Topic: Court: No automatic life without parole for kids

[Pandora]

The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted.

Go to the link to find out what these "children" did when they were 14.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional for state laws to require juveniles convicted of murder to be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

The 5-4 decision is in line with others the court has made, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing. Monday's decision left open the possibility that judges could sentence juveniles to life without parole in individual cases of murder, but said state laws cannot automatically impose such a sentence.

... Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

"Even a 17 1/2 year-old who sets off a bomb in crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teachers is a `child' and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society," said Alito, who read his dissent aloud in the courtroom. "Nothing in the Constitution supports this arrogation of legislative authority."

The "progressives" won.  Again. 

They are the reason why we have to goggle our own neighborhoods to see which child-molester is living where.

[IronDioPriest]

I may be splitting hairs trying to find a silver lining (mixed metaphors, I know), but it seems to me without digging too deeply that this decision doesn't prohibit a life-without-parole sentence for a minor - only that a state may not enact a law requiring that sentence. I may be reading it wrong, or the author may be articulating it poorly, but from what I see, this is a blow against a mandatory life-without-parole for juvies, not a prohibition of the practice under all circumstances.

Oh, and "Kuntrell"? Anyone see a problem there?

This kid's problems began on day 1.

[Pandora]

I may be splitting hairs trying to find a silver lining (mixed metaphors, I know), but it seems to me without digging too deeply that this decision doesn't prohibit a life-without-parole sentence for a minor - only that a state may not enact a law requiring that sentence. I may be reading it wrong, or the author may be articulating it poorly, but from what I see, this is a blow against a mandatory life-without-parole for juvies, not a prohibition of the practice under all circumstances.

Oh, and "Kuntrell"? Anyone see a problem there?

This kid's problems began on day 1.

Yes, your analysis is correct, but this is more Federal/Judicial overreach into States' business, in my opinion.  Particularly when the Feds have instituted "mandatory" everythings.

[Glock32]

What about it is unconstitutional? I mean, if they're saying mandatory life sentences for minors are unconstitutional, then it should be mandatory sentences period that are unconstitutional.

[Alphabet Soup]

So I guess the alternative is to render 99-years sentences....without chance of parole naturally. 

[charlesoakwood]

There should be a minimum sentence other than that it should be
a jury that determines the punishment. 
 

[Pandora]

There should be a minimum sentence other than that it should be
a jury that determines the punishment. 
 

Yah?  Like the OJ jury?

[charlesoakwood]

A predetermined sentence appears to me quite
similar to the program of zero tolerance school
systems have adopted.  Errors are made but as
long as we live in a free Republic and go before
a judge and jury it is their decision not some one
size fits all punishment.  Otherwise we should do
away with juries and put all the relevant data into
a computer and let it determine guilt or innocence
and proscribe the punishment.

[Delta Force]

The "progressives" won.  Again.

Juvies can be more dangerous then hardended adult criminals.  They have zero life experiece and believe they are immortal.

Why do Uber Liberals call themselves "Progressives?"  There isn't a damn thing progressive about them.  They are completely REGRESSIVE!

[Libertas]

So I guess the alternative is to render 99-years sentences....without chance of parole naturally. 

 

[ToddF]

18 is a legislative creation, not a constitutional one.

Adulthood used to be 14 or so, back in the framer's time.