Miller's Children by James Garbarino

Are there Commonalities among the Youth in Miller’s Children? Explain using Specific Examples from the Garbarino's Book 

Garbarino (2018) contends that it is difficult to determine the developmental path juvenile killers take when coming of age in prison. Humans have varied capacities for change when taken through transformative, rehabilitative, and redemptive systems. The process is complicated by the type of offense on which the juvenile is convicted. The observation clearly illustrates the existence of differences among these youth. On the other hand, Garbarino (2018) recognizes the distinct nature of teenagers, particularly traumatized ones. The concept the author advances here is that traumatized teenagers share some characteristics that are not found in normal teenagers. In light of the theme of the book, the case applies to two instances: when considering the motive for committing murder; and when looking at the psychological impact of life sentence without parole on these juveniles’ development.

Juvenile convicts have a commonality about their fate being an outcome of an insidious interaction of adolescence and background (Garbarino, 2018, p. 11). This group of killers is portrayed as victims of the developmental stage that incapacitates them from making good decisions and managing emotions effectively. According to Garbarino (2018), the killers do not operate with a full deck because of the immature state of their brain. The aspects of decision-making and managing emotions also have a strong association with social histories of these juvenile killers. Garbarino (2018) argues that Miller’s Children are characterized by their presentation of “adolescence squared.” The phenomenon is described as a collection of histories of psychological trauma and social toxicity in families and communities of these children. When these factors come into play, they exacerbate the immaturity of adolescents. Garbarino (2018) cites research by the CDC which established that the cumulative risk from adverse childhood experiences (ACE) was likely to come from factors including:

Physical, sexual, and psychological maltreatment,

Poverty,

Domestic violence,

Household substance abuse,

Separation or divorce,

Imprisonment of family member, and

Depression or suicide among family.

The characteristics shared by juvenile offenders cut across domains, increasing the vulnerability of adolescents to commit murder. One common feature of Miller’s Children is that both males and females are in their teens tending towards early adulthood. The implication is that they portray common paths in their development and are likely to have shared experiences of prevailing situations in their social spheres. However, exposure to different types of trauma and social toxicity may be deterministic of the inclination to commit different offenses. This is why Garbarino (2018) asserts that the CDC data on adverse childhood experiences scores serve as a rejoinder to attempts by some prosecutors to dismiss the impact adverse experiences on juvenile crime. Low or high ACE scores are not synonymous with becoming killers, but children in the latter category have been determined to be more vulnerable. Among the 27 million children in the US aged twelve to seventeen, the homicide rate is 3 in a million (0.0003%). The implication is that given the elevated risk, murder rate for kids with higher ACE scores is almost a hundred times higher (Garbarino, 2018, p. 12). The above evidence clearly illustrates that Miller’s Children have a commonality before prison. Majority of them have been exposed to traumatic events and social evils making them vulnerable to peer-influence and impulsive, major contributors to the likelihood to commit crime.

In considering the progression of USSC decisions that Garbarino chronicles in the book on the topic of juveniles and the death penalty and the LWOP of juveniles, in your opinion, did the USSC get it right? Explain and defend your position and response. 

The argument in favor of the US Supreme Court decisions is plausible. The declaration of the mandatory sentence for life without room for parole for juvenile killers as unconstitutional is right. The subsequent reaction following the historical declaration of the Supreme Court demonstrates this was a decision that was long overdue. The decision sought to rectify the approach of the US justice system of associating juvenile crime with adult consequences. Garbarino (2018) provides evidence on how the country’s social and legal apparatus reacted to the USSC decision. Many appeals were launched to push the courts to apply the logic of Miller v. Alabama decision retroactively. The move was informed by an understanding that some 2,500 juvenile offenders may have been victims of unconstitutional sentences, hence the need to rescind these sentences (Garbarino, 2018, p. xi). The adoption and influence of the decision to inform changes in social policy and juvenile criminal justice proceedings demonstrates its significance.

There are a number of arguments that can be advanced in support of the opinion that the USSC was right in its decision. The starting point is that calls for criminal justice reform have intensified buoyed by low crime rates among the population in question. The ultimate goal of advocates is to lobby states to reduce the severity of sentencing standards for juveniles. In a recent report on a national survey on the incarcerated juveniles serving life without parole (LWOP), Nellis (2012) established that the US stands alone worldwide as a country that imposes these sentences on juveniles. The USSC decision may have been made with this aspect in mind. The excessively punitive sentences for juveniles taint the US global image as an advocate of human rights, particularly children rights. Therefore, it is imperative for the USS to serve by example, and declaring the LWOP sentences unconstitutional was the right step towards achieving the goal.

The CDC report cited in Miller’s Children on the association between adverse childhood experiences and increased risk of committing crime is another point. Garbarino (2018) demonstrated that the USSC decision was founded on proven relationship between social and developmental issues and the likelihood of committing crime. It has been determined through neuroscience on brain development that reasoning and impulse control in juveniles is limited up to their 20s. On the other hand, juveniles have also been demonstrated to capable of changing their behavior. Therefore, parallels can be drawn in line with Garbarino (2018) thinking that LWOP sentencing denies juveniles an opportunity to change. These juveniles have no chance to fulfill life outside the prison walls, reconcile with the society, or hope for a normal life. Garbarino (2018) observed that inmates incarcerated as juveniles serving long sentences, eventually mature. Nellis (2012) noted that maturity can trigger the process of reflection that is fundamental to expression of remorsefulness, renewal, and rehabilitation. Therefore, a juvenile who understands that they chance to leave prison is nonexistent, has no incentive whatsoever to become a responsible individual. Going by Garbarino (2018) observations, the USSC decision is the right example of translating hope into law and practice. The decision implies juveniles can have a shot at parole, implying hope for life outside prisons. This is by itself sufficient motivation to inspire change, hence brings into content the role of prisons as transformational and rehabilitative institutions. In addition, Nellis (2012) survey conducted on 1,597 persons from around the country – adults and victims of LWOP – established that they were likely to experience problems such as:

Elevated rates of socioeconomic disparities,

Excessive racial disparities in passing down of the sentences,

Imposition of sentences without judicial discretion, and

Counterproductive corrections policies prohibitive to rehabilitation efforts.

The USSC decision can also be supported by the nature of juvenile codes in criminal proceedings. This is supported by the US thoughtful and deliberate move to introduce juvenile courts in 1899 to accommodate developmental differences that make children distinct from adults (Nellis, 2012). The decision of the Supreme Court was right to create room for advancing a justice system for juveniles that recognized aspects of culpability and maturity. It appears the decision was made with knowledge of the bipartisan interest in reforms of the criminal justice system. Worth noting is the insistence by some prosecutors and human rights advocates that juveniles being held accountable for their crimes. Additionally, there are calls pushing judges to refer repeat and violent juvenile offenders to adult courts. The developments are informed by states’ statutes that allow the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts or from adult courts to juvenile courts. The decision does not render inconsequential the legal parameters that dictate situations under which juveniles can be tried in adult criminal courts.

What is an “imaginary audience” and why is it important to consider in the lives and actions of juveniles and juvenile offenders, according to Garbarino? Do you agree that this phenomenon exists among juveniles? 

The concept of ‘imaginary audience’ is used by Garbarino (2018) as an alternative explanation to the influence of peer-pressure as motivation of criminal behavior. The concept explains the behavior of teenagers and individuals from a psychological perspective. Developed by the sociologist Erving Goffman, the imaginary audience theory posits that people believe they are judged in the world in which they live by their clothing, speech, and actions. As a result, their behavior is determined by unrealistic anticipation of how the world will respond to them (Garbarino, 2018, p. 25). In layman terms, imaginary audience can be defined as the imagined expectations of the society that drive individual behavior. People affected by imaginary audience seek to appear favorable in the eye of the society, even though the expectations have no strong foundation.

The concept of imaginary audience is important in the lives and actions of juvenile offenders because of their vulnerability due to underdeveloped mental capabilities. Garbarino (2018) advances the argument that many adolescents are victims of the effects of imaginary audience, a trend seen in many accounts of teenage killers. The anticipation of unrealistic treatment from the society that influences individual behavior is characteristic of people struggling with identity issues. Adolescents are particularly affected because they are at a stage when they are struggling to fit it. Consequently, their behavior and action are reflection of what they perceive to be the society’s expectation of them. Garbarino (2018) portrays adolescents expressing the effects of imaginary audience as being in a crisis. This refers to a situation under which most teenagers show exceptionally high levels of impulsiveness and stupidity in their behavioral practices. Imaginary audience is a phenomenon that indeed exists among juveniles. The association of impulsivity and peer-pressure is testament to this assertion. Nellis (2012) noted that most juveniles are convicted of felony by virtue of engaging or knowledge of criminal conduct by older peers or adults. They may be subjected to such situations because of their perceptions that they need to act in a particular manner to be recognized by their peers as perfect fits to the group.

What does Garbarino believe should happen to the vast majority of juvenile murderers? Explain. Do you agree with him? 

Garbarino (2018) belief on what should happen to majority of juvenile murderers facing LWOP sentences is enshrined in the full implementation of the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. In this ruling, the USSC directed that the Miller decision be applied retroactively across all states in the country. The result was a floodgate of hope for convicts facing LWOP sentences handed to them when they were teenagers. Garbarino (2018) is confident that the Montgomery v. Louisiana decision was the missing piece in the quest for reform of the criminal justice system in the US. The author highlights the prospect of earlier cases being revisited and new lenient sentences being handed down, particularly to those convicted of felony during their teenage years.

In the book, the author recognizes the important role of giving hope to the juvenile murderers. Their argument is informed by their experiences during interactions with these convicts. According to Garbarino (2018) juveniles under LWOP are undergo normal developmental processes even in prison. However, the sentences are prohibitive and give them little motivation to change into better individuals. Therefore, Garbarino (2018) calls for understanding of the role of the judicial system in influencing the capacity for these juveniles to change through rehabilitation, transformation, and redemption programs. The argument is logical because LWOP sentences strip juveniles and other convicts of the right to experience change through punishment for their actions. Some offenders may feel that the system is justified to hand them excessively punitive sentences. Such is the mentality that Garbarino seeks to alter. Juvenile murderers must be given hope of a normal life outside prison. Regardless of their crime, they must be made to appreciate that the system is fair by giving them a second chance at normal life. After all, knowing that once only way out of prison is in a coffin cannot inspire change in an individual whatsoever.

What are your personal thoughts and reaction to this book? 

The current US justice system is very different to what was known before in matters to do with juvenile offenders. In the past, the system tried all criminals as adults. No distinction was made between adult and child. Over the years, the courts have become increasingly apprehensive of the need to separate the two groups. Adults and children represent two distinct populations with very different physical and psychological needs. For this reason arresting and charging a juvenile for crime, triggers a cascade of events in the criminal justice proceedings. Procedural factors in the arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation must be considered. The factors highlight the differences in the physicality and psychology of adult and juvenile offenders, which are the precepts of Garbarino book The Miller’s Children. 

The separation in adult and juvenile courts is the main element addressed by Garbarino in the book. The precept is evident from the onset of the book where the author cites the case Miller v. Alabama in which an 18-year-old juvenile was the subject of a life sentence without a possibility for parole for committing a crime of murder. Garbarino (2018) noted that the court accepted the proposition of the juvenile offender “being less guilty by reason of adolescence” (p. xi). On the basis of the argument, Garbarino (2018) recognizes the influence of physicality and psychology in the passing down of judgment. Most importantly, the author recognizes that this group of juveniles is different from their peers in normal population.

The book highlights critical misconceptions about the justice systems and LWOP sentences for juveniles. One such factor is the erroneous belief that life without parole implies to a few years in prison. In real sense, it means the convict will die in prison. The book critically examines this concept from the social, legal, and developmental perspectives. Garbarino (2018) accounts of his experiences with victims of LWOP are insightful at the least. The accounts highlight the predicament of the juvenile victims of LWOP sentences. In fact, arguing that the book depicts it as a gross violation of the rights of people in this group is an understatement. The book is a timely text in the wake of intensifying calls for judicial reforms in the US. It shows that the system needs changing to give hope to juveniles who commit capital crimes.

The book reiterates the need for a change on perception of prisons as institutions for transforming and rehabilitating convicts. This is not the case where LWOP sentences are involved. On the contrary, prisons are portrayed as contributors to the hopelessness among such convicts. What role does a law that sends someone young to die in prisons play in a liberal society? The book illustrates that this excessively punitive law is archaic because it contradicts scientific proof on the developmental path of teenagers. It denies them an opportunity to change and reintegrate into the society. The book can be viewed as advocating for the overhaul of the system as part of the reform judicial process.

References

Garbarino, J. (2018).  Miller's Children: Why Giving Teenage Killers a Second Chance Matters for All of Us . Oakland, California: University of California Press.

Nellis, A. (2012).  The lives of juvenile lifers: Findings from a national survey . Washington, DC: Sentencing Project.