California's Stockton Record carries the editorial, "Mandatory sentences unjust."
That minors sometimes commit evil, hideous crimes goes without saying. That those convicted should always receive life in prison without the possibility of parole is another matter.
So said the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling Monday that saw swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy join the liberal wing of the court.
The justices said that, yes, juveniles can be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole but such a sentence cannot be automatic.
In Florida, "Mandatory Judgment," in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
The ruling strengthens a series of precedents recognizing that juveniles may have less "moral culpability" for crimes because their brains — unlike those of adults — are not yet fully developed. Furthermore, they may be more capable of reform.
Quite consistently over the past decade, a majority of the high court has adopted this stance — correctly, in our view. Yet the nine justices stand sharply divided on the issue, as the 5-4 split this week shows.
The Evansville Courier & Press in Indiana has, "Don't put justice system on auto pilot."
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.
Framingham, Massachusetts" MetroWest Daily News, "New rules for young murderers."
In declaring mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders unconstitutional, the Supreme Court this week reaffirmed two important principles.
The first is one every parent knows well: Children are different from adults. In recent years, science has confirmed those differences, including some that bear directly on crime, culpability and punishment.
The adolescent mind matures more slowly than the body, and among the last to develop, scientists say, are impulse control, empathy and the ability to foresee the consequences of actions. There’s a reason adolescence is associated with thoughtlessness, recklessness and aggression. The other thing both parents and scientists know about adolescence is that eventually, most people outgrow it.
This distinction has always been the foundation of juvenile law. Children are not expected to be as responsible as adults, so they can’t be as guilty. Because they are still growing, the law is quicker to forgive children for crimes committed and is more likely to assume they can be rehabilitated for re-entry to society as responsible adults.
The second principle affirmed Monday is that every situation is different, and that judges should be empowered to make sure the punishment fits the crime and the criminal.
The Detroit News editorial is, "Juvenile lifers deserve a chance."
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling banning mandatory life sentences with no parole for youthful offenders was the right decision. Such a sentence for each young offender ought to be the result of a careful and thoughtful examination of his or her circumstances by the sentencing judge — rather than the rote application of a sentencing formula. The Michigan Legislature must revise the law to take account of the High Court's ruling.
Michigan is one of the states that has required mandatory life imprisonment to be imposed on all — including juveniles over 14 — who are found guilty of murder. The Supreme Court's ruling still allows for such a sentence for a juvenile offender, but making life sentences mandatory with no parole for youths has been deemed unconstitutional.
We have supported uniform sentencing. The cost of committing the same crime under similar circumstances shouldn't be drastically different in Detroit and Kalkaska.
But the sentencing of juveniles is different. Much more individual consideration is required.
"Decision on juvenile convictions brings flexibility," in Durham, North Carolina's Herald-Sun.
A few important points need to be made in discussing what is a well-reasoned decision. Juveniles will not automatically be freed as a result. The ruling in a case such as that of Laurence Lovette Jr., who was 17 when he killed Eve Carson, University of North Carolina student body president, in Chapel Hill, could mean many things.
He might still be sentenced to life without parole, after a sentencing hearing, or a jury might have to find aggravating circumstances in order to issue a life-without-parole sentence.
Lovette also faces a number of other sentences related to convictions for kidnapping and armed robbery, meaning that any possibility for parole in his case would be remote and far off.
Also up in the air is what happens to juveniles in the state who have been charged with first-degree murder but have not yet gone to trial.
We hope that legislators act to address these issues in an evenhanded way. Discretion in sentencing is a worthy outcome of the Supreme Court’s action.
"Justice with heart: Top court strikes down cruel sentences for juveniles," in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
When it comes to mercy and common sense, one doesn't typically think of the U.S. Supreme Court. Still, the high court has displayed unusual amounts of both with recent rulings.
The latest sign that the Supreme Court is capitulating to reality on some fronts is its move to strike down mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles, one of the cruelest and most mindlessly punitive planks in the American patchwork of criminal justice.
"Death behind bars shouldn’t be automatic for juveniles," in the Tacoma News Tribune of Washington.
Life without parole is an important sentencing option. Many supporters of capital punishment fear that depraved killers will eventually be released if they are not executed. Some jurors will opt for life in prison instead of execution if they are assured that the killer will actually remain behind bars.
But the court majority Monday rightly struck down an Alabama law that ordered judges not to factor in circumstances or chances of rehabilitation in juvenile cases.
To state the obvious, adolescents are not adults. By definition, they lack maturity and have had less opportunity to rise above what may have been hellish childhoods. The moral compasses of many teenagers aren’t fully operational. As a rule, they are more emotional and impulsive, and much less likely to think through the consequences of their action.
Earlier coverage of the juvenile sentencing ruling begins at the link. More commentary from individuals and columnists coming next. The Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama is available in Adobe .pdf format.
Comments