SCOTUS invalidates Mandatory Life Without Possibility of Parole for Those Under 18

[lawrocket 3]

Miller v. Alabama, released today. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf - held that mandatory Life without Parole ("LWOP") sentences are "cruel and unusual" for minors.

This is quite an issue. And one that I agree with as a matter of policy. Kids are kids, and being sentenced to LWOP for something done as a 14 year-old is tough for me to swallow. Philosophically. I agree that kids are different from adults for sentencing purposes.

On the other hand, there's an argument that the punishment is not "cruel and unusual." I see that argument. We usually understand "cruel and unusual" to be METHODS of punishment. However, I also see the cruel and unusual aspect in the matter of excessive lengths of punishment.

This was a sharply divided court. but I see both sides. From a personal standpoint, I think that the majority got it right. Rather than imposing mandatory sentences for juveniles convicted of murder in an adult court, I think that all interests are better served by giving discretion to the judge. Hence, a 14 year-old who is an accomplice to a fatal robbery could be treated differently from the 17 year-old who deliberately murdered an innocent person.

But the whole "cruel and unusual" thing. At one point, the majority stated that LWOP terms "share some characteristics with death sentences." Images of death penalty cruel and unusual morphing into LWOP being cruel and unusual are starting to enter into my mind...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Does the decision allow LWOP for those under 18? Just outlaw mandatory sentencing?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

"cruel and unusual" is so vague it's a big joke

seems to me, that the nature of the crime, and the potential for the criminal to repeat is the only real criteria necessary -

and I'm not sure why the age thing is important - the character and the ability to rehabilitate is the only thing - and that's something that can only be assessed on an individual basis rather than making some blanket assessment based solely on age

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

and I'm not sure why the age thing is important - the character and the ability to rehabilitate is the only thing - and that's something that can only be assessed on an individual basis rather than making some blanket assessment based solely on age

if the sentence is mandatory, there's nothing individual about it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

and I'm not sure why the age thing is important - the character and the ability to rehabilitate is the only thing - and that's something that can only be assessed on an individual basis rather than making some blanket assessment based solely on age

if the sentence is mandatory, there's nothing individual about it.

who are you responding to - are you debating me? or agreeing?

let's say that standard and mandatory guidelines make a lot of sense, and then judicial discretion should allow for some adjustment based only on the severity of the crime and the individual's likelihood to repeat

judicial discretion for pointless criteria (race, age, sex, does their best friend sit on the city council, to "make an example" - - etc etc etc) makes no sense whatsoever and opens the system up for abuse and uneven sentencing for the same crimes

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,411]

All the recent stories about conditions in supermax prisions probably goes towards this assertion that it's cruel and unusual.

There isn't a good answer to the multi-faceted issue of:

protectiong society from predators

avoiding conditions in prison that lead to (basically) insanity

managing cost

protecting the civil and human rights of prisoners (that whole cruel and unusual punishment thing).

That doesn't mean that the good answer is out there. Most of the cheapest possibilities stomp all over civil rights (e.g. mandatory medication), or provide sociopaths on the outside an outlet (some prison guards), etc.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

and I'm not sure why the age thing is important - the character and the ability to rehabilitate is the only thing - and that's something that can only be assessed on an individual basis rather than making some blanket assessment based solely on age

if the sentence is mandatory, there's nothing individual about it.

who are you responding to - are you debating me? or agreeing?

let's say that standard and mandatory guidelines make a lot of sense, and then judicial discretion should allow for some adjustment based only on the severity of the crime and the individual's likelihood to repeat

judicial discretion for pointless criteria (race, age, sex, does their best friend sit on the city council, to "make an example" - - etc etc etc) makes no sense whatsoever and opens the system up for abuse and uneven sentencing for the same crimes

you talking out of both corners of your mouth here:

first you talk about the need for individual assessments in judgements, but then you talk about the reasons that drove the populace to embrace mandatory, non thinking, sentencing laws. The sort of thing that gets people life for stealing a pizza.

The SC, it appears, have determined that this cannot be done in the case of life imprisonment of minors. Some brain cells must be exercised.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

our disconnect in the discussion here is pretty obvious - I'm just talking about general punishment guidelines and you are on the 'life imprisonment subject' - I'm more off topic, so it's understandable we're talking past each other - but you're still being insulting for no reason

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Does the decision allow LWOP for those under 18? Just outlaw mandatory sentencing?

That's what I'm reading.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

but you're still being insulting for no reason

you seem quick to find insult when it's not there.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

but you're still being insulting for no reason

you seem quick to find insult when it's not there.

WHAT? how dare you?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 785]

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Are you laughing at me?

[sacex250 0]

I can't even comprehend how this is an issue! The people who think that MANDATORY LWOP for a juvenile makes sense scare the hell out of me!

But then again, judging from a sampling of comments around the web, most people think that the SC just made it legal for minors to kill who ever they want and get away with it.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[davjohns 1]

My concern is taking the decision out of the hands of the jury that had the facts.

If sentencing is now based on the demographics of the convicted, where do we go? If the person has cancer and only a year to live (Lockerbie Assassin), do we let them go? Keeping them in prison for that final year could be cruel and unusual.

Should I use 17 year olds as assassins? If there is no death penalty and no LWOP...

I understand the argument. We want to believe that minors are still salvageable, where adults may be hardened. But the hardening process does not recognize age. Ad some of these minors may have anti-social personality issues that do not recognize age.

I hope this only applies in cases where the sentence is mandatory. I don't support mandatory sentencing at all.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,975]

>Should I use 17 year olds as assassins? If there is no death penalty and no LWOP...

Since even adult assassins do not always get LWOP or the death penalty - and yet are still generally deterred - I don't think that's a requirement to preventing such things. 30 years in a federal prison would still seem like a pretty good deterrent.

[normiss 785]

My understanding is that it basically removed the mandatory sentencing part of it. I agree with you there.

Now where is that line of state and federal law been moved to?
Hasn't the SC historically ruled that states make the call on criminal issues and sentencing within their own states???

[davjohns 1]

My point was more to the arbitrary nature of the age stipulation. In Alabama, the age of majority is 19. I understand it is the same in Vermont. So, the punishment is cruel here at the same time it is acceptable next door in Georgia.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,411]

Quote

arbitrary nature of the age stipulation. In Alabama, the age of majority is 19. I understand it is the same in Vermont. So, the punishment is cruel here at the same time it is acceptable next door in Georgia.

States' rights. It's fair to be guilty until proven innocent in France, too.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,983]

Quote

My concern is taking the decision out of the hands of the jury that had the facts.

How does a MANDATORY sentence leave anything up to the " jury that had the facts"?

I think you misunderstand the SCOTUS decision.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Dave said he may have misunderstood it. And I agree with you, Kallend. This case did nothing more than stop the automatic LWOP sentence for juveniles, which DID take discretion on sentencing away from juries and judges alike.

It does not ban LWOP for juveniles. (It does create juicy appellate opportunities for any juvenile actually sentenced to LWOP, though.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

I was good to see the Citizens Untited case basicly upheld. Effectively shielding it from state laws too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,983]

Quote

I was good to see the Citizens Untited case basicly upheld. Effectively shielding it from state laws too

Right, the bribery that's illegal in most countries is now quite legal in the USA, so we'll save money on prosecutions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I was good to see the Citizens Untited case basicly upheld. Effectively shielding it from state laws too

Right, the bribery that's illegal in most countries is now quite legal in the USA, so we'll save money on prosecutions.

But enough about Big Labor.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[davjohns 1]

Yup. Saw some more on it. I don't like ANY mandatory sentencing, so I can support the SCOTUS decision fully. Heck, I hated the old Federal Sentencing Guidelines when they were mandatory. I actually had a bit role in getting those made advisory.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.