Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NYC Liberal

(20,136 posts)
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:18 AM Jun 2012

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

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court: Juveniles sentenced to life have right to seek parole (Original Post) NYC Liberal Jun 2012 OP
Excellent...a win for decency in criminal sentencing and juvenile justice alcibiades_mystery Jun 2012 #1
Not snarking at all, but when a decision like this prompts an 'excellent' coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #2
Justice Kennedy disndat Jun 2012 #3
He gave it Kagan to write, interesting too, maybe he was busy writing HCR ruling. usregimechange Jun 2012 #7
Maybe Justice Kennedy disndat Jun 2012 #9
Good ruling n/t maddezmom Jun 2012 #4
This does appear to be very good news. Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #5
Glad to hear that. closeupready Jun 2012 #6
Good though I still wonder if they should be placed in a mental institution in the first place cstanleytech Jun 2012 #8
Yes, a clearly damaged teenage murderer who spends years in our for-profit prison system valerief Jun 2012 #10
The teenager should be punished in accordance with the crime... antigone382 Jun 2012 #11
Good luck with reforming the for-profit prison system. Harder to do than reform a valerief Jun 2012 #18
We are certainly in agreement there. But it has to be done. antigone382 Jun 2012 #19
does it say how long they have to serve littlewolf Jun 2012 #12
Nothing in the opinion saying how long they must serve, but that they be eligible for Parole happyslug Jun 2012 #14
Here is the actual Court Opinion happyslug Jun 2012 #13
if you do something that horrific at that age, you should not be out on the streets again. n/t progressivebydesign Jun 2012 #15
Well, keep in mind that the human brain isn't fully-developed until one's early 20's. LAGC Jun 2012 #16
Some background on the 14 year olds (From the opinion) happyslug Jun 2012 #17
 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
2. Not snarking at all, but when a decision like this prompts an 'excellent'
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:00 AM
Jun 2012

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)
3. Justice Kennedy
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:10 AM
Jun 2012

has Justice Kennedy become the "swing" vote once again? Some big decisions are coming down the pike, if Justice Kenedy has had an epiphany

disndat

(1,887 posts)
9. Maybe Justice Kennedy
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:26 PM
Jun 2012

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.

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
5. This does appear to be very good news.
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:15 AM
Jun 2012

Something of a cold comfort in the shadow of at least one of the other decisions today but still...

PB

cstanleytech

(26,297 posts)
8. Good though I still wonder if they should be placed in a mental institution in the first place
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:06 PM
Jun 2012

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)
10. Yes, a clearly damaged teenage murderer who spends years in our for-profit prison system
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:34 PM
Jun 2012

is certainly fit to rejoin society.

antigone382

(3,682 posts)
11. The teenager should be punished in accordance with the crime...
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:22 PM
Jun 2012

...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.

antigone382

(3,682 posts)
19. We are certainly in agreement there. But it has to be done.
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:03 AM
Jun 2012

Speaking as a person whose family has been affected by it, I don't have the option of giving up.

littlewolf

(3,813 posts)
12. does it say how long they have to serve
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:35 PM
Jun 2012

before they can be eligible to apply ?

I went to the link .. but it was all about the
AZ ruling ....

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
14. Nothing in the opinion saying how long they must serve, but that they be eligible for Parole
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:46 PM
Jun 2012

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)
13. Here is the actual Court Opinion
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:39 PM
Jun 2012
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf

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.

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
16. Well, keep in mind that the human brain isn't fully-developed until one's early 20's.
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:17 PM
Jun 2012

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)
17. Some background on the 14 year olds (From the opinion)
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:20 PM
Jun 2012
In November 1999, petitioner Kuntrell Jackson, then 14 years old, and two other boys decided to rob a video store. En route to the store, Jackson learned that one of the boys, Derrick Shields, was carrying a sawed-off shotgun in his coat sleeve. Jackson decided to stay outside when the
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 ain’t 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 Miller’s 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 Cannon’s 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 Cannon’s head, told him “‘I am God, I’ve come to take your life,’” and delivered one more blow. .... The boys then retreated to Miller’s trailer, but soon decided to return to Cannon’s 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.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court: Juveniles ...