There's continued support for the Suprme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, and lots of commentary. In this post, editorials; followed by analysis in the next post; then, columns and commentary.
"Children in Prison for Life," is the New York Times' editorial.
The Supreme Court’s ruling this week prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of murder is a measured and important step in a trend in juvenile justice begun more than two decades ago. The court left open the possibility that minors under age 18 could be sentenced to life without parole — but only if the sentencing judge has made an individualized finding that such a penalty is appropriate, weighing the defendant’s characteristics and the details of the crime.
The 5-to-4 majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the moderate liberals, held that the mandatory punishment is unconstitutional because it fails “to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”
The Christian Science Monitor editorial is, "Supreme Court ruling on life sentences for young criminals."
Is a child more capable of character reform than an adult?
In a string of rulings since 2005, the Supreme Court has accepted this popular perception in lessening harsh sentences for juveniles who commit crimes.
In its latest decision issued Monday, the court banned mandatory life sentences with no chance of parole for minors who commit murder. The ruling still allows such sentences. But judges and juries must first assess a minor’s capacity for reform. Only a small percentage of adolescents develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior, the court stated.
"Justice for juvenile criminals," in the Denver Post.
We've long opposed sentencing juveniles to life without any possibility of parole. That's why we supported changing state law in 2006 to ensure that juveniles convicted of murder become eligible for parole after serving 40 years in prison.
But what about the 50 Colorado inmates who are serving life sentences right now without any possibility of parole because the 2006 law wasn't retroactive? This week the U.S. Supreme Court provided an answer: They too cannot be ignored. It is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment to impose mandatory life-without-parole sentences on juvenile murderers.
The court's decision doesn't mean inmates in Colorado convicted as juveniles under this state's prior harsher standard will be freed anytime soon — or necessarily ever. Becoming eligible for parole doesn't mean you actually will be released.
"Court gets it right," in the Buffalo News.
The Supreme Court issued two smart rulings on Monday, one striking down most of Arizona's constitutionally reckless immigration law and the other prohibiting automatic sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of murder.
And:
In the other ruling, decided in a 5-4 vote - closer than it should have been - the court decided that it is cruel and unusual to impose automatic sentences of life without parole on murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes.
State and federal courts generally have moved too far in removing discretion from judges who are, after all, supposed to judge. The Supreme Court struck down laws in 29 states that prohibited judges from considering mitigating circumstances.
"Court's decision sensible on teen killer sentences," is the Ventura County Star editorial.
The law cannot fly on automatic pilot, which is what state legislatures periodically try to do by taking certain decisions out of the hands of judges and juries, particularly with mandatory minimum sentences.
A particularly egregious example of bypassing judicial discretion are laws requiring youths younger than 18 convicted of murder to be sentenced to life without parole, regardless of the circumstances of the crimes or such factors as a brutally dysfunctional home life.
This week, by a 5-to-4 decision the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court said such mandatory life sentences for juveniles under 18 violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
And:
The court's majority made a sensible ruling, though one that won't force any changes in California. Here, state law already allows discretion in sentencing juveniles for murder.
Earlier coverage of Miller v. Alabama and juvenile sentencing begins at the link; continued coverage in the next two posts. Related posts are in the juvenile category index.
Comments