The writer, of Omaha, is coordinator of the Nebraska Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Youth.
Juan Castaneda’s sentence of life imprisonment this past week, for participating in the murders of Tari Glinsmann and Luis Fernando-Silva, repeats a scenario that has been played out 27 times in Nebraska during the past 40 years.
Teenage boys and girls, ranging from 13 to 17, commit a terrible murder. These teens care little for other people or for the law. Some are on drugs. Some are out for a joy ride. Many are school dropouts. Some are cocky and verbally obnoxious. Some plan the murder; some don’t. Some regret it immediately afterward; others do not.
All receive a mandatory life sentence.
In this scenario, the prosecuting attorney assures family members that the killer will never be released. Family and friends of the victim approve of the life sentence because their loved one is gone forever. They believe that the killer, too, should be gone forever.
The public is satisfied that justice has been done. They believe the offender has received his due and is lucky that, being under 18, he didn’t have to face the death penalty.
The above scenario describes the reality in Nebraska at this time, and many people seem to be satisfied with it. End of the discussion. Or is it?
A different scenario for addressing teenage killers is possible. Many Nebraskans believe that teenage killers should receive a sentence more appropriate for youth. State sentencing laws could be changed so as to hold someone like Juan Castaneda accountable for his crime with a lengthy prison sentence, one that could turn out to be for life but does not absolutely necessitate life in prison.
In this scenario, after 20 or 25 years of incarceration, he could appear before the Parole Board. If the Parole Board still deems him a threat to society, as he was at age 15, he would remain in prison, possibly for life.
On the other hand, if he is seen to no longer be a threat to society, he would be allowed back into the community under parole supervision. He then could become a wage earner and taxpayer, no longer a drain on state resources.
This second scenario was basically incorporated into Legislative Bill 307, which was sponsored in the Nebraska Legislature in the last session by Sen. Brenda Council. Similar legislation is expected to be introduced in January. It calls for sentencing a youth differently than an adult, because a youth is not an adult. His capacity to use good judgment and act responsibly is less than that of an adult because his brain is still a work in progress.
Therefore, at sentencing, it is not possible to say with certainty that this teenage murderer is unredeemable and should never be in society again. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, youth have a great capacity for change.
Family members of the murder victims deserve great sympathy and community support. Their loss is great, as is the loss suffered by the family members of the one incarcerated. “Lives destroyed, all the way around,” Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine is quoted as saying.
But does the destruction have to be prolonged into a life sentence for a potentially salvageable youth? If the second scenario were embraced, society could take satisfaction in giving such a person a second chance to get it right and return from prison someday as a responsible adult.
In January, Nebraska will have the opportunity to choose a new scenario, to decide to sentence teen murderers differently, still holding them accountable for their crimes but also allowing for their possible return to the community.
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
