In A Landmark Case The Us Supreme Court Finds That Life Sentences For Juvenile Offenders Constitutes
Until June of this year, 28 states mandated a life term for juveniles convicted of homicidein spite of the fact that they were under the age of 18. In a victory for juvenile justice advocates, the Supreme Court in the matter of Miller v. Alabama narrowlystruck downthese states statutes, finding that they violatedthe Eighth Amendment.
In seeking leniency for two 14 year-olds charged with homicide, the justices in this landmark decisionheld that judges must consider the defendants age and the nature of the crime prior to throwing away the key on juvenile offenders.
Unfortunately, the court fell short of banning life sentences outright, and states have exercised their continuing right to determine their sentencing rules by preserving mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders. Pennsylvania (PA), the state with the largest concentration of juvenile lifers, responded to the Courts ruling by setting minimum jail terms for juveniles convicted of homicide in addition to keeping its life without parole sentence.
In support of its ruling, the Court cited cases where teenagers were charged as adults and given life terms without the possibility of parole despite their age and/or involvement in the homicides committed. Justice Kagan, in writing for the majority, argued that the problem with these sentences is that uniform sentences would be imposed upon juveniles, irrespective of the facts of their case or the personal circumstances of each juvenile.
According to criminal justice advocatesandjuvenile lawyers in NJ and PA, which still allow life sentences without parole, the greater New Jersey and New York area could be significantly impacted by this ruling. However, juvenile lawyers have also voiced concerns regarding the ruling as it is unclear whether the Courts decisionwill be applied retroactively.Therefore, a PA or NJ appeals attorney may have little opportunity to take advantage of the serious implications of this ruling.Still, it is estimated that 2,000 juvenile lifers will petition for resentencing hearings as a result of Miller. Many attorneys are apprehensive about the scope and nature of these hearings - will the Court focus on the offenders age and the nature of the crime, as mandated by Miller, or will it grant the offender a completely new trial?
In 2005, the Supreme Court banned the juvenile death penalty in Roper v. Simmons. Two years ago, the Court in Graham v. Florida held that life sentences (for crimes other than murder) were unconstitutional. Who knows what might happen next maybe the U.S. will eventually sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the death penalty and life sentences for juveniles. Still, despite its shortcomings,it is evident that the Court has taken yet another step in the right direction.
LissetteDiaz, a criminallawyer in NJ, praises the ruling for taking into consideration the frailties of and lack of physiological development in youthful offenders. If personal characteristics such as mental capacity are taken into consideration in criminal proceedings, a juveniles inherent incapacity to appreciate risks shouldlikewise be assessed when determining the requisite culpability for a conviction.RehanNazrali, a criminal attorney in NYC, argues that it is the stated purpose of the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, yeta sentence mandating life without parole eliminates the possibility of any meaningful rehabilitation taking place; it is a flaw in the juvenile justice system that was correctly remedied in the Miller case.
In seeking leniency for two 14 year-olds charged with homicide, the justices in this landmark decisionheld that judges must consider the defendants age and the nature of the crime prior to throwing away the key on juvenile offenders.
Unfortunately, the court fell short of banning life sentences outright, and states have exercised their continuing right to determine their sentencing rules by preserving mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders. Pennsylvania (PA), the state with the largest concentration of juvenile lifers, responded to the Courts ruling by setting minimum jail terms for juveniles convicted of homicide in addition to keeping its life without parole sentence.
In support of its ruling, the Court cited cases where teenagers were charged as adults and given life terms without the possibility of parole despite their age and/or involvement in the homicides committed. Justice Kagan, in writing for the majority, argued that the problem with these sentences is that uniform sentences would be imposed upon juveniles, irrespective of the facts of their case or the personal circumstances of each juvenile.
According to criminal justice advocatesandjuvenile lawyers in NJ and PA, which still allow life sentences without parole, the greater New Jersey and New York area could be significantly impacted by this ruling. However, juvenile lawyers have also voiced concerns regarding the ruling as it is unclear whether the Courts decisionwill be applied retroactively.Therefore, a PA or NJ appeals attorney may have little opportunity to take advantage of the serious implications of this ruling.Still, it is estimated that 2,000 juvenile lifers will petition for resentencing hearings as a result of Miller. Many attorneys are apprehensive about the scope and nature of these hearings - will the Court focus on the offenders age and the nature of the crime, as mandated by Miller, or will it grant the offender a completely new trial?
In 2005, the Supreme Court banned the juvenile death penalty in Roper v. Simmons. Two years ago, the Court in Graham v. Florida held that life sentences (for crimes other than murder) were unconstitutional. Who knows what might happen next maybe the U.S. will eventually sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the death penalty and life sentences for juveniles. Still, despite its shortcomings,it is evident that the Court has taken yet another step in the right direction.
LissetteDiaz, a criminallawyer in NJ, praises the ruling for taking into consideration the frailties of and lack of physiological development in youthful offenders. If personal characteristics such as mental capacity are taken into consideration in criminal proceedings, a juveniles inherent incapacity to appreciate risks shouldlikewise be assessed when determining the requisite culpability for a conviction.RehanNazrali, a criminal attorney in NYC, argues that it is the stated purpose of the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, yeta sentence mandating life without parole eliminates the possibility of any meaningful rehabilitation taking place; it is a flaw in the juvenile justice system that was correctly remedied in the Miller case.
Source...