In 2009, 17 year-old Bryce Dull was charged as an adult with the rape of a 13-year old girl he had been dating. Finding that Dull had a "mental impairment" and that there was no disagreement about the nature of the relationship between the two, the trial judge sentenced Dull to 45 months in prison and imposed mandatory lifetime supervision. That supervision included restricting Dull's travel, notifying employers of his offender status, banning any ownership or possession of a firearm, and making him subject to search at any time by state authorities.
Dull appealed his lifetime supervision, arguing that under the Eighth Amendment these lifelong restrictions on his liberty constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected Dull's argument, noting that although the punishment is harsh, Dull would still have opportunity to reenter society as a free and productive citizen. The Kansas Supreme Court, however, later held that the Eight Amendment categorically prohibits lifetime supervision for a juvenile. The decision was based, in part, on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida (2010), which held that a life term without the possibility of parole was barred by the Eighth Amendment for juveniles.
A petition for certiorari seeking appellate review of the Kansas Supreme Court's decision is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Graham, the Supreme Court identified four penal goals for determining if a sentence is so grossly disproportionate that it violates the Eighth Amendment. They are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation.
This case raises important questions about the policy goals and legal limitations of sentencing and post-release restrictions for both juveniles and those who commit sexual offenses. The Kansas Supreme Court based its opinion, in part, on empirical data showing that juveniles have lower rates of sexual recidivism than do adult offenders and are more likely to respond favorably to treatment. Moreover, the court relied on an analysis by University of Northern Kentucky professor Amy Halbrook, which found that post-release restrictions ostracize juveniles and undermine their ability to successfully re-integrate into the community (Hastings Law Journal, 2013).
On the other hand, data suggest that those who commit sex offenses early in life tend to be the most likely to re-offend. So while most juvenile offenders do not go on to re-offend, a dangerous few may benefit from close monitoring and supervision. Considerable efforts have gone into identifying which sex offenders are at highest risk of offending again. Perhaps more careful research might be done with juvenile sex offenders to distinguish those in the early stages of a predatory career from the majority of adolescents who commit their offenses as a result of "transient immaturity," as it was put in Roper v. Simmons, the landmark Supreme Court decisionopens in new window that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishmentopens in new window for crimes committed while under the age of 18. Imposing a lifetime restriction on an individual's liberty must account for these empirical findings.
“Judicial Notebook” is a project of APA Div. 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues).
