When Terrance Graham was sixteen years old, he was charged with armed burglary and assault and battery arising out of a restaurant robbery where an accomplice hit a victim with a pipe. He was sent to a juvenile detention facility for a year and given a probation term after that. During the probation term he committed another armed robbery. A judge revoked the probation and sentenced Graham to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
When Joe Sullivan was thirteen years old, he and some friends burglarized the home of a 72-year-old woman. The woman was also raped, although Sullivan denied committing that crime. He was tried as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
When Daniel Hood was thirteen years old, he and a seventeen-year-old friend kidnapped Hood’s fourteen-year-old cousin. They covered her eyes and mouth with duct tape, wrapped duct tape around her wrists and ankles, and threw her on Hood’s bed, using more tape to bind her down. While Hood held her down, his friend raped the girl with a toilet plunger. They eventually let her go. The friend, tried as an adult, is serving a ten-year prison sentence.
Hood spent some time in a juvenile detention facility, but was later admitted to a private Catholic high school. There, he excelled as a student and athlete. By all accounts, he has truly reformed himself. The principal of the school said he would stake his school’s reputation on Hood. Even the victim of his earlier crime has written letters on his behalf. A few weeks ago, the University of Tennessee offered Hood a football scholarship.
The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear appeals of Graham and Sullivan’s sentences. Prof. Berman has written about the cases extensively. Hood’s case received some coverage in the sports media — for example, here, here, here, and here.
I’m not saying that these cases are indistinguishable. Even the two cases the Supreme Court took seem to have important distinctions. Maybe Graham and Sullivan don’t deserve a second (or third) chance. And maybe Hood didn’t either. But in considering the cases of Graham and Sullivan, maybe we should keep Hood’s case in mind.