Advocates for ending life sentences rallied on the state Capitol steps in September 2022 as the Coalition Against Death By Incarceration called on lawmakers that would make those sentenced to life in prison eligible for parole. (Capital-Star photo)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Oct. 8 in an appeal that could bring hope for freedom to more than 1,000 people serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for murders they didn’t commit.
The court in February agreed to consider the case of Derek Lee , who is serving life in prison without parole after he was convicted in 2016 of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy. Lee’s accomplice in a 2014 home-invasion robbery killed Pittsburgh homeowner Leonard Butler.
Under Pennsylvania’s felony murder rule, a person charged with a felony can be held criminally liable for a death that occurs during the commission of the crime, even if the defendant was not the killer and had no intent to kill. In Pennsylvania, conviction for felony murder comes with a mandatory sentence of life without parole.
Lee’s appeal, filed in May 2022, argues that mandatory life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the state Constitution’s bar on cruel punishment.
Constitutional law scholars, former Pennsylvania corrections secretaries, and elected leaders including Gov. Josh Shapiro have filed briefs in the case in support of Lee’s appeal, arguing that life without parole for felony murder is excessive and does little to accomplish the goals of punishment.
A lower appeals court found earlier in the case that it was bound by precedent to uphold Lee’s sentence. But Superior Court Judge Christine Dubow urged the Supreme Court to revisit whether a mandatory life sentence without parole is constitutional under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution .
Pennsylvania Supreme Court to weigh life sentences for felony murder
While the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, Lee’s attorneys from the Abolitionist Law Center and the Amistad Law Project contend the corresponding section of Pennsylvania’s Constitution requires only that a punishment be cruel to be impermissible.
They argue that the inclusion of the term “unusual” in the Eighth Amendment is interpreted to refer to punishments that are no longer common. Therefore, the term’s omission from the Pennsylvania Constitution permits challenges to common punishments “if there is a basis for determining they are cruel in a constitutional sense.”
Lee’s lawyers also say that Pennsylvania’s prohibition on cruel punishments historically has been interpreted as barring penalties that are unduly harsh but not imposed with cruel intent; and they note that’s in line with other states’ interpretations of their constitutional prohibitions of cruel punishment.
Finally, Lee’s lawyers argue policy considerations support the abolition of life without parole as a punishment. They note Pennsylvania is an outlier in the practice of imposing the sentence without consideration of the defendant’s involvement or intent in the crime. Among those serving such sentences, 70% are Black and many are aging or elderly.
Criminologists have found that involvement with crime correlates strongly to age and older incarcerated people pose little risk to public safety.
Lee’s attorney Quinn Cozzens told the Capital-Star in February one of Lee’s main goals if he is released from prison is to be able to mentor young people to counsel them away from the kinds of decisions that led to his circumstances.
“That’s something that life without parole is unable to account for … that when people are able to mature they age out of the kind of antisocial behavior that leads to their involvement in criminal behavior,” Cozzens said.
DONATE: SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST
Local Pennsylvania State
Most Popular
Comments / 0