How We Found the People Who Were Sent to Prison for Life as Kids

A law practice finds thousands of inmates whose sentences could be affected by an upcoming Supreme Court case.

<a href="www.shutterstock.com/pic-264530885/stock-photo-woman-hands-in-handcuffs-close-up.html">ozguroral</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


From May to October of 2015, the Phillips Black Project collected information about people sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles. Using this data, we recently issued a report concluding that juvenile life-without-parole sentences are clustered in a handful of counties, and that these sentences are disproportionately handed to people of color.  

In 2012 in Miller v. Alabama, the US Supreme Court held that a juvenile could not receive a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Since then, reliable information about how often each state has imposed this sentence has not been published, and no prior report addressed the county of conviction, omitting valuable information about where the sentence is most prevalent.  

We asked the corrections departments in every state and in Washington, DC, as well as the federal Bureau of Prisons, to provide basic information about each person serving juvenile life without parole: name, date of birth, race, gender, date of offense, date of sentence, and state and county of conviction. The Supreme Court has previously relied on state corrections departments for similar information, and research into sentencing policy frequently does the same.

Nonetheless, our results are only as good as the data we received. For that reason, we checked every data point against readily available court decisions and media reports, a significant undertaking for the more than 2,300 people serving such a sentence.

State corrections departments largely complied with our requests. Only Washington, DC, the federal government, and Virginia did not provide a substantive response. The District of Columbia is widely known to have no prisoners serving juvenile life without parole, and Virginia and the federal government reportedly have about 60 people serving these sentences. Their failure to provide information does not provide a significant limitation for our overall analysis.

The court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama applies only to juveniles sentenced to mandatory life without parole. Most state corrections departments could not differentiate between sentences that were mandated by law and those imposed at the discretion of a judge or jury. As a result, this data includes everyone serving a mandatory sentence, but not all of the people in the data would be affected by any changes made in the wake of Miller.

A small portion of states did not track one requested data point—the date of offense—but rather provided the date of sentencing, largely reporting people sentenced before their 21st birthdays. We relied on other sources of information to obtain the offense dates. However, these states may have underreported the total number, since a person could have committed an offense before the age of 18 and been sentenced after 21. This likelihood is low but represents a limitation of our data.

The most significant hurdle surprisingly has nothing to do with the states’ corrections departments. Rather, juvenile life without parole is undergoing a rapid change. California and Florida, for example, are two states that have been outliers in their frequent use of the sentence, and they have recently enacted sweeping changes, likely giving every person there an opportunity for resentencing. Likewise, South Carolina reported having 37 people serving juvenile life without parole, but the state Supreme Court recently held that each of those inmates would be entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

These changes will dramatically affect the scope and frequency of juvenile life without parole. As a result, our analysis simply provides a picture at a moment in time, as states began to address the implications of Miller v. Alabama for thousands of people in their prisons.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate