Juan Castaneda, 17, was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder on Friday, October 8. Castaneda was 15 when he participated with two older youth in a series of robberies that led to the deaths of Luis Fernando-Silva and Tari Glinsmann. Although Castaneda did not personally fire shots, his participation made him eligible for being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole because of the felony murder rule.
Castaneda should be held responsible for his crimes. However, the Coalition continues to believe that there are sentencing mechanisms that can better serve the needs of society and young offenders, who are often more susceptible to peer pressure and lack the judgment and maturity of adults.
For more information:
Omaha World-Herald: “Teen has life behind bars to think about deadly night”
Coalition Coordinator Mel Beckman’s Editorial:
Omaha World-Herald: ” Life in prison not suitable for teens.”
On Friday, August 6th, Omaha teenager Trevelle Taylor was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Taylor was 17-years-old when, along with another man, he fired shots into the car of 20-year-old Justin Gaines. One of the shots fatally wounded Gaines.
Taylor’s sentence brings the number of individuals serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole for offenses committed in their youth in Nebraska to 25. Per capita, Nebraska ranks 8th among states in its use of these sentences.
Justin Gaines’s death is a tragedy, and Taylor must be held accountable for his actions. The Coalition continues to believe that accountability must be balanced by our understanding of the neurological and emotional differences between youth and adults. Research tells us that we cannot be certain of what sort of man Taylor will become — of whether he will work to take responsibility for his actions and use his remorse to fuel changes within himself. The sentence of life without the possibility of parole prevents us from reviewing — decades from now — whether such changes have occurred. Prohibiting the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for youth would not guarantee Taylor — or anyone else’s — release. It would only aknowledge that in the cases of youth we cannot declare without certainty that no changes will occur.
More Information:
Omaha World-Herald – “Taylor Gets Life in Prison”
During their State Convention, the Nebraska Democratic Party passed a resolution in support of ending the practice of sentencing youth to life without the possibility of parole. Read the full text of the resolution below:
WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has again, in Graham v. Florida, reaffirmed the fundamental differences between youth and adults in their ability to exercise judgment, foresee consequences and resist peer pressure, and
WHEREAS the Court has also noted the greater capacity of youth to change, thereby making it impossible to determine at sentencing that a youth cannot be reformed, and
WHEREAS Nebraska parents routinely show great patience with their adolescent family members and give them many opportunities to correct their wrong-doings, and
WHEREAS the state of Nebraska with great wisdom eliminated the death penalty for juveniles even before it was eliminated by the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the Democratic Party in Nebraska support legislative efforts to eliminate sentences of life without possibility of parole for crimes committed by a youth who has not yet reached the age of 18.
WHEREAS the American Bar Association has endorsed the end to the practice of mandating life sentence without the possibility of parole for offenses committed by juveniles,
WHEREAS the new proposed Foundation Statement of the Nebraska Democratic Party includes the value of applying research knowledge for the good of the people, therefore,
THEREFORE be it resolved that the Democratic Party in Nebraska support legislative efforts to eliminate sentences of life without possibility of parole for crimes committed by a youth who has not yet reached the age of 18.
The Coalition has a guest post up at VoteKidsNebraska.com, a website dedicated to helping Nebraskans better navigate the upcoming state and national elections. The post is the first in a series dedicated to further exploring issues raised in the candidate surveys VoteKids has distributed to state legislators. It follows up on this juvenile justice question posed in the survey:
When compared to adults, kids suffer from a lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility. They tend to be more impetuous and are by nature, risk-takers. Kids are more vulnerable to outside influences and peer pressure. In essence, when it comes to decision-making in an adolescent brain, “the accelerator develops faster than the brakes.” Knowing what we know about adolescent brain development, what reforms would you advocate for in Nebraska’s juvenile justice system?
Be sure to check the VoteKidsNebraska site to find out how candidates in your area answer this question.
On Monday, May 17th the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a youth convicted of a nonhomicide offense to life without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional. The Court’s ruling reflects a recognition of young offenders’ emotional and neurological immaturity and increased capacity for change. The Court found that due to these factors it is cruel and unusual punishment to lock up youth convicted of nonhomicide offense for life without offering any opportunity for meaningful review.
