The Continuation of Mass Incarceration in Pennsylvania .. excerpts
James Inge
As a result of the 2016 United States Supreme Court ruling in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court ordered that all juveniles who were 17 years of age or younger at the time of their offense of first or second-degree murder and who had received a life without parole sentence, were to receive a new Re-sentencing hearing. The decision of the court was based largely on the immaturity of 17-year-old juveniles and the scientific fact that the juvenile brain is underdeveloped in the area of executive functioning and impulsive behavior control. There are over 200 paroled juvenile lifers in PA who are civilians now. They have gone on to acquire jobs; they are paying taxes… are good upright citizens for the first time in their adult lives.
Just as these juvenile lifers were given a second chance based upon their immaturity when they committed crimes at age 17, I believe that I too should be given a second chance and allowed an opportunity at parole due to my immaturity when I committed a crime at age 19. Scientists have proven that there is very little difference between the level of maturity of a 17- year old and a 19-year--old… Persons under the age of 21, according to PA law, are considered minors who must be protected by the law regarding purchasing tobacco and alcohol…
It is difficult to imagine why two similarly situated teenagers, one 17 and one 19, both of whom the state of PA considers minors in the purchase of tobacco and alcohol, should be treated very differently when sentenced. I was condemned to die in prison after refusing a plea bargain deal of a lesser sentence of 8 to 20 years. There was a preponderance of persuasive mitigating evidence that supported the lesser sentence. However, at age 19, I opted for a jury trial as opposed to admitting guilt without a trial to receive a lesser sentence. I felt I was being pressured to accept a plea bargain deal to save the state the cost of a jury trial. I was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) after a guilty verdict was handed down by a jury. I ask, what is the difference between admitting guilt without a trial to receive a lesser sentence and being found guilty by a jury for the same crime? Had I accepted the plea bargain deal offered ty the state, I would not have been sentenced to LWOP…I could have served a minimum of 8 years for the same crime for which I am now serving a life sentence….
I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Whether one’s punishment rests on notions of public safety or leans toward retribution. My removal from the community 47 years ago was appropriate, and I deserved to be punished for my crime. However, I do not have the same mindset that I had as a 19-year-old immature teenager. Without question, there can be no voice of reprieve for victims of an offense where a permanent and fatal injury occurs, and this is by no means an implication that punishment is not the proper recourse, Yet, other teenagers are spared from such excessive sentencing simply because those teenagers are two years younger…I contend that we both require even-handed justice. The harm caused by the failure to treat similarly situated teenagers alike cannot be exaggerated, and this inequitable treatment hardly comports with an ideal administration of justice.
To be continued next newsletter
James Inge, AF-8705, a life sentence inmate at SCI-Phoenix, has been incarcerated 47 years & denied commutation 7
times.
To comment, call his wife Andrea Inge at 215.880.2269
