By Peter Hall | Pennsylvania Capital-Star
Sentencing people to die behind bars for murders they did not commit or intend is unconstitutionally cruel, the lawyer for a former Allegheny County man sentenced to life in prison without parole argued Tuesday.
Abolitionist Law Center legal director Bret Grote argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should strike down the mandatory sentencing scheme for second degree murder — when a person is convicted for their role in a felony that results in a death they did not intend.
The Supreme Court agreed in February to consider the appeal of former Allegheny County resident Derek Lee, who was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a 2014 murder committed by his accomplice in a robbery.
Grote said Lee’s punishment is disproportionately harsh given the lack of intent to kill inherent in the crime and argued that it does little to deter others. He urged the court to find that the punishment violates both the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions.
“If Mr. Lee lives to be 76 years old … he will have been incarcerated for 50 years. Even then, he will not be able to go in front of the parole board, even if the Department of Corrections considers him long since completely rehabilitated,” Grote told the justices.
“He must die in prison for the unintended consequences of criminal conduct and a killing committed by another person. This must no longer be permitted under the Pennsylvania Constitution,” Grote said.
Lee, 36, was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy in the Oct. 14, 2014, shooting death of Leonard Butler in Pittsburgh. Lee and another man entered the home Butler shared with his longtime girlfriend and forced them at gunpoint into the basement.
After Butler gave Lee his watch, Lee left the basement and the other man remained. Butler’s long-term partner Tina Chapple testified that Butler lunged at the man and she heard a gunshot. Butler was struck and died from his injuries, according to court filings.
Allegheny County Assistant District Attorney Kevin McCarthy noted that the felony murder rule has been Pennsylvania law since 1794 and that the penalty has been revised from death to include the option of a life sentence and most recently to require life without parole in 1974.
“And this Court has repeatedly found that that was an appropriate exercise by the legislature to punish someone who is responsible, who has the mens rea, who engages in the underlying violent felony,” McCarthy said.
Justice Christine Donohue said that was the issue before the court — whether it is cruel to punish someone for murder when the state has not established any level of intent or recklessness that caused the death.
McCarthy said the state legislature found it was appropriate to punish those who engage in violent crime severely when their decisions lead to death, even if that individual was not directly responsible.
“Each and every member who participates is responsible to the same degree and can be punished to the same degree,” McCarthy said.
During the arguments, the Supreme Court justices grappled with the potential impact of a ruling that life without parole is unconstitutional and whether it should be retroactive.
More than 1,100 people are serving such sentences in Pennsylvania and finding them unconstitutional could require the state’s courts to revisit each person’s case.
“If these sorts of unavoidable and wide scale consequences are required, then that is necessary to enforce constitutional rights,” Grote told the court, noting that it faced a similar situation when it ruled that mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders was unconstitutional.
“Pennsylvania has had a recent resounding, unequivocal success with resentencing over 500 former juvenile lifers,” Grote said.
But Grote said another solution would be to make them eligible for parole. Because Pennsylvania’s parole eligibility is triggered by the completion of a minimum sentence there is no way for a person serving a life sentence to become eligible for parole, he noted.
Chief Justice Debra Todd said that would require the parole law to be rewritten.
“I don’t see any options for us to rewrite something the legislature has written. We don’t do that,” Todd said.
Grote said that the court could declare the mandatory sentencing scheme unconstitutional and then give the legislature time to rewrite the law. Alternatively, he said, the court could use its power to create rules to enforce the constitution, and suggested that parole eligibility after a minimum sentence of 25 years would be a starting point.
Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kim Lyons for questions: info@penncapital-star.com. Follow Pennsylvania Capital-Star on Facebook and Twitter.
Advertisement
Convenient Legal Access to High Quality Cannabis Just A Few Minutes Away!
Leave a Comment