Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktShould the juvenile offender, charged as an adult, be susceptible to life without parole sentencing? Two cases were before the Court. Read Lyle Denniston’s review and you will see that the various Justices likely raised every argument you would have raised, among you, among them.
A paragraph to chew upon if you do not read the link:
In the cases of Miller v. Alabama (10-9646) and Jackson v. Hobbs (10-9647), most of the Justices appeared to share the sentiment expressed early by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that the Court did not want to be forced to choose between two opposite choices: no life-without-parole sentences for any minor, or no limit on the sentence for anyone no matter how young. And there also seemed to be considerable support for Kennedy’s apparent willingness to focus mainly on the question of whether such a sentence should be mandatory and, if so, whether that should be keyed to a specific age. Kennedy’s views may be crucial, since he has been the author of the Court’s key rulings on youths’ sentencing.
I am willing to accept that the concept of what constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment changes over time based on neuroscience. For an originalist, “cruel and unusual” does not change over time and this case presents no difficulties. For me it presents difficulties. However, I am a bit calloused in these particular cases. In short, once we choose to prosecute a youth as an adult, we place him in the penitentiary system for the term of his sentence. We do not place him in a home where he is wanted, or in a juvenile justice facility with serious pretensions for education, training, and reconstruction of a life. In short, once we choose to treat them as adults, I think the die is cast. I think they are less likely to reform than adult first time offenders, given the reality of the penitentiary as a high school, a college, and a career. So for me, while the world could be a better and more forgiving place, in our everyday reality, it is not.
I would be more inclined to say that treating any juvenile as an adult offender before the age of 16 is cruel and unusual than I would be to say the life sentence without parole is cruel and unusual. These are my own musings, not those of any of the Justices, according to Denniston.
Filed under: Constitution, Supreme Court |
All Things in Moderation 
“I am willing to accept that the concept of what constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment changes over time based on neuroscience. For an originalist, “cruel and unusual” does not change over time and this case presents no difficulties. For me it presents difficulties.”
Neuroscience is a fine argument to change the law itself, but not the constitutional interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. Absent a judicial philosophy of originalism, or something close to it, judges can pretty much do whatever they want.
LikeLike
I’m interested to see if SCOTUS will pluck a number out of thin air for age of mandatory life without parole sentencing, like they did with the 14 day waiting period for Shatzer.
I guess the question will be what the Justices think about incarceration, whether it is to remove people from society, to punish them, or to potentially rehabilitate them. I’m not sure that sending a 14 y.o. away for life in prison is any less cruel than giving him the death penalty.
LikeLike
Mike, what do you think of my notion that the focus on the penalty is misdirected and that it should be on what age do we allow youths to be prosecuted as adults? There is the possibility that no constitutional issue arises there at all. However, if we are going to give “cruel and unusual” life based on current understanding of words rather than 1789’s, we can as easily argue that trying a 14 yo as an adult is C&U as not. My point was that once we have decided to try a youth as an adult, there is no more hope for him to be rehabbed than an adult, and in fact there is less.
JNC, the discussion of originalism is worthy in any context, but if we have it here I cannot get anyone to talk about what I want to hear about – which is why we decide to try some kids as adults at all, and why once we make that decision we still want different rules to apply to them. That is what makes no sense to me.
LikeLike
Mark:
I think I was getting around to your way of thinking. Defining “cruel and unusual” as being different according to context (minors or adults) is a tricky thing. And I agree that the likelihood of rehabbing an institutionalized youth is less than that of an adult. So, if you are going to give up on that kid, why is life without parole any less cruel than the death penalty? You’re basically condemning the kid to a life behind bars without hope.
But having life without parole as a mandatory punishment for a minor who didn’t actually kill someone seems wrong to me.
LikeLike
“once we have decided to try a youth as an adult, there is no more hope for him to be rehabbed than an adult, and in fact there is less.”
Well put. Please remind me of the motivation for trying youths as adults; is it that convicted youths would be freed upon their 18th birthdays? Or is it a desire for a more severe punishment for more heinous crimes?
LikeLike
Or is it a desire for a more severe punishment for more heinous crimes? Yep.
LikeLike
“once we have decided to try a youth as an adult, there is no more hope for him to be rehabbed than an adult, and in fact there is less.”
Indeed, but that is a problem in and of itself. Why is their no interest in rehab and reducing recidivism with adults? A military school model for prisons would seem a better strategy to me, as well as restricting the social interactions between inmates. Reinforcing criminality as normal or even admirable or something to be proud of, which is what prisons and restricting real social interaction to other criminals tend to do, seems undesirable to me. All people have potential to be better.
LikeLike