Posted on 05/17/2010 10:37:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court ruled today that juvenile criminals cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole except in homicide cases. Though 37 states, the District of Columbia, and federal law allow judges to impose life sentences without parole on juveniles, the Court noted that only 109 people were currently serving life terms for crimes committed while they were minors.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, relied heavily on Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision forbidding the death penalty for minors. Kennedy wrote that no theory of punishment justified locking up a minor for his or her whole life without any possibility of parole.
The case had been brought by Terrance Jamar Graham, who at the age of 16 robbed a restaurant, hitting the manager on the back of the head with a metal bar. No money was taken, and Graham was placed on probation. Less than 6 months later Graham was again arrested, this time for armed robbery. The judge sentenced Graham to life in prison, saying that his only option was “to try and protect the community from [Graham's] actions.”
Justice Kennedy’s written opinion discussed the history of punishment, pointing out that minors were generally held less responsible for their actions. He also said that it would be difficult for a judge or other official to determine whether a juvenile could ever reform himself, and therefore a life sentence could not be justified.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately, agreeing that Graham’s sentence was disproportionate to the crime he committed but refusing to set out a blanket rule forbidding life sentences in all cases other than homicide. Roberts noted that there have been cases of minors committing brutal rapes, and sometimes the victim survived despite efforts by the attacker. In those cases, Roberts suggested, life in prison without parole might be appropriate. Roberts noted that these crimes are rare, and that may be the reason these kinds of sentences are rare.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Samuel Alito, dissented arguing that judgments of the morality of punishments are best left to the legislative branches.
Krap!
OK just give ‘em 99 years.
Copyright is now over 100 years but you can be a repeat offender violent thug and NOT get life.
Our nation is screwed up.
>> [...] juvenile criminals cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole except in homicide cases [...] only 109 people were currently serving life terms for crimes committed while they were minors.
If this account is correct, this seems like a non-event. How many of the 109 life-sentenced-minors are serving a life sentences crimes other than murder? My guess is ZERO.
So — we can’t lock a minor up for life (without parole) except in murder cases? Was there a subset of non-murder-related life-without-parole sentences for juveniles?
SnakeDoc
What about for a juvenile who commits a sexual crime and it is later determined that he shouldn’t be released because he might still be a danger to society? Can said juvenile be held indefinitely? If not, it would seem the Supreme Court is contradicting itself today.
Exactly! 99 years is fine with me.
Nobody ever said the law made sense.
Of course a juvenile dangerous sex-criminal can be held indefinitely ... they said he couldn’t be ‘sentenced’ to life. In that case, he was sentenced to ten years and kept for life.
The law is simply a list of technicalities.
SnakeDoc
Personally, I do find the sentence to be a bit extreme for the crime. However, once again they have turned to FOREIGN LAW to judge the actions of a US State, which they have NO RIGHT to DO!
In a lot of states that would be considerably longer than the life sentence.
The court didn’t prohibit life sentences for minors in non-homicide cases. The ruling has to do with availability of parole hearings. Minors can still be sentenced to, and serve out, life sentences for non-homicide crimes. How is it possible to to completely screw up the headline?
I guess we’re down to having just 3 Supreme Court justices who know what they’re doing: Thomas, Scalia and Alito. Looks like Chief Justice Roberts is now in Anthony Kennedy/Laura Bush territory, trying to make sure the media loves him. This is a left-wing activist ruling. There’s no reason for the Supreme Court to interfere on something like this. Why should states even bother to pass laws against crime? Just cut out the middle man and let the Supreme Court pass crime laws for all 50 states. It’d save a lot of time, and that’s what ends up happening anyway these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.