Defendant Joe Sullivan, now 33, is represented by Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization. Mr. Stevenson maintains that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the cruel and unusual punishment characterizing such sentencing of youths under 14. In a quote from the New York Times, Mr. Stevenson comments, “To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel. It can’t be reconciled with what we know about the nature of children.”

Bryan S. Gowdy, the lawyer for convicted juvenile offender Terrance Graham, expressed skepticism about a case-by-case determination of juvenile crimes not involving murder, saying, “At that age we cannot make a determination about whether or not the adolescent will or will not reform.”

These cases have received immense media attention and responses from practitioners at the frontline of health care and criminal justice for youths.

Drawing from his global health and justice work with children, Paul Farmer commented yesterday in a Boston Globe Op-Ed about the issues at stake in these Supreme Court hearings:

These are serious crimes and both young men must be held accountable. The question before the court is whether they should be held accountable in a way that takes into consideration their immaturity, lack of judgment, vulnerability to peer pressure, and – perhaps most important – their capacity for redemption, growth, and change. If the court strikes down life without parole for juveniles as unconstitutional, no offender would have an automatic right to parole release. Juvenile offenders would simply be given the opportunity to appear before a parole board and make the case that they have changed and deserve another chance.

 

Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children must not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishments, including capital punishment or life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Only two nations in the world have not ratified this convention: Somalia and the United States. It is noteworthy that sentences of life without parole for juveniles were uncommon in the United States before the 1990s, a period of fear about a potential rise in juvenile crime that was based on data later proven false.

 

There are those who argue that international laws and norms should have no bearing on how the United States decides to dispense justice. But having treated thousands of children all over the world, I can say with confidence that American children are not more vicious, less human, or less deserving of mercy and compassion than children in any other country. Every other nation in the world finds ways to hold young people accountable for their actions without sentencing them to languish in prison until they die. The United States must do the same for its children.

Paul Farmer, MD, PhD, is professor of social medicine in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, where he is chairman, and is cofounder of Partners In Health, an international nonprofit health care organization. He is the author of “Pathologies of Power’’ and co-editor of “Global Health in Times of Violence.’’

This appointment will complement Farmer’s already extensive involvement in Haiti. In 1983, Farmer was part of the group that started a community-based health project in Cange, a project that lead to the establishment of the Clinique Bon Sauveur in 1985 and the founding of Partners in Health (PIH) in 1987. As Deputy Special Envoy, Farmer will aid Clinton in his efforts to support social and economic development in Haiti.

In addition to his work with PIH, Farmer is also Chair of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Chief of the Division of Global Health Equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Editor-in-Chief of the FXB Center’s journal, Health and Human Rights.

The policy allows regions like Hong Kong to operate on different economic and political systems from mainland China, with a large degree of autonomy. One of its unintended consequences, however, is the perpetuation of migrant sex workers’ disadvantaged status through the systematic denial of their right to social and economic progression and the failure to provide adequate health services or protection from exploitation and abuse. While prostitution is technically legal in Hong Kong, related activities such as soliciting, as well as traditional brothels, are not. Operating alone and without protection, prostitutes are vulnerable to abuse and lately, to a disturbing string of murders. Migrant sex workers are far more vulnerable given their illegal status, and feel they cannot report crimes committed against them or seek health services for fear of legal repercussions.

The authors are spot on in recognizing that female migrant sex workers are in a far more complex situation than the terms “trafficking victims” or “illegal immigrants” convey. They find that medical anthropologist Paul Farmer’s concept of marginalized groups as victims of structural violence is more appropriate: China’s sociopolitical situation forces many women into migration in search of employment, particularly to Hong Kong. While Hong Kong has eased travel restrictions, it is a crime for migrants to seek employment. By focusing on the legal status of migrant sex workers, the Hong Kong government can avoid taking responsibility for creating conditions that create the need to migrate.

The article suggests that dealing with structural violence requires structural interventions: China and Hong Kong should become signatories to the Trafficking and Smuggling Protocols of the UNCOTC, which would provide another legal avenue for sex workers to report abuses. Other suggested interventions include allowing migrants to legally engage in sex work using visas, and expanding the role of NGOs dedicated to providing health education, legal counsel, and other avenues of empowerment. Gaining protection under the law is an essential first step for ensuring rights for female migrant sex workers.