CV: In our earlier interviews, we’ve spent some time exploring what it means to live inside a prison. Today, I want to ask you about an issue that has, among other things, made you an activist for social justice, and which affects you personally: the exclusively American practice of sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole. To begin, I’m going to refer back to remarks you made in 2008, as quoted by Luis Rodriguez for “The Progressive.” You talked about the inconsistencies in our public view of juvenile offenders, versus how we view offending adults.

EPJ: I pointed out the hypocrisy of the criminal justice system in routinely determining that a 30- or 40-year-old who functions with the mindset of a teenager is considered mentally incompetent to stand trial. But when a 15-year-old thinks like a 15-year-old, the teenager is deemed mentally competent to stand trial in adult court, as if s/he had no more growing up to do. 

It’s so contradictory for a civilized nation to say that an adolescent is too young and immature to receive a driver’s license, get married, vote, or visit a prison (which are all lawful things); but the moment a teenager commits a crime, s/he is magically transformed into an adult and eligible to be condemned to a lifetime behind bars. Children have the remarkable capacity to remap their brains in a dynamic way, and the ability to learn, grow, and change. They often just need attention, guidance, and compassion to navigate them through the process. They are no more defined by their single greatest achievement than they are by the worst mistake they make in their lives.

Imagine the public outrage over the idea of a child serving in the military, purchasing alcohol, or being allowed to have sexual relations with an adult. When it comes to criminal offenders, however, it is an entirely different story because we have created a culture that demonizes and devalues the lives of young people who make mistakes.

CV: Let me pull out that word, “demonizes.” I’m thinking back to the early 1990s, when that’s exactly what did happen. A professor named John DiIulio influenced perhaps years of juvenile sentencing practices when he created the now-discredited “superpredator” theory, the concept of a juvenile offender “who is so impulsive, so remorseless, that he can kill, rape, maim, without giving it a second thought.” (1)

EPJ: He predicted that we would see a terrifying increase in violent juvenile crimes. The fact is, juvenile crime has consistently declined during the past two decades. The only thing related to juvenile crime that has increased has been the media coverage of juvenile crime, which has increased 600% according to the Justice Policy Institute. The media sensationalizes juvenile crime and amplifies it but the reality is that juvenile crime has declined.

Years after creating the “superpredator” myth, and after nearly every state changing its laws to make it easier to sentence children to die in prison, DiIulio admitted in a brief to the Supreme Court that his prediction was completely wrong. By that time, however, the damage had already been done. The lives of thousands of young people across the nation were already, and many still are, trapped in the sprawling U.S. prison industrial complex. Today DiIulio is an advocate for abolishing juvenile life without parole sentences.

CV: Another fact is that DiIulio tapped into a popular fear—what we might even term an unconscious assumption—that the younger a person is when he or she commits a violent crime, the more proof we have of genuine, irredeemable depravity. In other words, that a child capable of this behavior will grow up to be the kind of person we would think of as a sociopath. How would you respond to people who argue that juvenile lifers are sociopaths who should not be released because they will reoffend?

EPJ: For one thing, no layperson is qualified to diagnose a “sociopath” or a “psychopath.”  (By the way, those terms are often used interchangeably.) Sociopathy is a clinical diagnosis that must be made by a psychiatrist. But even that is complicated, and it stems from processes that have been called into question.

CV: Why is that?

EPJ: I like to refer to a statement from researchers connected with the American Psychiatric Association: “The entire personality disorder literature is built upon shifting sands.” You can understand that better when you realize that studies show a shocking estimated three million symptom combinations for the diagnosis of sociopathy/psychopathy in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-5”). According to Dr. Kathleen Wayland, a clinical psychologist, this imprecise criteria and over-inclusion of symptoms are especially troublesome because “they greatly heighten the risk of unreliable assessments, and can render diagnoses meaningless.”

What’s more, these combinations for the purposes of diagnosis don’t even apply to juveniles. Again, according to the DSM-5, people under the age of 18 cannot be diagnosed with sociopathy because their brains are still developing and their personalities are not yet fully formed. They are literally an undeveloped, immature, work in progress.

When we call somebody a sociopath or a psychopath, we use those words in ways that are often misleading. They become epithets—dehumanizing stereotypes masquerading as scientific fact.

CV: So it’s a slippery diagnosis, at best. Still, have you—based on your best understanding of the term—ever met juvenile lifers who you believe fit the criteria of being sociopaths?

EPJ: Well, here’s a definition. According to Dr. Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, “Sociopaths do not have the capacity to feel empathy or compassion of any sort, and they cannot make anything more than the shallowest of emotional connections.”

I have met many juvenile lifers and prisoners serving long sentences over the years that have had deficiencies with effective communication and emotional intelligence, but none of them have been devoid of the capacity of empathy and compassion or diagnosed with sociopathy.

Sociopaths get worse in prison as time goes on, they don’t get better. Prison is not an environment that fosters goodness: it seeks to obliterate it. It also exacerbates the symptoms of mental disorders. If sociopaths are violent they will continue engaging in violence and other pernicious activity behind bars.

I have had the opportunity to meet dozens of psychologists and social workers who have worked in prison. During conversations I have asked them numerous questions including what percentage of the prisoner population they believe suffer from sociopathy or incorrigibility.

The professionals that have spent decades working inside prisons have said they are very rare. Most expressed that they could easily count them on one hand from among thousands of prisoners they have interacted with. They are so rare that the majority of the mental health staff can remember the specific prisoners by name.

Let me add that contrary to popular views, people don’t become sociopaths because we don’t like them or we are angry at them. They also don’t become sociopaths because of a single event or decision in their life. However bad a person’s upbringing has been, whatever wrong decision s/he made, those factors alone do not transform that person into a sociopath.

CV: Then the very great majority of juvenile offenders, even those who may be serving life without parole sentences for horrific crimes, are not truly sociopathic or irredeemable. John DiIulio and others simply got it wrong.

EPJ: Very wrong. That’s exactly why juvenile offenders across the country are returning to court to be resentenced, because in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court found that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional. The court used evidence-based research to conclude that adolescents’ capacity for self-regulation is immature. They are impulsive, inclined toward reward-seeking, less likely to recognize the risks inherent in different choices, and less likely to think about the long-term consequences of their actions.

The high court also added that their ruling was based on common sense which every parent, educator, and adult knows: children are different; and history is replete with laws and judicial recognition that children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults.

The court pointed out that neuroscientists have discovered in recent years that the human brain is still developing until about age 25. It is undergoing a storm of changes in the area that regulates decision-making and impulse control (i.e., the frontal lobe) during the teenage years.

Having concluded all that, the justices also ordered the resentencing of 2,500 juvenile lifers affected by their decision. Of that number 360 prisoners were impacted by the ruling in Michigan. Michigan has the second highest number of juvenile lifers in the nation.

CV: This was seven years ago. Why has it taken so long for juvenile lifers to be resentenced?

EPJ: States across the country, including Michigan, refused to resentence prisoners, because it was the position of their Attorneys General at the time that the 2012 high court ruling only applied to cases that were still in court being appealed. (Bill Schuette was Michigan’s Attorney General at the time.) They argued that the ruling did not apply to cases that were final and no longer on appeal, i.e., it didn’t apply to older cases that had already been through the direct appeal process like my own.

Their refusal to properly adhere to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling resulted in the court rendering a subsequent decision in 2016, informing states that their 2012 ruling applied to all juvenile lifers regardless of when their conviction occurred. Michigan began slowly resentencing juvenile lifers after that. Since 2016 only about 150 people have been resentenced and 200+ still await new sentences.

CV: And you are now going back to court to be resentenced. What are the possible sentences you can receive?

EPJ: Any juvenile lifer being resentenced in Michigan has two possible outcomes for their case. One outcome is a term-of-year sentence with a minimum sentence (i.e., earliest release date) ranging from 25 to 40 years and a mandatory maximum sentence (i.e., latest release date) of 60 years.

The other outcome is a repeat of the life without parole sentence. Some people have misunderstood the ban on “mandatory” life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders to mean life without parole sentences are unconstitutional, but that’s not the case.

Prior to the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, sentencing bodies in most states had no discretion regarding the sentence of a juvenile offender convicted of first-degree murder. The only option was a mandatory life without parole sentence. Many states also allowed juvenile offenders to be tried and sentenced in adult courts, where they did not receive the protections they would receive in juvenile courts.

In 2012, the high court ruled that judges should have discretion to impose a term-of-year sentence “or” a life without parole sentence. They also stated that juvenile offenders are entitled to individualized sentencing hearings where they can present expert witnesses and evidence that they are capable of change and not deserving of the state’s harshest punishment.

CV: Then it’s possible for someone who offended as a juvenile to be sentenced to life without parole all over again.

EPJ: The U.S. Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the sentence must become “rare” and “uncommon” and only be reserved for offenders who are irreparably corrupt, irretrievably depraved, and incapable of change for the remainder of their lives. In other words, the vast majority of juvenile offenders do not fit the criteria to receive such a draconian sentence.

There are four purposes for incarceration which are incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. Until recent years, however, the last prong of the four was categorically ignored. The high court ruled that only juvenile offenders who are “incapable of change” are eligible to receive life without parole sentences. Everyone else qualifies to receive a term-of-year sentence.

CV: Explain to me the idea behind term-of-years sentences. If you get, let’s say, a 25-60 year sentence, does that mean you’ll be released right away, because you’ve already served more than 25 years?

EPJ: No, not at all. The minimum sentence—25, 30, 35, 40 years, or anything in between—is simply the earliest possible release date. The judge can set that date, but not the maximum release date which is a mandatory 60 years.

If a person receives a 25-60 year sentence, s/he only becomes eligible for release “consideration” by the Parole Board after serving 25 years. The person can be held for up to 60 years. They must begin receiving parole reviews at least every two years after serving 25 years. There are no guarantees of parole in Michigan; and the Parole Board will not release a prisoner back into the community until they are convinced s/he no longer poses a risk or danger to the public.

The Board’s consideration process includes reviewing a prisoner’s file for misconduct reports and accomplishments, having a psychological evaluation of the prisoner conducted, and a member of the Parole Board interviewing the prisoner. To be paroled a prisoner must receive two favorable votes from a three member parole panel. The Parole Board is very thorough, and they take their responsibility of public safety seriously. Whenever in doubt they will deny a prisoner parole until a later time.

CV: What’s been the average minimum term-of-year sentence, so far, for juvenile lifers who have been resentenced in Michigan?

EPJ: Average—about 29.5 years, for minimum sentences. The number is lower for offenders who were younger at the time of their arrest. For example, people who were my age at the time of their arrest (i.e., 15 years old) have received an average of 28.5 year minimum sentences.

Of the people who were arrested at the age of fifteen, 90% of them have received 25- to 60-year sentences, or the equal amount of time they have already served in prison. None have received a life without parole sentence, and the longest minimum sentence one of them received was 35 years.

CV: How many have been released in Michigan to date?

EPJ: Over seventy.

CV: Have any of them returned to prison for committing a new crime?

EPJ: No. None have returned. In Pennsylvania, too, nearly 100 juvenile lifers have been released over a year, and none have returned to prison. This is the case in states across the country. In all over 400 juvenile lifers have been safely returned to the community across the nation.

People who were sentenced to life without parole have a less than 1% chance of returning to prison, compared to the national average of 67% of the general prison population that recidivates. People sentenced to life without parole wake up each day believing they will die in prison. They learn to appreciate life and their freedoms more, they grow and mature, and if they ever get the chance to be released, their outlook on life is changed forever.

CV: And so the purpose of this upcoming hearing is to determine whether you possess the capacity for growth and change—for rehabilitation into the community?

EPJ: Yes. If you look at my accomplishments and body of work for the past 30 years, they make a compelling case that I have a great capacity for change, but also the capacity to create positive change in the lives of others.

I have remained consistent about conveying the facts in my case and unwavering in my assertion of innocence. I have never attempted to alter the facts as I remember them in any way, and no evidence exists to the contrary.

The purpose of my resentencing hearing is not to retry my case or determine guilt or innocence. Because I was already convicted in 1989, the role of the sentencing court now is to determine whether or not I have the capacity for change. Once the court recognizes I overwhelmingly meet that criteria, the prosecutor’s motion to seek a life without parole sentence in my case should be denied, and I become eligible to receive a term-of-year sentence that the court deems appropriate. What can also be considered is this:

I have spent two-thirds of my life in prison since the age of 15. I have spent twice the amount of time in prison as I did living in society as a teenage boy. In April, I will be 46 years old. Three decades of incarceration for a crime I was charged with as a 15-year-old is a significant amount of time.

Further, the amount of my sentence served is statistically more than twice the length of time that adults convicted of the same charges serve who negotiate plea agreements. It is also 14 more years than the other two individuals (who were older than myself at the time of our arrest) served in prison, even though they were charged with the same crime I was.

I am not asking the court to overturn or dismiss my conviction at my resentencing hearing. I am only seeking to receive a term-of-year sentence that is constitutional, fair, and proportionate to what other similarly situated prisoners (who were 15 at the age of their arrest) have also received when they were resentenced over the past year-and-a-half.

CV: Let’s turn for the moment to the fact that the United States is the only country in the world which sentences children to grow old and die in prison. Where does that put us, and where do we need to be?

EPJ: Here’s something you maybe never knew: as a country, we’re actually part of the Organization of American States, and we have an international obligation to the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which tells us that countries should “make substantial efforts to guarantee [juveniles’] rehabilitation to allow them to play a constructive and productive role in society.” We also signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that imprisonment of a child should be “used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.” The shameful and embarrassing thing is that the U.S. signed it with reservation. We never ratified it like 192 other nations have, making it the world’s most widely supported international human rights treaty. We approved of everything in the treaty except Article 37 which bans the death penalty and life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders. If we had ratified it we would no longer be able to impose the deplorable sentence on juvenile offenders.

It is absolutely un-American to abandon the concept of redemption, and betray our inherent dignity, by banishing people to cages for decisions they made during their childhood. Nelson Mandela said, “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”

Let me add, many Americans recognize that fact, despite the shortcomings in our laws and procedures. For example, the American Law Institute (ALI) is a well-regarded, nonpartisan body of legal scholars. In 2017, the organization approved its decades-long development of sentencing standards for its Model Penal Code. Its standards are in alignment with the American Bar Association in calling for a length of incarceration that is “no longer than needed to serve the purposes for which it is imposed.” And that brings us back to rehabilitation.

CV: You’ve expressed strong feelings on the subject of rehabilitation, but also on the subject of prevention—keeping youth out of prison in the first place. Tell us about some of the mentoring programs in which you’ve been able to reach out to young people.

EPJ: Currently there are youth deterrent programs at two different Michigan prisons that partner with outside agencies which include law enforcement and social services. The programs involve prisoners mentoring at-risk teenagers who are brought inside the prison visiting room for classes. The prisoners in the programs also mentor younger prisoners in classes that are held inside the prison’s school building.

I have had the good fortune to meet and interact with some of the prisoner mentors and asked them to share their stories, experiences, and skills with me. I have also taught them mentoring skills I have developed over the years. Through our interactions we have helped each other grow to become better mentors.

Over the years I have worked closely with other prisoners to develop self-help programs and mentoring classes to assist young prisoners, including teenagers, which have proven effective at preventing and reducing youth incarceration. We have taught classes about conflict resolution, critical thinking skills, relapse prevention, and in recent years I began teaching about emotional intelligence as well. These are all important skills that can equip people to correct their own distorted thinking patterns.

I also know a Michigan State University professor and a University of Michigan program that facilitate creative writing programs inside prison and youth correctional centers. I have participated in the programs they offer at five different prisons and seen their influence on prisoners’ lives. Most recently in 2017, I participated in the MSU My Brother’s Keeper program, which taught participants how to mentor at-risk African-American youth in Grades 6-8.

Through mentoring teens and younger prisoners, I’ve learned that the key to reaching them is in actively listening, understanding them, and earning their trust.  We never win over our youths by devaluing them and treating them as pariahs.

CV: What message do you try to give young people and hope they’ll remember it?

EPJ: I try to help them understand the importance of mutual respect, cooperation, compromise, patience, and tolerance. I also tell them it’s dangerous to interpret the world as if everything operates in a binary where there are only winners and losers. The rewarding part is seeing changes in them and watching them alter the course of their lives in real-time to make better decisions.

I went to prison as a teenager, and grew up in prison. If I can prevent another young person from suffering the horrors of incarceration, I will do that, every chance I receive. Prisons are no place for young people, and whether I am inside or outside, I will go on working for youth.

CV: Even if that means being free, and choosing to walk back inside a place you never want to see again—prison, jail, or a juvenile lockup—because a child is there who needs reaching.

EPJ: Yes, because I can’t turn my back on that child.

1) DiIulio, John. 1996 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/they-were-sentenced-as-superpredators-who-were-they-really/

 

Part 6 of this interview coming soon.

Efren Paredes, Jr. is a Michigan prisoner and subject of the new multi-channel documentary film installation, “Half Truths and Full Lies.” He is also a blogger, social justice advocate, proud father, and loving husband. You can learn more about Efren by visiting www.fb.com/Free.Efren and www.tinyurl.com/Efren1016.