Newspaper editorial boards across the country are praising yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on sentencing for juvenile offenders, Miller v. Alabama.
"Juvenile murderers and justice," is the Los Angele Times editorial.
In a 2005 ruling prohibiting capital punishment for juveniles, the court, reflecting the findings of psychologists and neurologists, cited three differences between younger teenagers and adults: Adolescents are likelier than adults to display a "lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility"; they are more susceptible to negative influences and peer pressure; and "the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult." Using the same reasoning, the court in 2010 ruled that states could not sentence juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole for non-homicide crimes.
In her majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan cited the 2005 and 2010 cases, but she also based her ruling on precedents in which the Supreme Court outlawed mandatory death sentences for adults and required that sentencing judges take into account possible extenuating circumstances. She concluded that "the confluence of these two lines of precedent leads to the conclusion that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the 8th Amendment." It is not unconstitutional, however, for judges to impose such sentences at their discretion (though Kagan predicted legitimate uses of that authority would be "uncommon").
Perhaps this limited approach was necessary to win the vote of JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinions in the 2005 and 2010 decisions. In those cases he cited trends against imposing the death penalty on juvenile murderers and sentencing adolescents to life in prison without possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses.
"A welcome vote of compassion for teen offenders," in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling Monday barring mandatory life sentences for teenage criminals offers the welcome glimmer of hope for parole for thousands of lifers across the nation.
In Pennsylvania prisons nearly bursting with inmates who were locked away as teens, the mandatory-term ruling poses a major challenge in righting a potential wholesale injustice.
No other state has thrown away the key on so many juvenile offenders — with around 480 serving life terms for crimes committed before age 18. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been asked to order the review of hundreds of those cases, and the court has a duty to move decisively in that direction now.
Every sentence should be reviewed as a result of the high court ruling, even if the state courts eventually conclude that the life sentences should stand under the narrow discretion the Supreme Court allowed.
"Juvenile life sentence ruling is wise," in the Austin American-Statesman.
Sentencing children to die in prison is cruel and unusual and therefore unconstitutional.
So said the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday when it ruled that state laws mandating that defendants younger than 18 who are convicted of murder be sentenced to life in prison without parole violated the Constitution's Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
It's a decision that reflects an ongoing evolution in our understanding of the juvenile brain and an appreciation for limits on juvenile justice. Mandating life without parole for juveniles takes away a court's discretion, can lead to punishment that is not proportional to a defendant's role in a crime and fails to account for the profound differences between adolescents and adults.
Texas legislators wisely banned life without parole of juvenile defendants in 2009, but the state's law failed to make the prohibition retroactive.
Thus, 27 juveniles who were convicted of capital murder as adults between 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court banned the death penalty for juveniles, and the passage of the new 2009 law are sitting in prison without any chance for parole. Monday's ruling should lead to new punishment hearings for these individuals.
There will be more on the ruling's application in Texas in the next post.
"Supreme Court rules wisely on immigration, juveniles," in the Kansas City Star.
The court helped build a fairer, more compassionate society with its 5-4 ruling that will stop courts from sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without a chance of parole.
The decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, builds upon previous rulings banning death sentences for juveniles and life sentences for young people convicted of crimes other than homicides.
“Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” Kagan wrote. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment...”
The decision doesn’t mean that juveniles who commit the most serious crimes should escape justice. But it correctly rejects the notion that lives at 14 or 15 years of age are beyond redemption.
Detroit Free Press columnist Jeff Gerritt writes,"Supreme Court strikes down Michigan's barbaric juvenile lifer law."
A Wayne State University survey found that, when given alternatives, only 5% of state residents support forcing judges to give some kids as young as 14 life sentences, without possibility of parole. Michigan’s juvenile lifer law contradicts science, legal tradition, public opinion and plain common sense. It’s also immoral, a symptom of a society that has all but given up on the idea of redemption and second chances.
Brain imaging research shows what every parent knows: Teenage brains are more impulsive and unstable than adult brains — even without the abuse and neglect that many of these young people have faced. Juveniles don’t have the same legal rights and responsibilities as adults because they lack the maturity and judgment to handle them. Nor should they suffer the same punishments.
Without the courage or compassion to strike down the state’s draconian juvenile lifer law, Michigan's politicians have left it to the Supreme Court to drag the state into the 21st Century.
Earlier coverage of Miller v. Alabama and juvenile sentencing begins at the link.
Comments