For more information on the Court’s ruling see:
New York Times: Justices Limit Life Sentences for Juveniles
Slate: They’re Just Kids
The decision is a significant victory for advocates for youth sentencing reform, but our work in Nebraska is far from over. The Nebraska Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Youth envisions a Nebraska in which no youth is locked up for life without also being provided an opportunity for meaningful review. The Supreme Court’s ruling brings us one step closer to that vision, but as Nebraskans we can and should do more.
Photo by Omaha World-Herald
The Supreme Court’s Monday ruling could provide Jeremy Herman, a 34-year-old serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a kidnapping he committed at age 17, with an opportunity for re-sentencing. Herman was convicted for his involvement in the death of a 15-year-old Jeremy Drake. It was not Jeremy Herman, but rather 19-year-old Christopher Masters, who killed Jeremy Drake.
Jeremy Herman was featured in a KETV news piece on the Supreme Court’s decision. Follow the link to watch Herman speak about how he has changed since the time of his conviction. You can also read about the decision and its possible effect on Nebraska in Omaha World-Herald coverage of the case.
Photo by Robert Becker/Lincoln Journal-Star
The Sunday, March 14th edition of the Lincoln Journal-Star features an in-depth profile of Jeremy Herman, who was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for kidnapping at age 17. Herman’s conviction was based on his involvement in the death of 15-year-old Jeremy Drake. As the article points out, it was 19-year-old Christopher Masters, not Jeremy Herman, who killed Jeremy Drake.
As we explain in our post on the felony murder rule the felony rule, the involvement of an adult co-defendant is not uncommon in the cases of Nebraska youth sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
At 34, Jeremy Herman has now spent more of his life in prison than out. In the article he explains how he has changed and grown as a person in the seventeen years since his offense. The decisions in two pending Supreme Court cases could provide Jeremy with an opportunity to demonstrate that growth. Nebraska need not wait for the Supreme Court to act, however. Nebraska ended the death penalty for youth well before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. We can and should do the same for the sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Lincoln Journal-Star: Was Life Sentence Justice for One Just Starting Life
On Monday, January 11, Nebraska State Senator Brenda Council moved that her bill, LB 307 –- a bill that would provide the possibility of parole for youth sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes committed under age of 18 –- be taken off general file and recommitted to the Judiciary Committee. Provided Senator Council’s motion passes, LB 307 will not be voted on this legislative session.
The Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Youth supports Senator Council in this decision, and will continue to work along with her to end the practice of locking up youth for life without any hope of parole. We know that we can count on Senator Council to take the steps necessary to stop the use of these sentences. At this time, we agree with her that the necessary step is postponing legislative action until we have been able to provide Senators and the public with more information about the issue.
Delaying legislative action will give us time as we continue to build the Coalition and develop relationships with Senators and other advocates. It will also allow us to take into account the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in the cases of Florida v. Graham and Florida v. Sullivan, two youths who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole at the ages of 17 and 13, respectively.
2010 promises to be an extremely busy and exciting year for the Coalition, as we continue our work on the production of a short documentary feature and provide regular web and email updates to the growing number of Nebraskans interested in this issue. We are confident that as more people learn about the facts and the faces surrounding these sentences they will join us in working to end the use of them and that we will enter the 2011 legislative session with strong public support.
In a letter to the editor printed in the January 3rd edition of the Omaha World-Herald, North Platte Judge John P. Murphy voiced his opposition to the practice of sentencing youth to life without the possibility of parole. Judge Murphy used the sentence himself in the case of a youth found guilty in 1990.
Since his use of the sentence, Judge Murphy writes, he has “learned of scientific evidence that an adolescent brain is not fully developed and that the ability of adolescents to understand all of the consequences of their actions is severely compromised in many instances.” Based on this evidence, Judge Murphy concludes that “it is appropriate to take into consideration adolescent immaturity when establishing sentencing schemes.”
