Supreme Court: Juveniles sentenced to life have right to seek parole
Source: CNN
[Updated at 10:01 a.m. ET] We have a ruling on the juvenile justice case, which involves the question of whether a 14-year-old can be sentenced to life without the chance for parole or if that was deemed cruel and unusual punishment, Bill Mears reports.
The court has reversed an earlier ruling against two 14-year-old children and has issued an opinion in favor of the underage children, saying they should have a chance to argue for parole someday. It was a 5-4 ruling. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote in favor of the defendants. The ruling essentially means that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole.
Read more: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/?on.cnn=1
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Very, very good news.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)from someone I respect as much as you that tells me how far this country has fallen down the rabbit hole of blind irredentist revenge.
I agree that it is 'very, very good news' but the fact that there was even a question about it that required SC review speaks volumes about the charnel house this country has become.
disndat
(1,887 posts)has Justice Kennedy become the "swing" vote once again? Some big decisions are coming down the pike, if Justice Kenedy has had an epiphany
usregimechange
(18,373 posts)disndat
(1,887 posts)has the insight to realize the right wing Court is ruining his Good Ol' Party with the crazy Tea Partiers and Koch Bros. Super Pacs.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)Something of a cold comfort in the shadow of at least one of the other decisions today but still...
PB
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
cstanleytech
(26,297 posts)rather than prison.
After all there are adults who make poor decsions, a prime recent example being former President Bush and his call to invade Iraq which was based on intel that later was proven to be false so why should a 14 year old be held to a higher standard?
valerief
(53,235 posts)is certainly fit to rejoin society.
antigone382
(3,682 posts)...and with his or her capacity to understand the full nature of that crime at the time he or she commits it (which a basic understanding of human cognitive development tells us they do not fully possess). They should not be punished for the failings of our society and our prison system. If prison as it is currently structured is failing to decrease recidivism, then it needs to be reformed, not rewarded with even more lifetime inhabitants.
valerief
(53,235 posts)damaged teenager.
antigone382
(3,682 posts)Speaking as a person whose family has been affected by it, I don't have the option of giving up.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)before they can be eligible to apply ?
I went to the link .. but it was all about the
AZ ruling ....
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The State can DENY them parole for the next 100 years or until they die, but the court ruled only that a SENTENCE of no possibility of Parole is cruel and unusual punishment for people below age 18.
Furthermore all the Supreme Court rule was a MANDATORY Life sentence without parole was unconstitutional, NOT that such a sentence could be entered, after trial. The court clearly pointed out such a sentence MAY be imposed on a Juvenal.. What was ruled unconstitutional was that anyone, including people under 18, CAN be sentence to Life without parole but if someone is under 18, such a sentence can NOT be the only sentence possible.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Came out of Alabama.
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY,
GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.
ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)LAGC
(5,330 posts)It's kind of cruel to hold children to the same standards as adults, don't you think?
I mean, they aren't old enough to consent to sex, not old enough to drink or drive or serve in the military, yet we hold them as responsible as adults when they commit a crime?
Something doesn't add up here...
happyslug
(14,779 posts)two other boys entered the store. Inside, Shields pointed the gun at the store clerk, Laurie Troup, and demanded that she give up the money. .... Troup refused. A few moments later, Jackson went into the store to find Shields continuing to demand money. At trial, the parties disputed whether Jackson warned Troup that [w]e aint playin, or instead told his friends, I thought you all was playin. .....When Troup threatened to call the police, Shields shot and killed her. The three boys fled empty-handed.......
Like Jackson, petitioner Evan Miller was 14 years old at the time of his crime. Miller had by then been in and out of foster care because his mother suffered from alcoholism and drug addiction and his stepfather abused him. Miller, too, regularly used drugs and alcohol; and he had attempted suicide four times, the first when he was six years old.... One night in 2003, Miller was at home with a friend, Colby Smith, when a neighbor, Cole Cannon, came to make a drug deal with Millers mother.... The two boys followed Cannon back to his trailer, where all three smoked marijuana and played drinking games. When Cannon passed out, Miller stole his wallet, splitting about $300 with Smith. Miller then tried to put the wallet back in Cannons pocket, but Cannon awoke and grabbed Miller by the throat. Smith hit Cannon with a nearby baseball bat, and once released, Miller grabbed the bat and repeatedly struck Cannon with it. Miller placed a sheet over Cannons head, told him I am God, Ive come to take your life, and delivered one more blow. .... The boys then retreated to Millers trailer, but soon decided to return to Cannons to cover up evidence of their crime. Once there, they lit two fires. Cannon eventually died from his injuries and smoke inhalation.
Thus we are looking at a non-shooter in one murder case AND a alcoholic drug addict, whose family was alcoholic and drug addicted and abusive to him.
Yes, neither of these 14 year olds were model citizens, but both also have serious problem that they had no control over. No one is calling these crimes anything less then severe, the only issue is to cruel and unusual punishment to give the Judge and Jury deciding the case against them NO discretion as to the sentence. The Judge and Jury HAD to impose Life without parole, NOT just sentence the defendants to life without parole among other possible sentences.
Thus the Judges had no problem with a Sentence of Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in both these cases, the sole objection is that life without parole was the ONLY choice for the Judge and Jury. Given 10-20 years of intensive treatment these kids could come out of prison and never commit another crime, becoming model citizens. All the court ruled was that option should be open to them, not that the state can NOT keep them in Prison for the rest of their lives.