Supporters of abolishing life sentences gathered on the steps of the state Capitol in September 2022 as the Coalition Against Death By Incarceration called on lawmakers to allow parole for those sentenced to life in prison. (Photo: Capital-Star)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on October 8 in an appeal that could bring hope for freedom for more than 1,000 people in the service of life in prison without the possibility of parole for murders they did not commit.
The court in February agreed to examine Derek Lee’s casewho is serving a life sentence without parole after being convicted of second-degree murder, robbery and conspiracy in 2016. Lee’s accomplice in a 2014 burglary killed Pittsburgh homeowner Leonard Butler.
Under Pennsylvania’s murder law, a person charged with a crime can be held criminally responsible for a death that occurs during the commission of the crime, even if the defendant was not the murderer and had no intent to kill. In Pennsylvania, a murder conviction carries a sentence of life in prison without parole.
In his appeal, filed in May 2022, Lee argues that the mandatory life imprisonment without parole violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the state constitution’s ban on cruel punishment.
Constitutional law experts, former Pennsylvania attorneys general and elected officials, including Governor Josh Shapiro, have filed briefs in the case in support of Lee’s appeal, arguing that a life sentence without parole for premeditated murder is excessive and does little to achieve the goal of punishment.
An appeals court had previously ruled 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 reconsider whether a mandatory life sentence without parole is constitutional under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
While the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, Lee’s lawyers from the Abolitionist Law Center and the Amistad Law Project argue that the corresponding section of the Pennsylvania State Constitution only requires 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 customary. Therefore, the omission of the term from the Pennsylvania Constitution allows customary punishments to be challenged “if there is a basis for finding that they are cruel in a constitutional sense.”
Lee’s lawyers also say Pennsylvania’s ban on cruel punishment has historically been interpreted to exclude punishments that are unreasonably harsh but not imposed with cruel intent. They point out that this is consistent with other states’ interpretation of their constitutional ban on cruel punishment.
Finally, Lee’s lawyers argue that political considerations justify the abolition of life imprisonment without parole as a punishment. They point out that Pennsylvania is a special case because the punishment is imposed without taking into account the defendant’s intentional involvement in the crime. Among those serving such sentences, 70% are black and many are elderly or geriatric.
Criminologists have found that involvement in crime is strongly correlated with age and that older prisoners pose little threat to public safety.
Lee’s attorney Quinn Cozzens told the Capital-Star in February that one of Lee’s main goals after his release from prison is to mentor young people and dissuade them from making the decisions that led to his situation.
“That’s something that a life sentence without parole cannot explain … that when people grow up, they leave behind the antisocial behavior that leads to their criminal activity,” Cozzens said.
DONATE: SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST
