Fight For Lifers

Fight for Lifers (FFL) is a program of Reconstruction, Inc. that addresses the concept of Life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for men and women in the state of Pennsylvania. At present, there is no chance for people serving a life sentence to get released on Parole. FFL also addresses the issue of Juveniles being sentenced to life without parole. Finally, FFL addresses access to the courts (i.e. PCRA). Fight for Lifers (FFL) supports people serving a life sentence in PA and their families, working to abolish this type of sentencing. FFL also has a sister organization located in Pittsburgh, PA. called Fight for Lifers West.

---

FFL focuses on the seven areas below:

1. Commutation
2. Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
3. Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)
4. Women Lifers
5. Compassionate Release for Terminally Ill
6. Elderly Lifers
7. Mentally Ill

---

Please see below for more detail on each of these focus groups:

1. Commutation

Commutation – the act of reducing a sentence resulting from a criminal conviction by the executive clemency of the Governor of the State, or President of the United States in the case of federal crimes. This is not the same as a pardon which wipes out the conviction or the actual or potential charge (as when President Gerald R. Ford pardoned ex-President Richard M. Nixon even without charges having been officially made– a rare instance). A pardon implies either that the conviction was wrong, that there has been complete rehabilitation of the party, or that he/she has lived an exemplary life for many years and deserves to have his/her name cleared in old age. Commutation implies the penalty was excessive or there has been rehabilitation, reform, or other circumstances such as good conduct or community service. Commutation is sometimes used when there is evidence that the defendant was not guilty but it would prove embarrassing to admit an outright error by the courts.

2. Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Sentencing juveniles to life without parole (JLWOP) is one of the many areas of criminal justice in which the United States sets itself apart from the rest of the world. No other country allows for the imposition of life sentences without the possibility of parole for child offenders. Pennsylvania has the most people serving Juvenile Life without Parole in the country.Of the approximately 2,500 JLWOP sentences in the United States, around 400 or so were awarded in Pennsylvania, which is what is known in juvenile sentencing terms as a "double mandatory" state: juveniles involved in a homicide are automatically transferred to adult court and tried as adults (“adult crime, adult time“) and both first- and second-degree murder convictions carry mandatory LWOP sentences.

In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court (In Miller v. Alabama) ruled That Mandatory Life without Parole Sentences for Juveniles Are Unconstitutional. At that time the decision did not state that the ruling was retroactive therefore each state's court made their own decision on retroactivity and unfortunately Pennsylvania's high court declared that the decision was not retroactive. This left over 400 individuals serving JLWOP in PA without the right to seek relief from the Supreme Court Decision. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear another case (Montgomery v. Louisiana) in which the main issue was whether the 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama was a substantive rule that must be applied retroactively. Last month the U.S Supreme Court issued their decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana and declared in a 6 to 3 decision that the rule is Retroactive. As a result of this decision, 69 year-old Henry Montgomery (who has been serving a mandatory JLWOP sentence for over 50 years), along with over a thousand others serving mandatory life without parole sentences for crimes committed while they were juveniles, will receive new sentencing hearings or be considered for parole. In Pennsylvania specifically this means that over 400 individuals serving JLWOP will finally be given an opportunity for new and hopefully just sentencing.

3. Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)

Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act can be found here: http://www.mcdonalddefense.com/2011/12/16/pennsylvanias-post- conviction-relief- act-pcra/

The PCRA is an indirect method of appeal in criminal cases. A direct appeal is when a criminal case is appealed from the Court of Common Pleas, where the accused lost the case, and wants to challenge some aspect of it. For more on direct appeals, read my post here. An indirect appeal in a PCRA allows the person to have the case reconsidered when a direct appeal to the Superior Court has been denied.

The PCRA must be filed within one year of the denial of the final direct appeal, or after the conviction if the defendant chooses not to use direct appeals. The one year rule does have some exceptions. The basic exceptions include: where counsel effectively abandons the defendant in the PCRA process, where the petition is an extension of a previously filed petition that was within the one year limit, where the government blocked the petition in some manner, where the new evidence could not have been known within the one year limit, and finally, where the court has determined that constitutional rights are such that the extension must be given.

PCRA is limited on its grounds for appeal. The full text of the act can be read here, but I will summarize it briefly. Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et seq, you may only begin the process for the PCRA if your conviction or sentence resulted from:

 A violation of the Constitution of Pennsylvania or of the United states, or of the laws of the United States, and the violation occurred under circumstances which so undermined the process that no reliable adjudication of truth could have taken place

 There was ineffective assistance of counsel such that no reliable determination of truth could have taken place

 A plea of guilty was gotten under circumstances which make it likely that the defendant was induced to falsely make the statement and the defendant is innocent

 Government officials wrongly obstructed the defendant’s right to appeal where an issue for appeal was present and capable of being appealed

 New evidence has come to light which would have changed the outcome of the trial

 A sentence was imposed which was greater than the lawful maximum

 The court proceeding took place in a tribunal which did not have jurisdiction

Additionally, the statute requires that the allegation in the petition has not been previously litigated in court (it is a new issue) and it has not been waived by a failure to raise the issue (you didn’t bring it up and you were only permitted to bring it up at a certain point of the proceeding). The failure to litigate the issue cannot be the result of a rational or strategic move by the defendant’s attorney at trial. You may notice the phrase “reliable adjudication of the truth” or “reliable determination of the truth.” These phrases are synonymous and mean that, because of what happened at trial, the facts or process was so distorted that no one could have discovered the truth. The courts have stated that the issue must go directly to the truth-determining process. (Commonwealth v. Bennett, 2007).

Another thing to mention is the process that a person must be given for the court to have properly reviewed the PCRA claim. Although the amount of due process required is less stringent than at trial, a defendant who petitions is still entitled to present his or her claims in a meaningful time and have them considered in a meaningful manner.

A petition for post-conviction relief must conform to certain processes and is subject to parameters defined by statute and the court. When you consider a PCRA, you also need to consider what attorney you will hire, and find one with the experience and the dedication to see the petition through. Failure to obtain the right counsel can result in the denial of your petition.

4. Women Lifers

Women Serving Life Sentence – FFL has expanded its educational initiatives to include the unique and specific challenges that life sentenced women experience.  This small (about 200) but significant population of women lifers has been negatively impacted by a profound lack of public awareness about their crimes, rehabilitation, contributions to returning women and their communities, and further marginalization within and by the DOC and legal community. Partly due to their remote locations in central (Muncy) and northwest (Cambridge Springs) Pennsylvania, women are far from resources that urban based universities and grassroots organizations have been providing for the male population for decades.  This manifests in the lack of women granted commutation, limited inmate directed groups, a shortage of educational opportunities, a meaningful chance to have a voice in policy changes, free legal aid, under trained staff to meet their unique needs and dilapidated buildings and furnishings. Despite this, women lifers are resilient. Many women are committed to live a purposeful life by giving back to the prison community and to those returning home.

5. Compassionate Release for Terminally Ill

Compassionate Release for Terminally Ill– Compassionate release refers to a court’s authority to permit the early release of a prisoner based on “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Congress codified the option for compassionate release in federal statute 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i), however several states have taken care to create their own compassionate release statutes applicable to state prisoners.

6. Elderly Lifers

PA also incarcerates the second highest amount of elderly prisoners of any state. Not everyone who is elderly in prison is serving LWOP, but many are. In 1980 there were 370 elderly people in PA’s state prisons, now there are over 8000. It costs the state an average of $42,000 a year incarcerate someone in PA, but due to higher medical costs it costs approximately $66,000 a year to incarcerate elderly prisoners. There are also innumerable costs to families and communities who lose the economic and emotional support of loved ones who are forced to grow old in prison. PA Department of Corrections’ FY2011-2012 Cost & Population Report.

For more info, see the Vera Institute’s Report-The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers. And the ACLU’s Report “At America’s Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly

7. Mentally Ill

There are many additional challenges for those who are mentally ill and serving Life Sentences. Due to the closing of state hospitals and the high cost of private facilities, prisons have become excessively populated with men, women and children whose mental health status has been criminalized. Prison exacerbates the illness and fails to provide appropriate treatment.  Mentally ill prisoners often are sent to harsh punishment cells and units which only worsen their conditions.  Families of the mental ill prisoner need to know the laws and how to advocate for their loved ones.  Currently, 73% of all women at SCI Muncy have a mental health diagnosis. SCI-Waymart was built to house the male mentally ill population.