­ly 2,150 remain in prison, includ­ing Paredes.

The Court decid­ed, in 2010, that ​“juve­nile life with­out parole” (JLWOP) is an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al sen­tence for crimes oth­er than homi­cide. In 2012, in Miller v. Alaba­ma, the Court pro­hib­it­ed JLWOP as a manda­to­ry min­i­mum sen­tence for any crime but did not ban it out­right. Final­ly, in 2016, Mont­gomery v. Louisiana made the Miller deci­sion retroac­tive, rul­ing that peo­ple like Pare­des ​“must be giv­en the oppor­tu­ni­ty to show their crime did not reflect irrepara­ble cor­rup­tion; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life out­side prison walls must be restored.”