It appears I was misled by some of the early AP reporting on the Court’s ruling. Here is law professor Mark Osler’s clarification as it appeared on his blog. AGB
Yesterday, the Supreme Court struck down part (but not all) of the Arizona immigration law. That gobbled up a lot of the news cycle.
Buried beneath that story was another dramatic decision. The Supreme Court also issued its opinion in Miller v. Alabama, ruling that it is unconstitutional for a state to use a mandatory sentencing scheme which mandates life without parole sentences where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the crime. This affects a lot of cases– 29 states and the federal government have such sentencing schemes.
Unfortunately, initial reports (over the AP wire and elsewhere) said that all JLWOP sentences were struck down, but that is not true. Sentences where the judge or jury had other options available (such as life with parole) seem to survive this decision.
My commentary on this important can be found over at the motherlode of sentencing info, Doug Berman’s Sentencing Law and Policy blog.
Bryan Stephenson of the Equal Justice Institute summed up today’s ruling by the Supreme Court nicely,
“The court took a significant step forward by recognizing the fundamental unfairness of mandatory death-in-prison sentences that don’t allow sentencers to consider the unique status of children and their potential for change. The court has recognized that children need additional attention and protection in the criminal justice system.”
The picture of a twelve year-old picking up a firearm and ending the life of another human being is deeply distressing. From the perspective of the victim and his or her family, the age of the finger on the trigger doesn’t matter. But a just society must take the emotional and moral maturity of the guilty party into consideration. Sentencing such a person to sixty or seventy years in prison without possibility of parole assumes an adult ability to weigh moral options. Children “know right from wrong,” in the sense that they are aware that murder is generally frowned upon; but they cannot fully appreciate the consequences or moral implications of their actions. Their minds are still in the process of formation and this impacts the emotional, moral and intellectual aspects of intelligence. To hold a maturing-but-not-yet-mature child to an adult standard of accountability is to pretend that children are adults. They’re not.
By Robert Barnes, Monday, June 25, 11:47 AMThe Washington Post
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, said the decision was consistent with the court’s past findings that children lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility; that they are more vulnerable to outside pressure and that their character is less formed and more open to rehabilitation.
“Our decisions rested not only on common sense — on what ‘any parent knows’ — but on science and social science as well,” Kagan wrote, adding “the mandatory penalty schemes at issue here prevent the sentencer from taking account of these central considerations.”
The decision said judges may still sentence juveniles convicted of murder to a life sentence without possibility of parole, but must take into consideration mitigating circumstances.
The opinion was joined by Kagan’s fellow liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, as well as by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who most often sides with conservatives but has authored the court’s previous opinions about juvenile offenders.
It drew sharp rebukes from the court’s conservatives, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said from the bench that the ruling represented an “elite vision” from the court that it knows better than the states, 29 of whom authorize mandatory sentences for juvenile murders.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a dissent joined by Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, elaborated.
“Determining the appropriate sentence for a teenager convicted of murder presents grave and challenging questions of morality and social policy,” Roberts wrote. “Our role, however, is to apply the law, not to answer such questions.”
He said mandatory life sentences “could not plausibly be described” as unusual when a majority of states endorse them.
In 2005, the court banned the death penalty for juveniles who kill, saying “the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person.”
In 2010, the court continued the trend by saying juveniles whose crimes did not include murder could not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole at some point.
Kennedy wrote both opinions for the divided court.
The cases at the court were brought by lawyers for the Equal Justice Institute in Montgomery, Ala., which had asked the court to ban life sentences for juveniles 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.
Kagan said the ruling does not address that issue; she expected such cases would be rare when judges were free to take a juvenile’s age into account at sentencing.
“The court took a significant step forward by recognizing the fundamental unfairness of mandatory death-in-prison sentences that don’t allow sentencers to consider the unique status of children and their potential for change,” said EJI’s Bryan Stephenson. “The court has recognized that children need additional attention and protection in the criminal justice system.”
There are 2,300 inmates serving life-without-parole sentences for murders committed before they were 18. But only 79 nationwide were 14 or younger at the time of their crimes, and about 90 percent of those are serving mandatory sentences.
The cases before the justices came from two 14-year-olds who were sentenced to life without parole for their roles in separate killings.
Evan Miller, a victim of abuse so severe that, his lawyer said, he had tried to kill himself five times, was convicted along with another juvenile of killing a neighbor, 52-year-old Cole Cannon, and setting afire Cannon’s trailer in Lawrence County, Ala.
Kuntrell Jackson of Blytheville, Ark., was with two other youths who attempted to rob a video store. One of the others used a sawed-off shotgun to kill 28-year-old clerk Laurie Troup.
The two cases are Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.