ACS is pleased to distribute A Just Alternative to Sentencing Youth to Life in Prison Without the Possibility of Parole, an Issue Brief by Jody Kent, Director and National Coordinator of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, and Beth Colgan, Managing Attorney of the Institutions Project at Columbia Legal Services. This Issue Brief is particularly timely in light of the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of juvenile life sentences without the possibility of parole in two cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida. Ms. Kent and Ms. Colgan examine why, in their opinion, such sentencing practices represent deeply flawed public policy. As the authors explain:

"Regardless of whether the Court extends [its precedent acknowledging that juveniles are different from adults] to find the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole unconstitutional in one or both of these cases, advocates for youth have called for reform of extreme sentencing policies, on the basis that they grossly undermine rational, fair, and age-appropriate treatment of youth."

Ms. Kent and Ms. Colgan discuss the well-established principle that youth are different from adults, and explain how this principle is reinforced by adolescent brain development research. The authors address and dismiss arguments that harsh sentencing is necessary to protect public safety, as well as highlight troubling racial disparities and inconsistent sentencing application. In addition, they describe how such sentencing functions to undermine the United States’s moral standing, given that the United States is the only country in the world to sentence offenders under the age of eighteen to life without parole. Finally, the Issue Brief concludes with Ms. Kent and Ms. Colgan proposing an alternative to the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole --- creation of a system allowing periodic review of sentences to determine whether individuals continue to pose a threat to society or may be returned to communities as productive citizens. In the view of the authors, this approach balances the need to hold young offenders accountable, while still recognizing their inherent capacity for change and growth.

Click Here to Download the Issue Brief

On the Eve of Historic Healthcare Vote, ACS Distributes Timely Issue Brief

In “Mandatory Health Insurance: Is It Constitutional?,” Simon Lazarus, Public Policy Counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, addresses arguments regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate that constitutes a core part of the healthcare legislation under consideration. Mr. Lazarus argues that the mandate is clearly lawful and in accord with the Constitution.

In this Issue Brief, Mr. Lazarus argues that multiple provisions of the Constitution permit Congress to enact an individual mandate as part of healthcare reform legislation. He claims that “the Supreme Court decades ago, in 1944, held that the business of insurance fell within Congress’ regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause,” and that modern cases which limit the reach of the Commerce Clause authority do not undercut the authority of Congress to legislate in this area. Mr. Lazarus also argues that the individual mandate is authorized by the Congressional authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Mr. Lazarus concludes that no provision of the bill of rights, or text found elsewhere in the Constitution, acts to prohibit Congress from enacting healthcare reform legislation.