Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Donate: Nineteen years-old non-Homicide Offender Sentenced to Die in Prison

Headline: Nineteen year old non-homicide offender sentenced to die in prison


Gregory Swokla needs legal representation, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Short of this, he needs funding for that legal representation.


In July of 1992 Gregory Swokla was arrested for a murder he didn’t commit. At the age of nineteen Gregory participated in a robbery in which one of his four co-defendants caused the death of one of the victims present at the robbery. Gregory had never been involved in any type of violence prior to this, so imagine his surprise when he was charged with murder! Gregory was subsequently convicted of murder, on his birthday, and later sentenced to die in prison.


Gregory is challenging the constitutionality of his sentence.


The United States Supreme Court has already used a body of scientific evidence to make rulings in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. (2012), Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. (2010) and others. The scientific evidence, in which some was provided by Ruben Gur, Professor of Psychology, clearly states that the “early twenties” is the age at which mental maturity is attained. The lack of this maturity, and the turmoil of the developing mind in these formative teenage years, has been compared to mental retardation. The U.S. Supreme Court was only dealing with individuals under the age of eighteen at the time of the above mentioned cases, so that may be why They didn’t use the scientific evidence to its full extent.


Gregory is presenting his case and asking the Courts to apply the full body of scientific evidence, to its full extent, as was indicated in all of the research. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its wisdom, accepted the assertions of the scientific community. Now They need to apply it equally to all of the class of individuals that it genuinely applies to.


We believe that Gregory’s case will lead to not only mandating that he be given a sentence that allows him to earn parole, but will help bring an end to the barbaric sentencing guidelines found in the United States. California has already taken a step in this direction with Senate Bill 9, but more is needed.


In addition, the United States Supreme Court has also stated that the sentence of life without parole (LWOP) is equal to the death penalty. In light of this: The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 560 (2005). That right “flows from the basic ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportional‘” to both offender and the offense (quoting Weens v. U.S., 349 367 (1910)).


Graham concluded that LWOP sentences, like capital punishment, may violate the Eighth Amendment when imposed on children. The body of scientific evidence used by the U.S. Supreme Court, when fully applied, indicates that Gregory Swokla should have been treated as a juvenile, for the purpose of sentencing, according to his age at the time of his crimes.


To be sure, Graham’s flat ban on LWOP applied only to non-homicide crimes, and the Court took care to distinguish those offenses from murder, based on both moral culpability and consequential harm. But none of what is said about children – about their distinctive (and transitory) mental traits and environmental vulnerabilities – is crime specific. Those features are evident in the same way, and to the same degree, when a botched robbery turns into a killing. So Graham’s reasoning implicates any LWOP sentence imposed on a juvenile, i.e. mentally immature individual, even as its categorical bar relates only to non-homicide offenses.


Thank you for your time, I look forward to any help you can provide that will lead to the fair resolution of this case.




































If You Are Offering A Reward To Funders Then Please Select “For Profit”
Non-Profit
Title For Your Legal Dispute
Nineteen year old non-homicide offender sentenced to die in prison.
Does Your Case Concern A Legal Right?

  • Anti-Death Penalty

  • Civil Liberties

  • Claims against Torture

  • Unjust Imprisonment

Recommended Contribution
70
LEGAL DISPUTE TO BE FUNDED
Country Of Dispute
United States
Featured Image For Legal Funding Campaign
Do you need a lawyer?
Need Lawyer
Legal Funding Needed
$20,000.00
What Is The Maximum Number Of Funders You Would Like To Allow For Your Case?
Large Crowd-funding (10000 stakes)
Do You Agree To The Terms And Conditions?



    • I have reviewed the Terms of Use of Invest4Justice and agree to be bound by them. My offer, based on the terms specified above, is a public promise under Articles 8 and 9 of the Swiss Civil code (Preisausschreiben und Auslobung/promesse publique – Public promise/Reward), and I understand that my offer will become legal and binding once 100% of the funding required for my case has been raised and been received by me. Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of, or in relation to the contract that will be formed upon receipt of contributions, including the validity, invalidity, breach, or termination thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Expedited Procedure of the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration of the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution. Swiss law will be applicable to any contract that is formed based on this public promise.




Visit the litigant’s profile and communicate with them by clicking “Contact the Litigant” to the right. “Backers” and case “Updates” may also be viewed above.



Donate: Nineteen years-old non-Homicide Offender Sentenced to Die in Prison

No comments:

Post a Comment