Missouri lawmakers disagree over how long minors convicted of first-degree murder should have to spend in prison, with a House panel on Monday advancing a proposal that would end the state's mandatory life without parole sentences by offering an alternative sentence of 25 to 40 years.
The bill, sponsored by Springfield Republican Sen. Bob Dixon, originally called for a minimum sentence of 50 years in prison without parole for those ages 16 and 17 and 35 years in prison for those under 16. The maximum would still be life in prison without parole, while the House committee changed it to life with the possibility of parole.
The changes could lead to a showdown between House and Senate Republicans and threaten the bill's chances as lawmakers near a May 15 deadline to pass legislation.
The measure is aimed at bringing Missouri into compliance with a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that mandatory life sentences are unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, the state does not have a constitutional sentence for those under 18 convicted of first-degree murder, and "everyone is in limbo," said Dixon.
Lawmakers have twice tried, unsuccessfully, to bring Missouri law into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling, with the 50-year minimum sentence being the primary issue of contention.
Dixon has said any minimum sentence less than 30 years could mean some convicted of first-degree murder would get a lighter sentence than those found guilty of second-degree murder, which carries a 10-30 year minimum sentence or life in prison.
Opponents argue the minimum 50- and 35-year sentences essentially guarantee minors would spend the rest of their lives behind bars. For example, a 16-year-old would not be eligible for a parole hearing until his or her 60s under the proposal.
"Children can grow up and change and don't need to grow up and die in prison," said Nikola Nable-Juris, a lobbyist for the national Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth.
Rep. Robert Cornejo, R-St. Peters, gutted the Senate proposal and raised concerns that any sentence over 40 years could later be found unconstitutional.
Cornejo's changes also would require judges or juries to consider the defendants' "age, maturity, intellectual capacity and mental and emotional health," along with a slew of other factors surrounding the child's background when determining their punishment.
"Each youth is unique and has unique characteristics, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis and not just a simple broad stroke, broad swath of punishments," Cornejo said, referencing the Supreme Court ruling.
"Whether this will get through the Senate or not, is not really what I'm worried about."
Dixon argued that judges or juries can already consider other factors that might have led to the offense and opt for a second-degree murder charge instead.