This page debunks the various myths regarding life without parole (LWOP) for juveniles and Senate Bill 256, AKA the Teen Killer Empowerment Act (TKEA).

Culpability

Myth: No juvenile is culpable enough for LWOP.

Fact: Some juvenile offenders are culpable enough for LWOP. Teens are able to understand the wrongfulness of evil crimes like murder. Typical youthful traits such as impulsivity do not make an offender unaware of the harms they cause by committing crimes. Plus, not all juvenile offenders display these traits.

Teenagers are cognitively and morally capable of understanding the harm they cause when they commit serious violent crimes such as rape and murder. For example, Gavon Ramsay knew that by strangling Margaret Douglas, he would cause her death. He knew that his attack on Margaret caused her to suffer physical and emotional pain. He knew that invading Margaret’s home and murdering her was illegal. He knew that his murder of Margaret violated society’s standards. It is asinine to suggest that 17-year-old Ramsay did not completely understand these facts. 

Violent criminals under 18 are not forced to commit crimes by their young brains, but choose to commit crimes for their own enjoyment and/or benefit. Even though juveniles may have an increased propensity to commit crimes, criminal culpability is assessed at the level of consciousness and is not based on the underlying influences behind one’s criminal decisions.  

Juvenile offender advocates argue that juveniles are less culpable because of the hallmark traits of youth–impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure, immaturity, and recklessness. Our coalition does not deny the presence of these characteristics in many juveniles. But these traits do not impair juvenile offenders’ abilities to understand the nature of their crimes. Despite all these characteristics, a juvenile offender’s actions are still voluntary and they have no diminished awareness of what they are doing. 

Even if these youth-associated traits did reduce culpability, that would not necessarily mean that all juvenile offenders are less culpable.  These traits are not involved in all crimes committed by juveniles. In fact, many crimes committed by juveniles are planned, calculated, and mature rather than impulsive, immature, and reckless. Some examples of juvenile murderers who did not display the hallmarks of youth include Daniel Marsh, Christopher Simmons, Alysa Bustamante, Donald Torres, and David Biro.

A criminal’s sentence should be based on their specific actions, not the general actions and traits of other people in the same age group. 

Research cited by advocates of juvenile criminals pertains to typical juveniles. Juveniles who commit extremely violent crimes are not at all typical. They are highly atypical. It makes no sense to base decisions regarding the sentences given to highly atypical youth on the behaviors of typical youth. A criminal’s sentence should be based on their specific actions, not the general actions and traits of other people in the same age group. 

Read more about the culpability of juvenile criminals here.

Myth: “Minors are treated differently. They can’t drink alcohol, sign contracts, etc. Therefore, they should be treated differently when they commit crimes.”

Fact: Just because juveniles are generally considered too immature to engage in certain activities does not mean they are too immature to understand the wrongfulness of violent crime.

Yes, juveniles are generally considered to be too immature to drink alcohol, sign contracts, get married, serve on juries, and engage in other behaviors. But this does not mean they are too immature to understand the wrongfulness of murder and other violent crimes. It is far easier to understand the wrongfulness of violent crimes than it is to understand the complexities of marriage or how to serve responsibly on a jury. 

One’s brain does not have to be fully developed to understand the wrongfulness of evil crimes like murder.

One’s brain does not have to be fully developed to understand the wrongfulness of evil crimes like murder. One can be old enough to be held responsible for violent crimes, yet not old enough to engage in other actions, such as signing contracts. US and Ohio law recognizes this fact–18, 19, and 20-year-old adults are not considered mature enough to drink alcohol. 18 to 24-year-old adults are not considered mature enough to join the U.S. House of Representatives. Adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are not considered mature enough to join the Senate. Yet all these categories of adults are considered mature enough to be held accountable for violent crimes. 

Criminal sentencing is a much different process than voting, drinking, driving, or signing contracts. Sentencing is highly individualistic. But most of the behaviors cited by advocates of juvenile murderers are not individualistic, perhaps with the exception of driving. We don’t give 18-year-olds tests to determine if they are responsible enough to vote. Nor do we give 21-year-olds tests to determine if they are ready to drink. But with criminal sentencing, we spend weeks or even months determining if specific offenders are guilty or innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Plea bargains also take a considerable amount of thought and planning. Sentencing authorities, be it judges or juries, consider the specific factors involved in the specific criminal acts. They also consider the backgrounds of the specific offenders. For this reason, drawing a “bright line” in criminal sentencing policy is much harder than drawing bright lines in policies regarding voting rights, alcohol consumption, or the other behaviors mentioned. These processes are different. To compare the sentencing of a psychopathic teen who committed aggravated murder to allowing a normal teen to smoke a cigarette is inaccurate and offensive to victims.

Myth: All juvenile crimes result from impaired judgment.

Fact: The types of juveniles who get LWOP were able to understand the consequences of their crimes.

Juvenile offender advocates claim that all juvenile crimes result from impaired judgment. OCSF recognizes that many teens do make errors in judgement. But juveniles don’t get long prison sentences for simply making errors in judgment. There is a difference between impaired judgment and immoral judgment. 

