We would not want to be the child of Florida Judge Nicholas Geeker.

You’ve heard of tough love? Judge Geeker meets out cruel and unusually tough love.  And it doesn’t matter how young you are.

That is what the Supreme Court will be deciding when, as reported in the Washington Post, it takes up the case of Joe Harris Sullivan.  Joe Harris was convicted of rape at the age of 13.  Judge Geeker deemed the adolescent “beyond help” and sentenced him to life in prison without parole.

Yes, you read that right.  Life in prison without parole for a 13-year-old for a crime that was not a homicide.  And if you think that was a mistake, think again.    When it comes to putting 13-year-olds behind bars for life Florida has done this not once, but twice.

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson calls this “a sentence too cruel for children.”  We agree.

What was Judge Geeker thinking?

The more we try and figure that out, the more frightening it becomes.

Did the Judge actually believe that someone who is thirteen is totally, completely and utterly irredeemable?  It is stunning not only that Judge Geeker might feel empowered to make such a decision, but we’re baffled at how would we make that decision.  Is this guy a shrink?  Is he God?  And if he has such insight into the true human condition, why should Judge Geeker stop at thirteen?  How about ten?  Two?  You know how terrible those two-year-olds are!

We can see the scenario … “Baby Johnny!  Do that one more time and I’ll take you to see Judge Geeker!”

There is a plethora of medical evidence that children are just that … children.  And if there’s ANY hope of rehabilitation and redemption, it is when we are a child.   Kristin Henning, Co-Director of Juvenile Justice Clinic and Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center writes in FindLaw:

According to the American Medical Association, adolescents are more likely to engage in risky, sensation-seeking behavior because their brains are not fully developed. The frontal lobe of the brain, which controls our most advanced functions (like judging consequences and controlling impulses), continues to evolve into our early 20s.  The result? More often than not, a juvenile offender’s propensity for impulsive (even criminal) behavior will dissipate in adulthood. The difference between a youth offender and an adult offender is clear: the child’s identity is unformed, meaning that his “criminal” character is far less likely to be chiseled in stone. As the American Psychological Association tells us, juveniles have “greater changeability” and a strong capacity to reform.

Sending kids away forever is just another example of the worst kind of American “exceptionalism.”  Few other developed countries treat their youngest citizens this way.  And with good reason.  As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 2005 Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for juveniles:

The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character … it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor to those of an adult.

Maybe that is why we don’t draft thirteen-year-olds, or allow them to drink, or grant them a driver’s license, or even let them marry.  They’re freaking kids.

None of this seemed to deter Judge Geeker’s conclusion that Joe Harris’ life was not worth the effort.

It is not just flawed thinking … it is sick and dangerous thinking.