The Supreme Court. ruling in Miller v. Alabama is available in Adobe .pdf format.
The New York Times posts, "Justices Bar Mandatory Life Terms for Juveniles," written by Adam Liptak and Ethan Bronner.
Some 2,000 juvenile offenders serving life sentences without parole were given hope of eventual release by the Supreme Court on Monday. The court ruled that laws requiring youths convicted of murder to be sentenced to die in prison violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The 5-to-4 decision divided the court along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the four members of the liberal wing. Justice Kennedy also provided the decisive vote in two other decisions issued Monday — on Arizona’s immigration law and on a sequel to the court’s decision in the Citizens United campaign finance case.
Writing for the majority in the decision concerning juvenile offenders, Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution forbids “requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes.”
In barring the punishment for killings committed before age 18, Justice Kagan drew on two lines of precedent, both rooted in the court’s death penalty jurisprudence.
The first concerned harsh penalties imposed on juvenile offenders. In 2005, in Roper v. Simmons, the court eliminated the juvenile death penalty. In 2010, in Graham v. Florida, the court ruled that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole was also unconstitutional, but only for crimes that did not involve killings. That decision affected about 130 prisoners convicted of committing, before they turned 18, crimes like rape, armed robbery and kidnapping.
The new decision did not draw a categorical line. Instead, the majority looked to a second line of cases, these barring mandatory death sentences and insisting instead that judges and juries, in Justice Kagan’s words, “consider the characteristics of a defendant and the details of his offense before sentencing.”
The cases before the court concerned two men who were involved in killings when they were 14.
"Supreme Court: teen murderers must get parole chance," is by Jim Vicini for Reuters Legal.
The ruling could affect nearly 2,500 prisoners serving sentences of life in prison without parole for murder committed under the age of 18. The United States has more than 2.2 million inmates in prisons or jails.
The decision does not mean the prisoners must be released, only that they get the chance for parole.
The ruling is the court's latest at a time when juvenile sentencing trends are reflecting get-tough efforts by states to abolish parole and to prosecute juveniles in the regular criminal justice system for especially heinous crimes.
The Supreme Court in 2010 declared unconstitutional sentences for juveniles of life in prison without parole for crimes other than murder, and in 2005 abolished the death penalty for juveniles.
Opponents of harsh sentences for juvenile offenders have argued they are less responsible for their crimes than adults are due to their emotional immaturity and that they can change and be rehabilitated while in prison.
Bloomberg posts, "Life Sentences for Young Murderers Limited by High Court," by Greg Stohr.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can’t impose mandatory life-without-parole sentences on juveniles who are convicted of taking part in a murder.
The justices, voting 5-4, said states violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment when they don’t allow for the option of a shorter sentence.
Juvenile sentencing has been an area of concern for the nation’s highest court over the past decade. In 2005, the court outlawed the death penalty for juveniles, saying their lack of maturity made them “categorically less culpable than the average criminal.” In 2010, the court extended that reasoning to bar life-without-parole sentences for youths convicted of a crime other than murder.
And:
Thirty-eight states, along with the federal government, have laws that permit life-without-parole sentences for youthful murderers. Even so, those sentences are rare for the youngest offenders. Miller and Jackson are among 79 people serving life- without-parole sentences for crimes committed at age 13 or 14, according to their lawyers.
"Court: No more life without parole for juveniles," is the AP filing via USA Today.
The Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life in prison without parole for murder.
The high court on Monday threw out Americans' ability to send children to prison for the rest of their lives with no chance of ever getting out. The 5-4 decision is in line with others the court has made, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing.
The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted.
"SCOTUS: Alabama juvenile wins ban against life-without-parole sentences," is Mary Orndorff's Birmingham News post.
Life-without-parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, according to a 5-4 opinion this morning from the U.S. Supreme Court that involved a 14-year-old convicted of murder in Alabama.
Evan Miller was convicted of arson and murder in Lawrence County, but his life without any possibility of parole sentence violates the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment, according to the justices.
The opinion was written by Justice Elana Kagan.
The ruling, which also includes a case from Arkansas, is another in a line of decisions that don't allow the criminal justice system to give up hope that the youngest criminals can be rehabilitated.
"By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regard- less of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality, and so the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment," according to the opinion that was just released this morning.
Earlier coverage of the two juvenile cases begins at the link. Related posts are in the juvenile category index.
Comments