Today, I will address issues involved in the case of Adolfo Davis, who was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He was sentenced when he was 14 years old, but had a recent resentencing hearing before a judge. His crime? "Participating" in a double-murder, though his original trial failed to prove he was one of the gunmen.
The resentencing judge reaffirmed the original sentence. However, I think Mr. Davis has grounds for a lawsuit(s) based on:
- the original decision to try him as an adult, even though he was only 14 years old;
- failure of the most recent judge to take into account the debilitating effects caused by the denial of his rights under the Eighth Amendment over a period of 25 years.
My analysis of one article
I'm going to quote from a May 4, 2015 article by Don Babwin of the Associated Press. I will insert my comments in indented form under each pertinent paragraph. This link will take you to Babwin's article in its entirety:
http://www.bnd.com/news/state/illinois/article20197371.html
QUOTE:
An Illinois judge on Monday resentenced a convicted killer to the same life term without the possibility of parole that he received at age 14, saying he had grown from a boy who took part in a double murder into a dangerous and violent adult.
Adolfo Davis, 38, is the first Cook County inmate sentenced as a minor to life without parole to be re-sentenced since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed mandatory life terms for juveniles in 2012.
Such sentences were deemed by the Court to be a violation of Eighth
Amendment rights barring cruel and unusual punishment.
...Davis was convicted in a 1990 gang-related double murder on Chicago's South Side.
"The defendant's acts showed an aggression and callous disregard for human life far beyond his tender age of 14," Petrone said during the televised hearing. "The defendant was not merely ... a lookout, he was a willing shooter."
The "fact" that Davis was "a willing shooter" was not determined at
Davis' original trial. In fact, there was evidence to the contrary, though
Petrone decided to label Davis as one of the trigger men.
The judge said years of vicious attacks and threats to the lives of fellow inmates, guards and a prison warden, and Davis' continued involvement in gang activity and drug dealing added up to clear evidence that the sentence he received as a teenager "is necessary to deter others (and) is necessary to protect the public from harm."
The judge didn't say anything about any obligation society had to
rehabilitate Davis, who had a challenging upbringing to say the least,
according to DCFS records. If that obligation had been honored, then
the public would have been reasonably protected from harm. As for
Davis' years of "vicious attacks...[and] continued involvement," these
could have been attributed to failure of the system to make any attempt
to rehabilitate this inmate.
Not to mention: Who could blame Davis for lashing out after having
been denied any hope for parole? How would you feel, Judge Petrone,
were you in his shoes?
[Petrone] said Davis has repeatedly shown himself to be so dangerous that for more than four years, he was housed at a now-shuttered prison reserved for the what Davis called the "worst of the worst."
That prison is the infamous Tamms, in which Davis was placed at the
age of 21. Davis became the "worst of the worst" due to the neglect
of the state to make any attempt at his rehabilitation. Not to mention,
having been "raised" by older, vicious criminals since he was
incarcerated at the age of 14 - some parenting!
...
In overturning mandatory life terms for minors, the Supreme Court pointed to brain research that shows juveniles do not always have the ability to resist peer pressure. Petrone said that Davis both planned and carried out the slayings, but that he was "not a child who was misled."
Petone also questioned that "brain research" saying, "More research
need(s) to be done to take this field beyond speculation." However,
the US Supreme Court was satisfied that the current body of research
was sufficiently convincing - in the case upon which Davis' resentencing
was based.
...
...Illinois is one of ten states that are applying the new sentencing rules retroactively. Four other states have declined to apply the Supreme Court's ruling retroactively...
That issue could be decided later this year, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears an appeal in a case out of Louisiana.
Wait a minute. After the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life
sentences for juveniles is unconstitutional, how do any of the states
get to claim exemptions? Maybe those states are (in effect) claiming
that those juveniles were sentenced at a time before the High Court
claimed unconstitutionality, and therefore the original sentences can't
be challenged.
To which I would ask: "Why not try to right a wrong?" Then there's
this: Suppose a man committed an act that was legal when he committed
it, should he be charged under any new standard deeming that act illegal?
And suppose he committed an act that was illegal when he committed it
but had never been charged because he had managed to elude the
authorities - could he be charged after the Court changes its mind,
deciding this act is no longer illegal?
:UNQUOTE.
On to another article, this one by Linda Paul which appears on the WBEZ website. I'm only quoting from three paragraphs of this very good article (as updated on 5-4-15), my comments appearing in indented form under each pertinent paragraph:
This link will take you to Paul's article in its entirety:
http://www.wbez.org/news/judge-resentences-adolfo-davis-life-prison-111863
QUOTE:
The legal event that probably most contributed to Davis’ life without parole sentence was a proceeding called a transfer hearing. Should Adolfo Davis be tried in juvenile court where he could get a sentence of only a few years? Would that be enough time for him to turn his life around? Or should he be tried in adult court?
A juvenile, which is what Davis was undeniably at the time, should be
tried as an juvenile. This is where the state fails in its responsibilities -
to both juvenile offenders and the public. The state only recognizes two
categories - juvenile and adult. Davis should have been tried as a juvenile,
though sentencing provisions should have been in place that would have
kept him in state custody for more than "a few years."
It takes more than "a few years" to heal someone as badly damaged as
was Davis. Unless, that is, the state simply doesn't care about making any
realistic efforts at rehabilitation.
At the transfer hearing Adolfo Davis’ probation officer testified, saying he favored Davis going into the adult system. He described him as “a very sick child.” He testified that in his opinion a few years in juvenile prison would not be sufficient to handle the severity of his problems.
This probation officer sounds like a real piece of work. He admits that
Davis was "a very sick child," and yet concludes (see next paragraph)
that the "adult system" would be appropriate for this "child."
The probation officer said he believed there would be facilities in the adult system that could offer treatment and rehabilitation to Adolfo Davis. And he saw that as important because he saw Davis as not only a threat to the public, but also a threat to himself.
So, "the probation officer...believed there would be facilities in the
adult system?" Why would the "adult system" have any programs for
the "treatment and rehabilitation" of a "very sick child?" Unless this
is just something probation officers say in order to permanently exile
the very young to a life behind bars.
:UNQUOTE.
End Comments
There are a lot of voters who believe criminals like Adolfo Davis shouldn't be coddled. Their attitude is, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." They also think, "It would cost too much money to create a more perfect system - money which the financially-strapped state of Illinois doesn't have." To those voters, I would say, "Fine. But next time you read about a gangbanger sneaking up behind a cop and shooting him in the head, just realize there are karmic reasons for such acts. And those reasons have an awful lot to do with your attitude toward the weakest and most vulnerable of society's members - its abused juveniles."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment