Posted on 05/17/2010 11:28:20 AM PDT by docbnj
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life without parole for crimes short of murder, with Justice Anthony Kennedy and the court's liberals agreeing that such sentences were cruel and unusual.
The case was the latest in a series of milestone opinions by Justice Kennedy that have broadened the scope of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Earlier rulings eliminated the death penalty for juveniles and ended it for crimes short of murder.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a break from fellow conservatives, voted with the majority to reverse the life without parole sentence in the case at hand. But he wrote separately to say that such severe punishments should be available for more heinous offenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I still don’t get it. Are there ANY juveniles anywhere serving life sentences for non-homicides?
SnakeDoc
Another example of arrogant judicial activism.
Two responses: no candidate for the Supreme Court should be approved unless they clearly promise to oppose decisions like this.
Second, should you find yourself defending against one of these juvenile thugs, be sure to take no chances.
Apparently, there's a bunch in Florida.
The one who brought this case was (he was serving life without parole for violating probation after a conviction for burglary).
Probably for rape, including child rape.
The chance that a serious criminal will ever rehabilitated is less than one in three. For sex-crimes, it is about one in 20. That means that, in general, criminals, even young thugs do not use a chance to “demonstrate growth and maturity” in any good way. They just become more mature and stronger criminals.
Justice Kennedy should be put on a desert island with some of those people, maybe as part of a “Survivor” TV special. I know that I would watch!
>> The one who brought this case was (he was serving life without parole for violating probation after a conviction for burglary).
I’m a hardcore law and order conservative ... but that seems excessive.
SnakeDoc
I would not be surprised if Kennedy or one of the 4 Conservatives would become ill or die (ie Ft Marcy Park outcome) and was replaced by BO.
To be clear, his “probation violation” was two violent home invasions (including one in which someone was shot) for which he was caught in a single night.
And he was, at that point, thirty-four days short of his 18th Birthday.
See, this is the problem with giving into liberals on the death penalty. The liberal mindset truly believes that criminals are actually victims of the system and so will constantly push for laxer and laxer treatment of them. Once they get rid of the death penalty, they’ll go after life in prison.
As for this guy - a habitual armed thug at the age of nineteen? Life is too good. In a just society he would hang.
This headline is very deceptive. The Supreme Court didn’t outlaw “life sentences” at all — they just required juveniles sentenced to life terms for crimes other than murder to be given parole hearings.
Fair enough. Maybe the guy had it coming.
I disagree with the ruling in principle ... but was wondering how much of an impact it was likely to have.
SnakeDoc
Can't say I wouldn't try to escape myself in that case!
Fine. Perhaps that one case was excessive — but it is not up to the Supreme Court to fix this. It is up to the states.
The Constitution bans “cruel and unusual punishment.” Imprisonment does not qualify: the provision was meant to ban drawing and quartering, burning alive, &c.
The Constitution plainly did not intend to turn all such decisions over to the Court, and to rely on their sentimentalism for a judgment.
“Some states are pretty harsh when it comes to sentencing. I watched a TV show a few years back (it may have been a 60 Minutes or Nightline episode) about an escaped convict on a crime spree somewhere in the Southeast. Turns out he had escaped from prison in North Carolina where he was serving a 75-year sentence for armed robbery.
Can’t say I wouldn’t try to escape myself in that case! “
But then would your promptly go on a crime spree? I guess the criminal would. You or I would probably head for the swamps and just try to hide out.
Most criminals are not just hard-luck cases: they are sociopaths, and will commit crimes all their lives. They will learn to talk a good game, even pretend to be “saved,” and then recommit as soon as they have a chance.
This is dumbest move yet by the Supreme Court. Liberals have never been taught to think which btw is what is wrong with our schools. This causes them to never make a good and sound decision.
I swear the liberals will rot in hell. They just don’t know it yet because they haven’t really thought about the real consequences of their actions.
I never said the Court was right. I simply questioned how much impact the ruling would have.
SnakeDoc
I see a difference between taking away someone’s freedom and taking away their life.
So now if a teen thug brutally beats, rapes, maims, and leaves a woman for dead, he not only won’t be up for the death penalty, he can’t even get life without parole? Like the “reformed” Chuck Manson, he’ll be back on the streets in his 30’s?
>>>Turns out he had escaped from prison in North Carolina where he was serving a 75-year sentence for armed robbery.<<<
I don’t find that sentence to be at all excessive. Any person who would take the property of others by violence or threat of deadly violence, is capable of anything and deserves whatever punishment he receives, up to and including the death penalty. We are human beings and society has a right and a duty to either put those among us who behave like animals in cages, or to sleep.
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.