Top court treats juveniles fairly

U.S. Supreme Court justices acted wisely this week when they ruled that juvenile criminal offenders should, with few exceptions, be spared life sentences without parole.

Sending minors away for life, with no chance of earning their freedom, violates constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, the court ruled. There are sound reasons for this decision.

Justice systems around the world offer juvenile offenders more services and opportunities to reform - which many do.

While even the youngest offenders must serve some kind of punishment for criminal acts, it's too harsh to declare them unredeemable at a young age.

We all benefit when youthful offenders can be rehabilitated and turned away from lives of crime and imprisonment.

The Supreme Court ruling doesn't require states to release dangerous and unrepentant prisoners who committed their crimes as juveniles.

States can impose life sentences without chance of parole in cases where juveniles murder someone else, the court ruled.

But it does require states to provide juvenile offenders convicted of other serious crimes with a realistic opportunity to earn their freedom before that life sentence is up.

We don't take this view lightly - surely, some juveniles have committed offenses for which most adults would find themselves incapable. In response to these occasional horrific crimes, states have gradually gravitated toward allowing increasingly harsh penalties for juvenile offenses.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, 37 states, the District of Columbia and the federal court system allowed for juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole for some crimes other than murder, although such laws are rarely used.

Court research shows that only 129 juvenile offenders in just 11 states have been so sentenced. As many as seven of those are in Iowa.

But the case that brought the issue to the Supreme Court's attention is a good example of why even that number is too many.

Terrance Graham was just 16 when he helped rob a Jacksonville, Fla., restaurant. During the robbery, Graham's accomplice beat the store manager with a steel bar.

The next year, while still on probation for that crime, Graham and two other accomplices broke into a private home. He was sentenced to life in prison for violating his probation.

Graham deserved to be punished for his role in those crimes, there's no question. But he, and other youthful offenders, also should have hope of earning release from prison if they truly change.

Every effort should be made to reform even serious juvenile offenders and allow them the opportunity to lead productive lives - that's the fundamental philosophy of our juvenile court system. And it's the right thing to do.