Many juvenile criminals, while having immoral judgment, did not display impaired judgment or decision-making in any way. They wanted something, developed a plan to get it at the expense of others, and executed that plan. There was no impairment regarding the understanding of the consequences. In fact, many crimes involved smart decision-making by the juvenile assailants, with these assailants developing mature, sophisticated, and detailed plans which they carried out successfully. 

The Law

Myth: Juvenile LWOP is unconstitutional. 

Fact: The Supreme Court has ruled that LWOP is a constitutional sentence for juvenile murderers. 

LWOP remains perfectly constitutional and legal for juvenile murderers. The Supreme Court has never ruled that LWOP is an unconstitutional sentence for juvenile killers. 

In Graham v. Florida, SCOTUS banned juvenile LWOP for non-homicide crimes. Under Graham, a juvenile offender can only receive LWOP if they commit a homicide. 

In Miller v. Alabama, SCOTUS banned mandatory LWOP for juveniles. In Miller, the Court held that a sentencing authority must consider a juvenile killer’s youth before sentencing them to LWOP. The sentencing authority must also have the discretion to impose a lesser sentence that allows for the offender to be released, such as life with parole eligibility. So long as a sentencing authority considers the killer’s youth and has the discretion to impose a lesser sentence, the sentencing authority may sentence the juvenile killer to LWOP. 

In Jones v. Mississippi, SCOTUS ruled that a sentencing authority is not required to make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a juvenile killer to life without parole.

Myth: The US has an international obligation to abolish juvenile LWOP. 

Fact: The US has no obligation to abolish juvenile LWOP to comply with international law.

First, the US is not the only country that allows juvenile LWOP.

Second, the US is not in violation of treaties or international law by allowing juvenile LWOP. 

Learn more here.

Values

Myth: Teenage murderers and other violent criminals are “children.”

Fact: Most juveniles who get LWOP and long sentences were 16 or 17 when they committed their crimes. They were not “children.” Advocates of juvenile murderers use this deceptive language, along with pictures of child models, to paint an image of juvenile criminals that is far different from reality. Not only is this propaganda extremely inaccurate, but it is also insensitive and offensive to victims.

Adolescent criminals are not “children.” In Ohio, one must be at least 14 to be tried in adult court. Most juveniles in Ohio who get life and long sentences were 16 or 17 when they committed their crimes. In contrast, the term “child” is most often used to describe youth who have not yet hit adolescence. 

The term “child” is also associated with innocence, vulnerability,  and other characteristics of actual pre-adolescent children. These traits do not apply to violent teenage criminals.  

By using the term “child” advocates of juvenile murderers emotionally manipulate people and minimize terrible crimes. They paint a false image of innocent and vulnerable pre-adolescent children. This mental image does not accurately reflect 16 and 17-year-old murderers and other violent criminals. By creating this false image, juvenile offender advocates exploit our natural tendency to protect actual children. 

Advocates of the TKEA used the term child to trick people into being supportive and protective of violent criminals. To promote the TKEA, juvenile offender advocates also used photographs of child models as young as six. These propaganda pictures depict child models playing football. In terms of age alone, pictures of six-year-olds do not represent 16 and 17-year-old murderers. In terms of innocence and criminal culpability, pictures of six-year-old child models engaging in innocent activities such as football certainly do not represent 16 and 17-year-old murderers.

This is propaganda.

Again, portraying 17-year-old murderers as seven-year-old sports camp members is propaganda. This type of shameful propaganda is horrifically upsetting to victims whose lives were destroyed by the actions of violent teens.

This is NOT what the killers of our family members and other beneficiaries of SB 256 looked like when they were committing the crimes that landed them in prison. These violent criminals were not little kids at football camp. They were callous and cold-blooded predators who hunted down innocent people for pleasure, profit, or some other selfish reason. What our family members and other victims endured should be acknowledged and not diminished.

I’ve heard it said you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.   If truth isn’t the foundation of our discourse, whether in politics, or a marriage, we are doomed to live in a world in which the pathological liar with the slickest materials, and biggest budgets, wins.  That’s not a society worth having.  

Brian Kirk

If ending juvenile LWOP is such a great idea, why do juvenile offender advocates resort to using such blatant and shameful propaganda?

For more examples of propaganda pictures used by juvenile offender advocates, see this page.

Myth: All crimes committed by juveniles are “mistakes.”

Fact: Evil crimes committed with a complete understanding of the results and with the intention to cause those results are not “mistakes.”

In addition to using propaganda pictures of elementary school-aged child models and referring to adolescent killers as “children”, juvenile offender advocates also minimize crimes committed by juveniles by referring to these crimes as “mistakes.” The term “mistake” implies that the criminals did not intend or understand the consequences. We recognize that many teens do make immature decisions without fully considering the consequences of their actions. But the murderers of our family members, along with most of the other juvenile criminals who benefited from the TKEA, intended and comprehended the consequences of their crimes. 

Myth: All juvenile criminals deserve “second chances.”

