Death by Incarceration
Innocence has no statute of limitations
Montgomery v. Louisiana and children who are innocent
Juveniles? NO! We are CHILDREN! This is the hallmark of Juveniles?-R-US (Jr. U.S.) which I founded and direct. The word “juvenile,” in North amerika, is the court system’s sophistic white supremacist euphemism for “nigger child.” Not only does it brand Black children, not as children, but it robs us, and those of color, of all the sympathies, sensitivities and sensibilities associated with childhood. All the social, political, legal, intellectual and cultural protections and safeties reserved for matters dealing with children. It’s the amerikan judicial system’s way of avoiding the authority of international law concerning the treatment of a child. The rights of the child are recognized globally, by bodies like the United Nations, but a “juvenile” is not. The former is clearly identified, while the latter remains buried.
My name is Muti A. Ajamu-Osagboro and Jr. U.S. is a Human Rights child advocacy organization, which mainly focuses on children who are innocent, but have been falsely imprisoned. Not only am I a member, but also a client. As a child, I was convicted for a crime (being a look out in a homicide-robbery) I did not commit, and sentenced to Death-By-Incarceration (DBI), in spite of the fact that I am actually innocent, with the evidence to prove it.
This analysis is to address the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Montgomery v. Louisiana decision—not just on how it relates to the guilty, seeking equity—but also to spark a national and international dialogue, and movement, on how it affects those of us who are actually innocent, a subject that no so-called leader, child advocate, or attorney will dare to even whisper.
Statewide and nationally, especially here in Philadelphia, the cradle of hypocrisy and injustice, is often touted—beyond the borders of “these United States”—as democracy and justice. It is nothing short of disgraceful, how cruelly quiet these purported leaders are, on this conscious-shocking amerikan ordeal.
Comments made by Professor Julia Hall, in the Juvenile Lifer Newsletter, Issue No. 58, concerning Montgomery, fall short. Though Dr. Hall’s integrity is without question, and she is one of the very few true child advocates, her assessment on what the High Court’s decision means, misses the mark.
Context is always the linchpin pin to understanding any issue. She wrote, “A state may remedy a Miller v. Alabama1 violation by extending parole eligibility to juvenile offenders, rather than resentencing them...” —Montgomery v. Louisiana. [Miller v. Alabama was the Supreme Court decision that outlawed mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.]
Dr. Hall’s quote of this portion of the Court’s opinion is irrelevant. Here’s why: This is what is called dicta, more specifically, obiter dictum. (Latin, meaning: “something said in passing”) That is “A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and not precedential.”
This is because in the Montgomery case, the Court only asked and answered two questions:
- Does it have jurisdiction? Which it answered: Yes.
- Is it’s Miller holding of 2012 retroactive? A resounding “yes” was the reply.
Thus, we now go back to the Miller case, in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders, in order to get instructions as to exactly what to do. Miller is the blueprint, not Montgomery. Montgomery’s sole purpose was only to answer the two above questions before the Court. Miller made it very clear that each of the 500 plus child litigants, in what I call PennCELLvania, must have, at a minimum, a Resentencing Hearing—and that the Resentencing Hearing must be by a “judge or jury”—not by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, (PA GA). If the state legislature tries to usurp the High Court’s Miller instruction, it will be a violation of both the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clause, as well as the Separation of Powers.
Though judge (not justice) Antonin Scalia filed a lengthy dissent in the Montgomery case, he was an even more staunch opponent of the Separation of Powers clause. The legislature cannot alter or overturn a judicially imposed sentence, nor can the legislature encroach upon the province of the judiciary. Conversely, the judiciary cannot tread on the grounds of the PA GA by legislating from the bench.
PennCELLvanians mark my words, Prosecutors, Closet prosecutors (defense attorneys), and Politicians (PCP)—are going to team up and try every underhanded thing they can to make the Court’s dictum reality, thereby defying both the spirit and letter of the law.
We (JUVENILES-R-U.S.) will not stand for it.
Lest we forget, this incestuous trio, the PCP, has been trying to undermine this fight since 2005, when we drew on the irrefutable science that the Roper v. Simmons2 case revealed concerning the disadvantaged brain function of children. Be mindful that this decision applies to the entire country, especially, but not limited to, Michigan, California, Florida, and, of course, Louisiana.
I now challenge you to broaden your focus to speak out for those of us children (not juveniles) who are actually INNOCENT.
Think about the glaring fact that here in Philly, the global capital of sentencing children to Death-By-Incarceration, not a single media outlet, nor so-called child advocate, attorney or leader has ever mention the words, “convicted-innocent child” in the same sentence.
Muti A. Ajamu-Osagboro AM 6021
Rockview State Prison
P.O. Box A
Bellefonte, PA 16823-0820
1 Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. (2012), was a Graham v. Florida (2010) case, which had ruled juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional for crimes excluding murder.case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The ruling extended beyond the
2 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court’s prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), overturning statutes in 25 states that had the penalty set lower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons