This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs on the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for 14 year-old juveniles convicted of murder. It seeks to refine the Court's 2010 ruling in Graham v. Florida, which ruled LWoP unconstitutional for non-homicidal crimes committed by juvenile offenders. The links above will take you to the oral argument transcirpts. The SCOTUSblog case files contain all briefing in the two cases.
Reuters posts, "Supreme Court weighs if teen murderers must get chance of parole," by James Vicini.
The U.S. Supreme Court considered on Tuesday whether juveniles can be sentenced to life in prison without parole for murder, struggling to reach a consensus on where to draw the line in setting an age for such sentences.
Several justices appeared sympathetic to arguments that juveniles who are 14 years old or younger when they commit murder should at least get the opportunity for a parole hearing, but they seemed reluctant to apply it across-the-board to all cases involving juveniles.
During arguments, the justices appeared troubled by such mandatory sentences that leave no discretion in taking into account the defendant's age or maturity when committing the crime.
The Supreme Court heard appeals from convicted juvenile murderers from Alabama and Arkansas arguing that life imprisonment without parole violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
"Court Questions Life Without Parole for Juveniles," is Mark Sherman's AP filing, via ABC News.
The Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether young teenagers convicted of killing someone may be locked up for life with no chance of parole, the latest in a line of cases seeking a second chance for young people.
The justices are looking at two cases involving teenagers serving life sentences. In one, 14-year-old Evan Miller in Alabama beat a man, then set fire to his home. In the other, 14-year-old Kuntrell Jackson in Arkansas didn't pull the trigger, but was in on an attempted robbery in which another boy shot and killed a store clerk.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote earlier opinions ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole sentences for young people whose crimes did not involve killing. He seemed again to be the pivotal justice in Tuesday's arguments.
Roughly 2,300 people are behind bars for life with no chance of winning their freedom for crimes they committed before their 18 birthday. Only 79, however, are in prison for crimes that took place when they were 14 or younger.
Lyle Denniston provides SCOTUSblog's analysis in "Argument recap: Compromise on youth sentences?"
Moving further along the constitutional line between adults and children in the criminal courts, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned to life-without-parole sentences for youths who commit murder, and appeared to be reaching for a compromise. If the indications from a one-hour hearing hold, the Court might allow such sentences to be imposed on youths, but not as a mandatory matter for younger teenagers. And it could choose to forbid that penalty at all for some, but where that line might be drawn was far from clear – although it might wind up at 12 or younger. In more than 90 minutes of argument in two cases, there was no sign that a majority would come together on a flat ban for such a sentence for anyone under age 18 — the preferred outcome sought by two youths’ lawyer.
For decades, the Court has been drawing lines on criminal punishment for the young, and it has not been an easy process. Although the Court has regularly accepted the notion that children are less responsible for their conduct than adults, and that the Constitution must account for that, it has divided deeply as it applied that to the severity of the punishment it will allow. So far, it has barred the death penalty for any youth under age 18 for any crime, and it has similarly nullified life-without-parole for any minor whose crime did not result in someone’s death.
And:
In the cases of Miller v. Alabama (10-9646) and Jackson v. Hobbs (10-9647), most of the Justices appeared to share the sentiment expressed early by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that the Court did not want to be forced to choose between two opposite choices: no life-without-parole sentences for any minor, or no limit on the sentence for anyone no matter how young. And there also seemed to be considerable support for Kennedy’s apparent willingness to focus mainly on the question of whether such a sentence should be mandatory and, if so, whether that should be keyed to a specific age. Kennedy’s views may be crucial, since he has been the author of the Court’s key rulings on youths’ sentencing.
Nina Totenberg's preview of the cases for NPR is, "Do Juvenile Killers Deserve Life Behind Bars?" There is audio at the link.
Bryan Stevenson, the lawyer who represents the boys in both of these cases, will make two basic arguments before the Supreme Court. The first is that a mandatory punishment of life without parole for a 14-year-old is cruel and unusual punishment because the defendant's age and background are irrelevant and cannot mitigate punishment.
"Judges can't consider it. Juries can't consider it. No one can consider it," says Stevenson.
The states counter that the juvenile's age has already been considered by taking the death penalty off the table.
"If the defendant is not going to get the death penalty, then at the very least, the defendant ought to get life without parole" to counterbalance the harm he has inflicted, says Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman.
But the big question before the Supreme Court on Tuesday is whether life without the possibility of parole is itself an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment when it is applied to juveniles.
Defense lawyer Stevenson notes that the American legal system treats minors as both less culpable and less responsible. Fourteen-year-olds, for instance, are not allowed to drink, to marry, to vote, to serve on juries or even to drive.
"We're not saying that juvenile offenders who commit homicide can't be punished severely," Stevenson says. "They may even end up spending the rest of their lives in prison. But it's premature, excessive and unfair to say we know this juvenile will never be rehabilitated."
Earlier coverage of 2010's Graham v. Florida ruling begins at the link; more on the Court's 2005 ruling in Roper v. Simmons is via Oyez. Related posts are in the juvenile index.
Bryan Stevenson will be the keynote speaker at a UT Law symposium, Lynching and the Death Penalty, this Friday; symposium details at the link.
Comments