oral powerpoint presentation

oral powerpoint presentation

escription: Each student is required to complete two presentations with voice narration on the special topic of that week. Each presentation is worth 40 points for a total of 80 points of the final score. Instructions: You are required to use PowerPoint in a computer with a digital camera with voice recorder or a voice recorder by itself. Very importantly, you are required to record your own voice. When recording your presentation, please pretend that you are presenting to an audience. This means that you should not read the slide but PRESENT the information found on your slides. The slides should be succinct and comprehensive and include pictures and/or videos in addition to the text. Each presentation will follow this general content: Cover Slide Content Slides References Slide You should have at least 4 slides comprehensive slides (not including the cover and reference slides). The presentation should be at least 4 minutes but no longer than 10 minutes. My TA and I will stop grading at the 10 minutes mark. Please Google and/or YouTube “voice over power point” for more instructions on how to record your voice in a PowerPoint presentation.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org 1 Sentencing Project the POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE: AN OVERVIEW Following the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, 1 states and the federal government are required to consider the unique circumstances of each juvenile defendant in determining an individualized sentence. For juveniles, the use of life sentences without the possibility of parole, as a mandatory minimum, is unconstitutional. 5HVHDUFKRQDGROHVFHQWEUDLQGHYHORSPHQWFRQÀUPVWKH commonsense understanding that children are different from adults in ways that are critical to identifying ageappropriate criminal sentences. This understanding – Justice Kennedy called it what “any parent knows”2 – was central to three recent Supreme Court decisions excluding juveniles from receiving the harshest sentencing practices. SUPREME COURT RULINGS Three watershed Supreme Court rulings banned the use of capital punishment for juveniles, limited life without parole sentences to homicide offenders, and banned the use of mandatory life without parole. Most recently, the Court ruled that judges must consider the unique circumstances of each juvenile offender, banning mandatory sentences of life without parole for all juveniles in 2012. ROPER V. SIMMONS, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, writing that the death penalty is a Approximately 2,500 individuals are serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for crimes committed as teenagers. This policy choice is not shared among all states. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles; in a handful of other states, no one is serving the sentence. disproportionate punishment for the young; immaturity diminishes their culpability, as does their susceptibility to RXWVLGHSUHVVXUHVDQGLQÁXHQFHV/DVWOWKHLUKHLJKWHQHG capacity for reform means that they are entitled to a separate set of punishments. The court also held that the nation’s “evolving standards of decency” showed the death penalty for juveniles to be cruel and unusual; 12 states banned the death penalty in all circumstances, and 18 more banned it for juvenile offenders.3 The Roper ruling affected 72 juveniles on death row in 12 states.4 Between 1976 and the Roper decision, 22 defendants were executed for crimes committed as juveniles.5 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA, 130 S. CT. 2011 (2010) Having banned the use of the death penalty for juveniles in Roper, the Court left the sentence of life without parole as the harshest sentence available for offenses committed by people under 18. In Graham v. Florida, the Court banned the use of life without parole for juveniles not convicted of homicide. The ruling applied to at least 123 prisoners – 77 of whom had been sentenced in Florida, the remainder in 10 other states.6 As in Roper, the Court pointed to the rare imposition of a particular punishment to prove that the punishment is unusual.7 Court precedent recognizes that non-homicide offenses do not warrant the most serious punishment available.8 7KXVKDYLQJGHÀQHGWKHPD[LPXPSXQLVKPHQWIRUDOO juvenile offenders (life without parole), the Court ruled that the harshest punishment must be limited to the The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org 2 Sentencing Project the POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE States that have banned or limited the use of juvenile life without parole sentences Banned JLWOP Source: Data collected by The Sentencing Project No JLWOP Prisoners most serious category of crimes (i.e., those involving homicide). The Court called life without parole “an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile … A 16-year-old and a 75-yearold each sentenced to life without parole receive the same punishment in name only.”9 /LPLWLQJWKHXVHRI OLIH without parole did not guarantee such individuals would be released; it guaranteed a “meaningful opportunity” for release. MILLER V. ALABAMA AND JACKSON V. HOBBS, 132 S. CT. 2455 (2012) Following Roper’s exclusion of the death penalty for juveniles and Graham’s limitation on the use of life without parole, approximately 2,500 offenders were serving sentences of life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles, all