In a significant development, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has failed to meet a deadline set by the state’s Supreme Court to address an unconstitutional sentencing model for second-degree murder. This delay means that a court ruling on the matter will now become effective without a legislative solution in place.
Second-degree murder in Pennsylvania is characterized by a killing that happens during the commission of a violent felony like robbery, rape, or arson. An individual can be convicted if they participated in the felony, regardless of their direct involvement in the death.
In March, the court determined that mandatory life sentences without parole for such crimes, without considering an individual’s specific role in the death, violated the state’s constitution. Lawmakers were given until July 24 to amend the sentencing laws but failed to do so.
Here’s a detailed look at the current situation:
Is Legislative Action Still Possible?
Yes. Despite the missed deadline, legislative action can still occur. Both the state Senate and House have proposed bills to address the issue.
The Senate’s version, SB 1400, proposes a 35-year mandatory minimum sentence for most second-degree murder convictions, while keeping life without parole as an option for certain cases. It also allows for a sentence of 10 to 40 years under specific conditions. Parole eligibility after 35 years is proposed for current life sentences, or after 20 years for those aged 70 and above.
In contrast, the House’s bill, HB 1042, does not set a minimum sentence and calls for the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to develop sentencing guidelines. It includes parole eligibility after 30 years and introduces medical parole for those with life-threatening conditions.
Although both bills have passed their respective chambers, there is no sign of imminent compromise, with further negotiations expected when the legislature reconvenes in September.
What Are the Immediate Implications?
For ongoing and future second-degree murder cases, county-level judges will make sentencing decisions based on their judgment. Experts believe the courts are equipped to handle this, although there are concerns about potential inconsistencies in sentencing outcomes.
Impact on Current Inmates
No immediate release will occur for those serving life sentences. Contrary to some claims by lawmakers, the ruling does not automatically make individuals eligible for parole. The only individual immediately affected is Derek Lee, who could be resentenced. However, the ruling is not retroactive for others unless they pursue appeals similar to Lee’s case, potentially leading to a lengthy legal process.
Potential Future Developments
If the state Supreme Court eventually makes its decision retroactive, conditions for resentencing could be modeled after federal cases like Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana. These cases deemed mandatory life sentences for juveniles unconstitutional and made the ruling retroactive, requiring courts to consider factors like age and maturity during resentencing.
Lessons from the Past
Pennsylvania, with the largest number of “juvenile lifers,” saw nearly all of these individuals resentenced, with only a small fraction reoffending after release. Parole remains a lifelong condition, with violations leading to a return to prison.
___
This article was initially published by Spotlight PA in collaboration with The Associated Press.
