Michigan Supreme Court could lift automatic life sentences until age 20

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — The Michigan Supreme Court is considering extending its ban on automatic life sentences for 18-year-olds to 19- and 20-year-olds.

It would give convicted criminals who thought they would never be released from prison a chance at freedom.

“It’s really disturbing,” said Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker. “I feel for these families and know what they’re going through and how difficult this is for them.”

Becker added that banning automatic life sentences “reopens a wound” for the victims’ families.

“Anyone who has lost a family member, parents who have lost a child, that is always there,” said Becker. “Then you have to deal with the whole thing again.”

Kalamazoo County District Attorney Jeff Getting also said it was unfair to the victims’ families.

“These are the people who are completely ignored and lost in this discussion,” Getting said.

The State Appellate Defender Office, also known as SADO, represents many 18-year-olds whose sentences are being modified. One of the attorneys, Maya Menlo, said that while she feels compassion for families who lose a loved one, she has also met families who wish the killer would change his ways.

“Victims are not a monolith,” Menlo said. “Many victims believe that rehabilitation is possible and want the person who took the life of their loved one to be rehabilitated and reintegrate into society in a productive way.”

Menlo said convicted criminals deserve a second chance and are capable of change.

“Many of them have used their time in prison to better themselves, to integrate into their communities as best as possible, to continue their education and to obtain certifications and sometimes degrees,” Menlo said.

What the verdict for the 1986 murder would mean

In July 1986, police found the body of Nathan Jaramillo in a parking lot outside a bar on South Division Avenue in Grand Rapids. Police say Jesus Gonzalez, who was 19 at the time, struggled with Jaramillo, fired several shots and killed him. Although Gonzalez claimed self-defense, he was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

However, if the Supreme Court were to prohibit the automatic imposition of life sentences on 19- and 20-year-olds, his case would be sent back to the judge, potentially giving González, now 57, a chance of being released.

Gonzalez’s convicted accomplice, Joe Cedillo, was also sentenced to life in prison. He will likely be released.

Cedillo is one of four people Becker’s office is not willing to keep behind bars, even though Kent County has eight cases where 18-year-olds can be resentenced. Becker said the accessory to murder charge makes Cedillo less culpable and would make it harder to convince a court to keep him in prison. Plus, much of the evidence in such old cases has disappeared.

“It makes it virtually impossible to build a case because we lack files and reports,” Becker said.

Prosecutors have also lost contact information with victims’ families in the decades since some of the crimes that carry a life sentence were committed. It’s possible that many families aren’t even aware that a convicted murderer could be released from prison.

“A lot of people follow the inner workings of the Supreme Court and don’t know what changes are happening,” Becker said. “They’re going about their daily lives and suddenly – boom – it hits them.”

“When these cases were going through, it never occurred to anyone that there was a possibility that something like this could happen,” he added.

The question of guilt

SADO has repeatedly cited research showing that the brains of young people do not fully mature until they are 25. The office argues that these defendants are less responsible for their actions, pointing to a US Supreme Court decision of 2012 It explains that young people are less likely to think through the consequences and that their family and home environment must be taken into account when making decisions.

“Giving them the harshest punishment possible in the state of Michigan is often not a good idea and does not serve the goals of sentencing,” Menlo said.

According to Getting, 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are aware of the consequences of their actions, especially when it comes to such serious acts as killing a human being.

“At 18, I knew murder was wrong,” Getting said. “And I knew the consequence for murder was going to prison for the rest of my life.”

Becker also believes that regardless of age, you know the difference between right and wrong.

“These are the most heinous crimes,” said Becker. “Sure, young people make stupid decisions. At some point we have to take a stand and say: ‘No, people know that you are not allowed to kill.'”

However, Menlo argued that society’s understanding of criminal guilt would change as we learned more about the brain.

“Here we are talking about someone who has been convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, so that there is no doubt that he is culpable, at least in the eyes of the jury or the judge (or) whoever made the findings. The question now is how do we respond as a community and what kind of punishment is consistent with evolving standards of decency. Our position is that a mandatory life sentence without parole is not consistent with evolving standards of decency,” she said.

Becker said premeditated murder requires intent and deliberation – it is a case that requires serious thought and planning.

“It’s not about kids stealing a car or doing something stupid like that,” he said. “You can’t tell me that they don’t know the difference between ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Maybe killing is just so important’ because their brains aren’t fully developed. We’re getting into territory that doesn’t make sense to me and a lot of other people.”

SADO had previously argued that even those convicted as young as 25 should not be automatically sentenced to life imprisonment. Menlo did not rule out making that move next, depending on the Supreme Court’s decision.

“These people are 19 and 20 years old, that’s the issue here before the Michigan Supreme Court, but the science supports the early 20s as the cutoff point for brain development in terms of blame, retribution and all the things that are important when we think about sentencing,” Menlo said.

Becker believes things are likely heading in that direction.

“To say that 25-year-olds are somehow children or teenagers is, frankly, just unbelievable,” he said.