of whom were convicted of homicide. In 2012, deciding Miller and Jackson jointly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for juveniles, mandatory life without parole sentences violate the Eighth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan emphasized that judges must be able to consider the characteristics of juvenile defendants in order to issue a fair and individualized sentence. Adolescence is marked by “transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to Adolescence is marked by “rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences.” The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org 3 Sentencing Project the POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE assess consequences,” all factors that should mitigate the punishment received by juvenile defendants.10 RETROACTIVITY FOLLOWING MILLER The Miller ruling affected mandatory sentencing laws in 28 states and the federal government. States have been mixed in interpreting the retroactivity of Miller. Fourteen state Supreme Courts (Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming) have ruled that Miller applies retroactively ZKLOHVHYHQRWKHUVWDWHV$ODEDPD&RORUDGR/RXLVLDQD Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, and Pennsylvania) have ruled that Miller is not retroactive. In addition, California, Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wyoming passed juvenile sentencing legislation that applied retroactivity.11 The question may eventually be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October 2015 regarding the case of 68-year old Henry Montgomery,12ZKR KDV EHHQLPSULVRQHGLQ/RXLVLDQD with no chance of parole since 1963. Oral arguments will take place in the fall of 2015. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES TO MILLER Since 2012, 21 states have changed their laws for juvenile offenders convicted of homicide (including felony murder). All but four had previously required life without parole in these circumstances. These new laws provide mandatory minimums ranging from a chance of parole after 15 years (as in Nevada and West Virginia) to 40 years (as in Texas and Nebraska). Thirty-four states still allow life without parole as a sentencing option for juveniles. In most states, the question of virtual life without parole has yet to be addressed. PEOPLE SERVING JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCES Seventeen states and the District of Columbia do not have any prisoners serving life without parole, either due to laws prohibiting the sentence or because there are not any juveniles serving the sentence at this time. Thus, while 34 states allow the sentence, just four – 3HQQVOYDQLD 0LFKLJDQ /RXLVLDQD DQG &DOLIRUQLD ² DFFRXQWIRUDERXWKDOI RI -/:23VHQWHQFHV)ROORZLQJ the passage of California’s SB 9 in 2013, most of that state’s juvenile life-sentenced prisoners are being resentenced.) Approximately 2,100 of those serving life without parole were sentenced mandatorily.13 CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES The life experiences of the approximately 2,500 people serving juvenile life sentences vary, but they are often PDUNHG E YHU GLIÀFXOW XSEULQJLQJV ZLWK IUHTXHQW exposure to violence; they were often victims of abuse themselves. Justice Kagan, in the Miller ruling, ruled that Alabama and Arkansas erred because a mandatory sentencing structure does not “tak[e] into account the family and home environment.”14 The petitioners in the cases, Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller, both 14 at the time of their crimes, grew up in highly unstable homes. Evan Miller was a troubled child; he attempted suicide four times, starting at age 6.15 Kuntrell Jackson’s family life was “immers[ed] in violence: Both his mother and his grandmother had previously shot other individuals.”16 His mother and a brother were sent to prison.7 The defendant in Graham, Terrance Graham, had parents who were addicted to crack cocaine.17 In 2012, The Sentencing Project surveyed people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles and found the defendants in the above cases were not atypical.18 • 79% witnessed violence in their homes • 32% grew up in public housing • 40% had been enrolled in special education classes • Fewer than half were attending school at the time of their offense • 47% were physically abused • 80% of girls reported histories of physical abuse and 77% of girls reported histories of sexual abuse RACIAL DISPARITIES 5DFLDO GLVSDULWLHV SODJXH WKH LPSRVLWLRQ RI -/:23 sentences.19 While 23.2% of juvenile arrests for murder involve an African-American suspected of killing a ZKLWH SHUVRQ RI -/:23 VHQWHQFHV DUH IRU DQ American-American convicted of this crime. White juvenile offenders with African-American victims are The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org 4 Sentencing Project the POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE RQO DERXW KDOI DV OLNHO WR UHFHLYH D -:/23 sentence as their proportion of arrests for killing an African-American (6.4%). COST OF LIFE SENTENCES $VLGHIURPLPSRUWDQWMXVWLFHFRQVLGHUDWLRQVWKHÀQDQFLDO FRVWRI -/:23VHQWHQFHVLVVLJQLÀFDQW$OLIHVHQWHQFH issued to a juvenile is designed to last longer than a life sentence issued to an older defendant. Housing juveniles for a life sentence requires decades of public expenditures. Nationally, it costs $34,135 per year to house an average prisoner. This cost