Latest in Print
Carly M. Celestine em> – Symposium Editor, Volume 53
The University of Richmond Law Review em> is incredibly excited to present its 2019 Symposium Issue: The 50th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act–Past, Present, and Future em>. Each year, the Law Review em> hosts a Symposium which seeks to critically examine and debate a specific area of law. This year, we celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). We were honored to host an outstanding assembly of scholars and practitioners to re- flect on the social and legal precursors to the FHA, evaluate its impact to date, and anticipate the role of the Act in providing equal access to housing in the future
Underdeveloped and Over-Sentenced: Why Eighteen- to Twenty-Year-Olds Should Be Exempt from Life Without Parole
Reynolds Wintersmith was just twenty years old when he learned he may spend the rest of his life in prison. In 1994, he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for a nonviolent drug crime. It was his first conviction.
When United States District Judge Philip Reinhard was sentencing Reynolds, he struggled with the mandatory minimum requirements:
“Under the federal law I have no discretion in my sentencing. Usually a life sentence is imposed in state courts when somebody has been killed or severely hurt, or you got a recidivist . . . . [T]his is your first conviction, and here you face life imprisonment . . . . [I]t gives me pause to think that that was the intent of Congress, to put somebody away for the rest of their life.”
This comment contends that Reynolds Wintersmith belonged to a class of offenders who should be categorically exempt from sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Sentencing eighteen- to twenty-year-olds to life without parole should be considered cruel and unusual because it is disproportionate to this class of offenders’ culpability.