Are Violent Juveniles Destined for a Lifetime of Crime? The Shocking Truth Behind Rehabilitation and Recidivism
In December 2006, the United Nations cast a decisive vote on a critical human rights issue: whether to abolish life imprisonment without parole for juveniles. The world spoke overwhelmingly—185 to 1 in favor of abolishing it. The lone dissenter? The United States. This decision ignited a firestorm of debate, with human rights organizations insisting that juvenile sentences should be reevaluated over time, allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation.
A few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court shifted the narrative. In the landmark 2012 case Miller v. Alabama, the Court ruled that mandatory life without parole for minors, even those convicted of murder, violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Elena Kagan declared that ‘all but the rarest children’ deserve the opportunity for release.
[Stream the A&E series Kids Behind Bars: Life or Parole in the A&E app.]
The ruling sparked significant change. Since then, 31 states and Washington D.C. have banned automatic life-without-parole sentences for minors. Even states that did not formally ban the sentence began using it less frequently. According to The Marshall Project, juvenile lifers serving these sentences dropped dramatically—from approximately 2,600 in 2012 to between 700 and 1,200 in 2021.
Dr. Apryl Alexander, a forensic psychology professor at the University of Denver, emphasizes the dramatic personal growth between ages 12 and 17. ‘That’s a significant time gap for youth,’ she explains. ‘The Miller decision was critical in shifting the focus back to rehabilitation, which is what the juvenile justice system was meant for.’
But not everyone agrees. The issue remains hotly contested, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s Jones v. Mississippi decision in 2021. The ruling granted judges greater discretion in sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole, asserting that previous cases sought to limit such sentences, not abolish them. Justice Sonia Sotomayor fiercely dissented, warning that the decision ‘guts Miller‘ and would disproportionately affect children of color—who already make up 70% of all youth sentenced to life without parole.
Evan Miller, the teenager at the center of Miller v. Alabama, serves as a haunting example of this divide. At just 14 years old, Miller brutally attacked his neighbor, Cole Cannon, with a baseball bat and set his home on fire. Cannon perished from smoke inhalation. Despite Miller v. Alabama paving the way for reconsideration, Miller was resentenced in 2021—once again receiving life without parole.
Cole Cannon’s daughter, Candy Cheatham, expressed relief: ‘I’m thankful to God. I’m thankful for Judge Craig’s decision. Justice is preserved. It is a deserved sentence.’
But are violent juveniles truly incapable of change? Or are we failing to provide them with the right tools for rehabilitation?
The statistics are sobering. A 2015 study published in Adolescent Research Review found that 76% of first-time offenders re-offended within three years, and 84% within five years. However, these figures include nonviolent offenses like underage drinking and marijuana possession. When it comes to violent crimes, the numbers are even more chilling. A University of South Florida study found that nearly 90% of juvenile murderers are rearrested, with over 60% committing another violent offense.
Some experts believe that intensive rehabilitation programs offer hope. Dr. Katherine Ramsland, a forensic psychologist known for her research on serial killers, points to Wisconsin’s Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center as a prime example. The high-cost program is labor-intensive, but its success rate is undeniable: participants rarely re-offend.
Yet, such programs remain scarce. Instead, most juvenile offenders are placed in traditional prison systems with little to no support for reintegration. Colorado’s Juveniles Convicted as Adults Program aims to change that by providing guidance, education, and mental health resources to help young offenders reenter society.
Still, many remain skeptical. Former Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler argues that early release for violent offenders is a slap in the face to victims’ families. But advocates maintain that parole decisions are not made lightly; they assess factors such as empathy, accountability, and education to determine whether a juvenile has truly changed.
Dr. Alexander sums up the debate with a chilling reality: ‘Seventy percent of individuals in our prison system will eventually be released. Don’t you want them to be prepared to reenter society safely?’
So, are violent juveniles doomed to a life of crime? Or is the justice system failing to unlock their potential for change? The debate rages on.