roughly doubles when that prisoner is over 50.20 Therefore, a 50-year sentence for a 16-year old will cost approximately $2.25 million. WHAT MAKES YOUTH DIFFERENT? In amici briefs written on behalf of the young defendants in Roper, Graham, and Miller, organizations representing health professionals, such as the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychological Association, explained current research on immature brains. In Miller, Justice Kagan noted that adolescence is marked by “immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” all factors that limit an adolescent’s ability to make sound judgments. Justice Kagan cited Graham and J. D. B. v. North Carolina21 in noting that juvenile defendants are at a substantial disadvantage in criminal proceedings; they are less able than adults to assist in their own defenses (working constructively with counsel) and they are likely to respond poorly to the high pressures of interrogation. Even before Roper, states routinely recognized differences between juveniles and adults in other contexts. Almost every state prohibits juveniles from voting, buying cigarettes and alcohol, serving on juries, and getting married without parental consent. Teenagers’ drivers licenses are typically restricted through age 18. The Graham decision emphasized the importance of giving juvenile offenders a chance to become rehabilitated. These individuals have a substantial capacity for rehabilitation, but many states deny this opportunity: approximately 62% of people sentenced to life without parole as juveniles reported not participating in prison programs22 in large part due to state prison policies that prohibit their participation or limited program availability. They typically receive fewer rehabilitative services than other prisoners.23 MOMENTUM FOR REFORM Eliminating juvenile life without parole does not suggest guaranteed release of these offenders. Rather, it would provide that an opportunity for review be granted after a reasonable period of incarceration, one that takes into consideration the unique circumstances of each defendant. In many other countries the period before a mandated review is 10 to 15 years.24 If adequate rehabilitation has not occurred during these years in prison, as decided by experts, the individual may remain in prison and his/her case be reviewed again in another few years. Nor is it appropriate to eliminate life sentences in name only, replacing them with excessively lengthy prison terms that can reasonably expected to last for an offender’s entire life. There is mounting support for such reform in select states. Motivated by the Miller decision, the state of California (home to one of the largest populations RI -/:23 GHIHQGDQWV QRZ DIIRUGV SULVRQHUV D meaningful chance at parole after 15 to 25 years if their crime occurred when they were a juvenile. Reforms are underway in other states as well. Sentences that close the door on rehabilitation and second chances are cruel and misguided. A life sentence issued to a juvenile is designed to last longer than a life sentence issued to an adult. 5 Sentencing Project the POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: 202.628.0871 Fax: 202.628.1091 sentencingproject.org 6JKUDTKGƒPIRCRGTYCUYTKVVGPD[,QUJWC4QXPGT5VCVG#FXQECE[ #UUQEKCVG7RFCVGF1EVQDGT 6JG5GPVGPEKPI2TQLGEVYQTMUHQTCHCKTCPFGHHGEVKXG75ETKOKPCN LWUVKEGU[UVGOD[RTQOQVKPITGHQTOUKPUGPVGPEKPIRQNKE[CFFTGUUKPI WPLWUVTCEKCNFKURCTKVKGUCPFRTCEVKEGUCPFCFXQECVKPIHQTCNVGTPCVKXGU to incarceration. ENDNOTES 1 Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). 2 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005). 3 Roper at 560. 4 Death Penalty Information Center. U. S. Supreme Court: Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo. org/u-s-supreme-court-roper-v-simmons-no-03-633. 5 Death Penalty Information Center. Facts About the Death Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/ FactSheet.pdf. 6 Graham at 2024. 7 In Graham and Roper, the Court also pointed to the overwhelming international consensus against the harshest punishments. 8 -GPPGF[ǡXǡ.QWKUKCPC, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). 9 Graham at 2028. 10 Graham at 2465. 11 Rovner, J. (2014). Slow To Act: State Responses to 2012 Supreme Court Mandate on Life Without Parole. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. 12 /QPVIQOGT[X.QWKUKCPC, petition 14-280. 13 Gately, G. (2015, March 20). Advocates Laud Florida Supreme Court Decisions. Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. Retrieved from http://jjie.org/advocatesODXGͥRULGDVXSUHPHFRXUWGHFLVLRQV 14 Miller at 2468. 15 Miller at 2462. 16 Miller at 2468. 17 Graham at 2018. 18 Nellis, A. (2012). The lives of juvenile lifers: Findings from a national survey. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. 19 Nellis, A. (2012). 20 ACLU (2012, June 13). “At America’s Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly.” Available at https://www.aclu. org/criminal-law-reform/report-americas-expense-mass-incarceration-elderly 21 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011). 22 Nellis, A. (2012). 23 Boone, B. (2015). Treating adults like children: Resentencing adult juvenile lifers after Miller v. Alabama. Minnesota .CY4GXKGY, 99(3), 1159-1194. 24 American Law Institute (2010). Model penal code: Sentencing: Council draft No. 3. Philadelphia, American Law Institute.

 

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!