A Double Homicide and 170 Years in Prison at Age 13

LISTEN TO OUR PODCAST EPISODE ON THIS CASE HERE: https://linktr.ee/thestudentverdict

“In the USA, people under 18 years old cannot vote, buy alcohol, lottery tickets or consent to most forms of medical treatment but they can be sentenced to die in prison for their actions” Natacha Mension, Amnesty International 

On the 18th August 1987 in Indianapolis, USA, two young boys, 15 year old Sean Lamont Rowe and 13 year old Ronald Lee Sanford, approached the home of two elderly sisters, Anna Louise Harris, 83 years old, and Julie G Sellmar, 87 years old. The boys approached the home under the pretence that they were looking to earn money for the fair through yard work. The women denied their offer of assistance and that’s when things escalated. Rather than simply walking away, the two boys forced their way into the home and what followed shocked a nation. Sean Rowe managed to take five dollars from the home before police arrived and the two boys went to the Indiana State Fair. The bodies of the two sisters were later found stabbed to death in the basement of their home.

In late 1988, Sean Rowe, the older of the two boys, was arrested. Upon his arrest, Rowe immediately requested a plea deal where he would testify against Sanford in exchange for a lesser sentence. Rowe would later claim that he was a bystander to the robbery and double murder. Following his plea deal most of the charges against Rowe were dropped except for assisting a robbery, to which he plead guilty on the 22nd March 1989. For this he received a sentence of 5 years, 11 months and 30 days. Rowe was released on March 24th 1991 having served 2 years and 2 days of his sentence.

As his trial approached, Ronald Lee Sanford was advised to plead guilty to double murder, robbery with bodily harm and burglary on the understanding that his age and the lack of conclusive evidence would be taken into account. However, on the 14th April 1989, Marion County convicted Ronald Sanford and sentenced him to 50 years for the murder of one sister, 50 years for the murder of the other sister, 50 years for robbery involving serious bodily injury and 20 years for burglary. The judge stated that all the sentences would run consecutively meaning Sanford would face 170 years in jail for his part in the crime. He will not get a parole hearing until the year 2070.

Evidence used in Sanford’s conviction was largely based on Rowe’s testimony as it was difficult to prove conclusively who wielded the knife that killed the two sisters. There were two boys at the crime scene, one was 15 years old and the other was 13 years old. It begs the question, logically, who is more likely to be in control out of the two of them? After all, it was Sean Rowe who ended up with the five dollars from the property. Furthermore, on the 29th October 1999, Sean Rowe was sentenced to 20 years in prison for child molestation and 1 year, 5 months and 27 days for incest, could this indicate his manipulative side? Sanford’s mother had been an alcoholic and physically abusive, she had been involved with many men meaning Sanford never had a stable father figure. It is alleged that on the night of the double murder, Sanford had been left home alone by his mother who had left town for the weekend with a boyfriend.

In 2011, over 2,500 child offenders were serving sentences of life without parole in the US. The sentence can be imposed as a mandatory punishment without any consideration to mitigating factors such as a history of abuse, the degree of involvement in the crime or the mental health status of the defendant. Under the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child, the imposition of life imprisonment without the possibility of release is expressly prohibited for offences committed by people under the age of 18 years old. All the countries, except the US and Somalia, ratified this convention.

“We are not excusing crimes committed by children or minimising their consequences but the simple reality is that these sentences ignore the special potential for rehabilitation and change that young offenders have” Natacha Mension

In May 2010, the US Supreme Court said that life without parole was “an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile” as they will serve more years and a greater percentage of their life in prison than older offenders.

On the 8th November 2011, the court agreed to consider the issue in relation to crimes involving murder. In 2012, the case of Miller v Alabama was presented in front of the US Supreme Court. Following this case, States and Federal Governments are required to consider the unique circumstances of each juvenile defendant in order to determine their individual sentence. For juveniles, it was held that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional.

In the case of Roper v Simmons (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, they wrote that the death penalty was a disproportionate punishment considering their immaturity diminishes their culpability as it does their susceptibility to outside pressures and influences. 12 states banned the death penalty in all circumstances and 18 more banned it for juveniles. The case also affected 72 juveniles on death row in 12 states. Between 1976 and the Roper decision, 22 defendants were executed for crimes they committed as juveniles.

After Roper, there was the case of Graham v Florida (2010) where the court left the sentence of life without parole as the harshest sentence that could be awarded to juveniles. The ruling applied to at least 123 prisoners.

In Miller v Alabama and Jackson v Hobbs (2012) the US Supreme Court held, for juveniles, the mandatory life without parole sentences violate the Eighth Amendment. The “concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment” Justice Kennedy.  Justice Kagan went on to emphasise that judges must be able to consider the characteristics of juvenile defendants in order to issue a fair and individualised sentence.

Finally, in the case of Montgomery v Louisiana (2016), Henry Montgomery, 68, had been imprisoned with no chance of parole since 1963 and was now a “model member of the prison community”. The court delivered a judgement in favour of the prisoner by applying the Miller v Alabama rule retroactively, holding that prisoners previously given automatic life sentences with no chance of parole for crimes committed as juveniles must have their cases reviewed for re-sentencing or be considered for parole. Justice Kennedy said, “Children are constitutionally different from adults in their level of culpability”.

In 2012, The Sentencing Project released findings from a survey of people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles:

• 79% witnessed violence in their homes regularly
• 32% grew up in public housing
• 40% had been enrolled in special education classes
• Fewer than half were attending school at the time of the offence
• 47% were physically abused
• 80% of girls reported histories of physical abuse and 77% of girls reported histories of sexual abuse.

The point of this blog post was to shine a spotlight on the US Criminal Justice System from the eyes of juveniles. I find myself conflicted when it comes to juveniles and the Criminal Justice System, should serious cases of child offending cause us to lock them up and throw away the key? Or do we risk releasing them back into the community one day? I, personally, would like to think that everyone is capable of change and growth but I think cases of juvenile offenders must be scrutinised on a case-by-case basis.

That’s the Verdict