Should juveniles who are convicted of murder get life without parole sentences? Where should our society set a boundary on punishment, and when do harsh sentences become “cruel and unusual” instead of fair? Three cases currently being considered by the Supreme Court may refine the answer to these questions.
What is the Law Right Now?
The 8th Amendment says that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” It has been used to protect prisoners from excessive physical force, to prevent corporal punishment of schoolchildren, and to forbid the execution of mentally retarded people.
Several past cases have addressed punishing juveniles for serious crimes. The Supreme Court may look at the legal reasoning in these older cases to make new decisions, and particularly consider the way those cases discuss the 8th Amendment.
- In Roper v. Simmons (2005) the court held that execution of a juvenile defendant constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court looked at the differences in psychological development between juveniles and adults, concluding that an action taken as a juvenile may not determine how that person behaves as an adult.
- In Graham v. Florida (2010) the court held that life without parole was too high a sentence for a juvenile who committed a non-homicide crime. Punishments should be “graduated and proportioned to the offense” and should reflect “society’s standards.”
- In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the court held that a mandatory sentence, in which the judge was required to impose a sentence of life without parole for a murder involving a juvenile defendant, was unconstitutional. It did not reach the question of whether or not a court could choose to impose a life without parole sentence in a case like this.
New Case: Montgomery v. Alabama
Henry Montgomery has been serving a mandatory life sentence since 1963 for a murder he committed two weeks before his 17th birthday. Mr. Montgomery, who has been in prison for over 50 years and is now 67 years old, wrote his own motion to the state district court to hear his case. The question in this case is whether or not Miller v. Alabama’s rule against mandatory life sentences for juveniles is retroactive. If Miller does apply to past cases, Mr. Montgomery may have an opportunity to be re-sentenced or released.
New Case: Jacobs v. Louisiana
Lawrence J. Jacobs, Jr. was 16 years old when he was involved in a burglary that turned deadly. His accomplice, Roy Bridgewater, shot and killed the two residents of the home. The felony-murder rule applies in this case: when a death occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony, all participants in that felony are guilty of murder. The prosecutor was not required to show that Mr. Jacobs truly killed, intended to kill, or was the shooter because of this rule. Mr. Jacobs was originally sentenced in 2011 (shortly before the Miller decision, discussed above) to life without parole for two second-degree murders.
This case raises the question of whether a life without parole sentence of any kind is appropriate for a juvenile defendant. Another important issue in the case is whether or not a court should sentence a juvenile to life without parole without having to prove that he or she actually killed anyone.
New Case: Connecticut v. Riley
Ackeem Riley was 17 years old when he participated in a drive-by shooting, firing into a crowd. The shooting killed a 16-year old, and seriously injured two others. Mr. Riley was ultimately sentenced to a total of 100 years in prison. However, Connecticut judges are not required to consider the unique circumstances that might impact the life of a juvenile defendant such as their family life or brain development at the time of sentencing.
This case asks whether this 100-year sentence (which is essentially a life sentence without parole) is appropriate for a juvenile. It also considers whether or not a judge can sentence a juvenile without considering the mitigating factor of the defendant’s age and the general traits that go along with youth.
What Will Happen in These Cases?
The court seems to be leaning away from life incarceration of juvenile defendants. Aside from the constitutionality issue, which is very important, this shift may have positive consequences. Statistics show that individuals who offend as juveniles are very unlikely to still exhibit criminal behavior much later in life. Fewer life sentences without parole would potentially give people a second chance at some point later in life, would save taxpayer money, and would be unlikely to lead to any increase in crime.
Authored by Alexis Watts, LegalMatch Legal Writer
Comments