The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling banning mandatory life sentences with no parole for youthful offenders was the right decision. Such a sentence for each young offender ought to be the result of a careful and thoughtful examination of his or her circumstances by the sentencing judge — rather than the rote application of a sentencing formula. The Michigan Legislature must revise the law to take account of the High Court's ruling.

Michigan is one of the states that has required mandatory life imprisonment to be imposed on all - including juveniles over 14 - who are found guilty of murder. The Supreme Court's ruling still allows for such a sentence for a juvenile offender, but making life sentences mandatory with no parole for youths has been deemed unconstitutional.

We have supported uniform sentencing. The cost of committing the same crime under similar circumstances shouldn't be drastically different in Detroit and Kalkaska.

But the sentencing of juveniles is different. Much more individual consideration is required.

The High Court's ruling came in the cases of two 14-year-olds who received such sentences. One was from Alabama and one from Arkansas. The Arkansas youth was an accomplice in a store robbery in which a clerk was killed by another youth.

The court's ruling makes sense in light of neurological studies that show that the adolescent mind is not fully developed and has less impulse control than an adult brain. The law has long held that those with various mental impairments are not as culpable for crimes as those who can be fully held accountable for their actions.

The state's sentencing guidelines will now have to be revised to allow for the possibility of lesser sentences for juveniles — and some will have to be resentenced. The state Corrections Department estimates that the Supreme Court ruling applies to about 182 individuals, but the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending estimates that it covers up to 350 inmates.

Michigan counts 17-year-olds as adults for sentencing purposes, but Barbara Levine of CAPPS notes that the Supreme Court ruling covered all defendants under 18.

Levine argued that simply changing all of the convicted juveniles' sentences to life with the possibility of parole may not change much. The state parole board, she added, has kept many prisoners with such sentences behind bars.

Any revision of sentencing guidelines should spell out the criteria judges should have to consider before imposing a life sentence with no parole on a juvenile offender. The Supreme Court made it clear that any such sentence in the future will be subject to very close scrutiny by federal courts.

The revision of state statutes on juvenile sentences ought to be twinned with a review of current state sentencing practices, which have over the last 30 years worked to impose longer sentences on all offenders in Michigan — without necessarily improving public safety.

REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS