A newly passed law could lead to lighter sentences for juvenile killers in Lancaster County and across the state, local experts say.
Gov. Tom Corbett recently signed Senate Bill 850, making life behind bars no longer a mandatory sentence for juveniles convicted of first- or second-degree murder.
In fact, a juvenile convicted of second-degree murder, under the law, cannot be sentenced to life without parole.
The changes in sentencing statutes apply to those convicted after June 24.
"It's definitely going to impact every person less than 18 years old convicted of (murder)," Lancaster County President Judge Joseph Madenspacher said.
In pending and future cases under the new law, judges still have the option of ordering a life-without-parole sentence to anyone convicted of first-degree murder, regardless of the person's age.
However, the new law give judges much flexibility in sentencing.
"Like it or not, that is the role we entrust to judges," Lancaster County Judge Dennis Reinaker said. "Nobody is going to agree with every decision we make. As judges, we have different ideas about things. And that's as it should be."
Madenspacher said: "It gives a ton of discretion to the judges now."
The bill makes no mention of past convictions: juveniles already sentenced to life terms are expected to be addressed in an upcoming ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The new law comes after recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings in two cases in which the high court called mandatory life terms for all juvenile killers "cruel and unusual."
Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, an advocacy group for juvenile offenders, says Senate Bill 850 "misses the mark."
The group, a reputable source in the legal community, claims in an opinion piece that the new provisions "not only leave life without parole as an option for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder, but also impose severe mandatory minimum sentences as the only alternative option."
The bill applies many proposals from the state's District Attorneys Association. Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said those proposals involved some compromise.
"We fought hard to preserve higher mandatory minimums and the life-without-parole option for first-degree murderers, and in exchange agreed to take the life-without-parole option off the table for second-degree murderers," he said.
The law is outlined this way:
n Those convicted of first-degree murder, meaning an act that is pre-meditated with intention to kill, still can receive life-without-parole terms. A person under age 15 convicted of first-degree murder faces a mandatory 25-year term; a person between 15 and 17 years old faces a mandatory 35-year term.
"It is critical for the protection of the public that Pennsylvania preserved the option to make sure that the worst of the worst have no possibility of ever being released to kill again," Stedman said.
Mandatory sentences are slightly shorter in second-degree cases, as local officials say they should be. Second-degree murder is a killing that happens during the course of another felony, most commonly burglary or robbery.
n The mandatory minimum sentence for a juvenile 15 to 17 years old convicted of second-degree murder shrinks to 30 years. Convicted second-degree killers under age 15 face a mandatory minimum of 20 years.
Reinaker said the fact that offenders are younger doesn't necessarily mean they're less dangerous.
"There are some juveniles who are less than 15 and commit these acts who should never get out — period," he said. "There are some who are 17 who should be given some consideration. Frankly, there are some 14-year-olds who have more maturity than some 17-year-olds."
Many lawyers who appeal second-degree cases here argue that their client was merely a "lookout," and therefore less culpable than the person who did the killing.
"That's entirely different than someone who specifically intended to target someone," Lancaster County Judge David Ashworth said. "When I sentence anybody, I consider culpability."
Madenspacher said separating defendants' roles in killings is essential.
"When there is someone less culpable, such as a lookout or driver who didn't expect murder to be committed, that's probably a good idea," he said. "You almost have to break their participation down."
Madenspacher said the mandatory minimums were not quite what he expected.
"I expected mandatory sentences," he said. This way, "nothing will stop the court from giving a higher sentence than the mandatory minimum. It's kind of up in the air.
"This leaves an interesting theory."
Madenspacher explained that judges, if they desire, can sentence someone to 100 years to life for any of the offenses. That essentially defeats the intended purpose of taking mandatory life-without-parole off the table.
"I wonder if, in reality, everyone will get the mandatory minimum," Madenspacher said.
Overall, Reinaker said, he isn't a proponent of mandatory sentences.
"With mandatory sentences, you're giving the prosecutor the first lens to use as a filter. They can decide whether they're going to invoke a mandatory or not, and a judge has absolutely no role in it," he said. "And it's because of mandatory sentences that we have the prison overcrowding issues that we have."