Fact: Yes, most juvenile offenders deserve subsequent chances to reform and become law-abiding citizens. But some juvenile criminals who commit acts of wanton cruelty do not deserve additional chances. There is no moral obligation to give evil killers subsequent chances, especially when those killers have already had several chances, as demonstrated by their extensive criminal histories.

OCSF agrees that most juvenile offenders deserve additional chances to reform and become law-abiding citizens. But some juvenile criminals who commit acts of wanton cruelty and pure evil do not deserve additional chances.

First, many criminals who benefited from the TKEA have already had second chances, as they had long criminal histories prior to the crimes that resulted in long and life sentences. For example, Gavon Ramsay had an extensive violent criminal history prior to murdering Margaret. He was given multiple chances to change. But despite efforts to reform him, his crimes only escalated. (Learn about Ramsay’s murder of Margaret here).

And we must remember that murder victims do not get second chances. There is no moral obligation to give a convicted murderer like Gavon Ramsay a subsequent chance when his victim gets zero chances.  

And all these arguments about “second chances” and “redemption” could be made in regard to Chardon High School mass shooter T.J. Lane. Yet the law is specifically written to prevent this mass killer from being released. Ohio lawmakers were apparently capable of recognizing that T.J. Lane doesn’t deserve a “second chance.” Why are these other murderers any different? If the “second chance for juveniles” argument is strong, then it should be used to defend parole opportunities for all juvenile offenders, including the Chardon killer.

Myth: It’s just a parole hearing. It doesn’t guarantee release.

Fact: Release is a possible outcome of a parole hearing. If you support mandating parole hearings, you must be willing to acknowledge the potential outcome of those hearings.

Advocates of laws like the Teen Killer Empowerment Act insist that their laws only guarantee reviews, not release. But these are reviews to determine if the inmates should be released. A release is a possible outcome of the reviews. And it is a dangerous possibility that hurts victims. If you support mandating parole hearings, you must be willing to acknowledge the potential outcome of those hearings. Instead, most SB 256 proponents refuse to acknowledge the possibility they have created. This is because they have no good arguments for releasing some evil felons. 

Myth: What’s the problem with having a parole hearing? It’s not like the parole board will release them?

Fact: Even if a current parole board remains reluctant to release depraved criminals, parole boards and laws can change, resulting in increased likelihood of release and the harms associated with release. Even if the release does remain unlikely for depraved violent criminals, it is still unacceptable to allow even the smallest possibility of release, given the dangerous consequences and the impact on victims.

Advocates of SB 256 and similar legislation argue that it’s OK to make criminals responsible for highly aggravated crimes eligible for parole, because it is unlikely that they will ever be released. And it is true that the current Ohio parole board releases a very small number of criminals responsible for severe violent acts. But while the parole board we have now might be reluctant to release these kinds of callous killers, parole boards can change. In the future, we may have a parole board that is more open to releasing dangerous criminals. Or we could have laws that mandate parole for certain inmates. In fact, SB 278, which was introduced to the last Ohio General Assembly, would have mandated parole for inmates who meet certain criteria. And even if the chance of the criminal being released remains slim, it is still a possibility. We should not give aspiring serial killers, sexual sadists, necrophile maniacs, etc. even the smallest chance of release.

Even if these really depraved criminals aren’t paroled, the parole hearings still inflict a lot of pain onto victims. Just the possibility of release, even if small, is terrible for victims. And even a small possibility of release is dangerous. It is horribly frightening for us to live knowing that these perpetrators have any chance of getting out and harming us or harming others.

And again, a slim chance of release is still dangerous for victims and society. It is completely unacceptable to place anyone in even the smallest amount of danger.

Ironically, when SB 256 advocates make this argument, they are admitting that releasing some juvenile criminals is a terrible idea and that they don’t have good arguments for doing so. If they did have good arguments for releasing killers like Gavon Ramsay or Jacob LaRosa, they would be able to acknowledge the possibility of their release. But they refuse to do so because no good arguments for the release of such evil criminals exist.

If this argument made any sense, then why does SB 256 have a T.J. Lane triple murder exception? Lane is probably less likely to be paroled than any other juvenile offender. Why not give Lane a parole hearing? We know he won’t ever be released. Right?

If the “he won’t be released” argument was any good, then it should apply to all offenders, including Lane.

And what is the point of having parole hearings for criminals who shouldn’t and likely won’t be paroled? The entire point of a parole hearing is to determine if an inmate should be paroled. If most of us don’t want these extremely depraved criminals to be paroled and if it’s unlikely they will ever be paroled then what’s the point of having a parole hearing? Why should we force victims to endure the parole hearings? Why should we spend all the time and work and money on those hearings? And why even give these criminals this smallest chance to get out of prison and commit more crimes? Is it all so we can feel good about giving a juvenile offender a parole hearing and being trendy?

Having parole hearings for felons who won’t and shouldn’t be released is a complete waste of time and money. At that point, we would just be going through the motions and having ritual parole hearings for inmates who we know won’t get out just to make ourselves feel good about giving juvenile offenders “second chances.”