Americans are considering fundamental revisions in our criminal justice policy, including reducing mandatory sentences, eliminating policies such as "three strikes and you're out," and ending incarceration for certain kinds of drug crimes.
These proposals raise the question of the very purpose of punishing criminals. Should we retain our current emphasis on punishment, deterrence, and retribution, or should we focus instead on rehabilitation and second chances?
Perhaps we can clarify our thinking by considering a truly poignant Supreme Court case. At the age of 17, Henry Montgomery remorselessly murdered a deputy sheriff. There are other, worse, cases in the briefs before the court. Montgomery was sentenced to life without parole.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles were unconstitutional, because juveniles are immature and unformed. Society should not abandon them. Montgomery, who is now 69, asks that the ruling apply retroactively to him.
The daunting questions facing the Court, and facing us as we ponder reform, are:
- What should the criminal justice system accomplish?
- Are there crimes for which there is no forgiveness?
- Do we believe that people, especially juveniles, truly can learn from their mistakes?
True reform should always be guided by a clear understanding of what we want to reform, and what it is we want to accomplish.
I'm Bob Evans, and that's my perspective.
