supreme court: life sentences for juveniles

Supreme Court rules out life sentences for juveniles


Posted to: Crime Nation - World News



myvid = "187343";
mypath = "/simpleview";











The Associated Press
May 17, 2010

WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court has ruled that teenagers may not be locked up for life without chance of parole if they haven't killed anyone.
By a 5-4 vote Monday, the court says the Constitution requires that young people serving life sentences must at least be considered for release.
The court ruled in the case of Terrance Graham, who was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. Graham, now 22, is in prison in Florida, which holds more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide.
"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Kennedy and the court's four liberal justices about Graham. But Roberts said he does not believe the ruling should extend to all young offenders who are locked up for crimes other than murder.

I agree with this one because it does not apply to HOMOCIDE.
I think life without parole should be applied to murder as the norm. In some exceptional circumstances I could see cases where a lighter sentence would be appropriate BUT overall the message should be if you commit murder you stay in prison until you die.
If this article is correct I wonder what we are holding people for life for if not murder. I would suspect largely for drug offences.
Supreme court was busy today.

What is the juvenile's sentences adds up to 110 years, which would end up being "life" in prison? What if a juvenile attempts to murder someone in a brutal manner, yet the person miraculously lives? You don't think that juvenile should get life simply because the victim survived?

I suppose the life sentences could be for attempted murder. In that case I could support life without parole. I don't think someone should necessarily get a pass becuase they failed at a crime they tried to commit.
I guess I am surprised that the article said 70% of life sentences in FL are not for murder. I would have guessed most would have been for murder. I know of many cases where people have gotten less than life for a homocide so I am trying wrap my mind around what the people are being held for life for if not murder.
You also bring up an interesting point. If a sentence is so long and parole review so far away then in essence the person has a life sentence even if it is not called life without parole.

...I'm totally against locking people up for drug offenses period...I also believe a lot of those young offenders are probably in for that...I also think if it's homicide it depends on the case,I don't think it always warrants a life sentence especially not if it's a young offender...

I think a lot of those life sentences are based not only on the crime committed, but also the defendants previous record. Remember, no one goes to prison the first time they commit a crime anymore (and often not the second, third, fourth, etc.). This is a local person whose life sentences will be changed by the Supreme Court's decision:

Joe Sullivan was only 13 when he robbed an elderly
woman's house in West Pensacola. He later returned with a knife to rape
her. Circuit Judge Nick
Geeker sentenced the boy to life in prison for the 1989 crimes without
any chance of returning to the outside world. He already had a lengthy
juvenile record. "He
is beyond help," Geeker said at the time.

If I recall correctly, Mr. Sullivan's previous record included other violent crimes.

I think that all this decision does is leave the door open for the consideration of release at a later date. I think this option should be available to defendants that have not committed murder. That does not mean that I think all violent felons will or even should be released at some point. I think that clearly some people are never going to be able to re enter society.
Is Joe Sullivan beyond help at 13? Maybe. I would think it would be appropriate that someone look at it again after some time though. His actual sentence may not be changed. Perhaps a parole board will review his record and current situation and still say... no.
I am against pretty much all mandatory sentencing. I think that real situations are just too complex to blanketly say that they can all be covered by a certain code section.
I would like to see violent offenders get longer sentences and non violent offenders get shorter sentences. I would like to see life be the norm for murder but I could concede that there could be situations where this would not be the most appropriate sentence.
If defendants received longer sentences for their first offence would there be fewer second offences?

Scott wrote: .
If defendants received longer sentences for their first offence would there be fewer second offences?

If defendants were punished appropriately sooner, would there be fewer second offenses? Facing consequences sooner would have more of an impact, IMO.