Criminal law is not my area, but the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two cases. In one, "a minor was given a life prison sentence for a crime in which the victim was not killed. The Court became aware last October that a case on that issue was on its way — the case of Joe Harris Sullivan, who was given life without parole in Florida after a conviction for sexual battery, a crime committed when he was 13 years old. Before that case was actually filed, however, the case of Terrance Jamar Graham arrived; he was given life without parole in Florida after violating his probation after an earlier guilty plea for armed burglary; he was 17 at the time of the life sentence." The SCOTUS blog has the full rundown.
The Court has already ruled that the death penalty imposed on minors is unconstitutional. Now the question is whether we can constitutionally impose a sentence of life without parole on minors–in two cases that don't involve the loss of life of a victim. What do you think?
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
No, minors should not be sentenced to life without parole.
The two cases you mention are abominations.
The two sentences do seem a bit extreme to me, but I'd not go as far as the Rev. In fact I think the Supreme's position re capital punishment for minors was going too far. It seems to me that if you took a list of guilty verdicts with the FEWEST mitigating and the MOST aggravating factors you'd probably find that a large number of these defendants are minors, and, in the words of Koko, the Lord High Executioner, "Might well be underground … They'd none of them be missed"
I obviously also doubt then that these cases are abominations, but a remand for either a resentencing or at least a very full explanation and listing of aggravating factors might be in order, preferably without a sweeping rule to cover any and all future instances.
Two necessary attributes of justice are proportionality and consistency. The sentences imposed are disproportionate to the harm done. They are also not consistent with sentences for comparable criminal behavior by other offenders.
The cruel and unusual standard is insufficient to analyze evolved expectations for justice.
You may well be right, but I'd rather see the Justices read the briefs before making a decision. What does the state law in question say, how has it been applied in the past, what are the details of the case, and what is the past record of the offender?
They are too exagerated sentences abominations as well. They shouldn't give them a life sentence with no parole before. It's terrible definitely.