No More Mandatory Life Without Parole for Children June 25, 2012 Jill Good news. Sad that we live in a country that ever thought it was appropriate to mandate that children receive life without parole.
That era is not necessarily over yet. According to the article, the ruling was “just” against mandatory sentencing laws, but judges could still be free to sentence children to life without parole.
It’s still possible for a juvenile to be sentenced to life without parole, it is just unconstitutional for there to be mandatory sentences of life without parole.
I am proud to see that you also understand the ruling Stephen. All these news headlines reading “No more life without parole for juveniles” are friggin ridiculous. SCOTUS never said that, they said “Mandatory” life without parole sentences are unconstitutional. Good job Stephen for being intelligent, nice that there are others out there that can read.
What Stephen/1 said. Although I think there’s hope on that front; page 17 of Kagan’s majority opinion is holding out the possibility that the Court could come back with a categorical bar in a later case. But on its own, this decision is probably a symbolic victory with limited practical significance.
Um, seriously? Jill already clarified in this post’s title that mandatory sentencing has been declared unconstitutional, and has then written: Sad that we live in a country that ever thought it was appropriate to mandate that children receive life without parole. So, Toby (and Stephen…), writing things like I am proud to see that you also understand the ruling Stephen. […] Good job Stephen for being intelligent, nice that there are others out there that can read. are really rather ridiculous. It might make more sense to talk about the actual practise than about the NYT headline. Other than that: Good news, indeed, and I might add that this practise is so ridiculously draconian, I don’t even… 79 people in jail for life for crimes they have committed before they were 14? I am far from suggesting that European justice sytems are better or more just, but for someone who lives in a country where children are legally not criminally liable until the age of 14, I am rather appalled. The decision regarding SB1070, however? Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
accalmie/6: I am far from suggesting that European justice sytems are better or more just Why, exactly? European criminal justice systems may not be just in any absolute sense, but the bar to clear for “more just than the United States” is astoundingly low, as cases like this demonstrate.
Um, seriously? Jill already clarified in this post’s title that mandatory sentencing has been declared unconstitutional, and has then written: When I posted those clarifications were not present.
@Anon 21: Well, as usual, it depends on who you’re talking to. People of colour, “immigrants”/people with certain nationalities, LGTBQ people, people who are not considered able-bodied and basically everyone who differs from the “white, male*, (Western-)European” standard faces the same set of discrimination people face in the US, both legally and judicially, and are treated as less of a human being. You are right that (as far as I know) none of the countries in the European Union have laws that even consider under-aged people to be sentenced to life (let alone without parole) and, obviously, there is no death penalty, but the European state of law seems to be rather idealized. Then again, I am not too familiar with US criminal law, so this might still seem like a picnic.
accalmie/9: The U.S., of course, has all those pathologies around marginalized social groups. And it’s a system in which 95% of criminal cases are plea bargained, such that the vast majority of defendants never get the chance to utilize their procedural rights. And probably worst of all (at least in comparison to Europe), the punishments our system hands out are barbarically harsh by modern standards, and people sentenced to incarceration end up in incredibly dangerous institutions where they’re at high risk of violence from other inmates and prison staff. And we have basically no restrictions on the use of long-term solitary confinement, so people can spend years or decades in social isolation and enforced idleness so severe that it’s practically guaranteed to drive them to suicide and self-harm. So yeah, apart from maybe countries where extrajudicial torture and executions or widespread, or where people can be arrested for explicitly political crimes, the U.S. has probably the most unjust criminal justice system in the world. I’m not saying things are all peaches and cream in Europe, but the U.S. situation is just terrible.
Although some of the cases discussed are clearly not deserving of life without parole, this is just ridiculous: “Even a 17 ½ year-old who sets off a bomb in crowded mall 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.” I took out the part about school shootings because that’s not really comparable to bombing a bunch of people you likely don’t know. Its far more understandable that someone might shoot up a school due to bullying and harassment and also far more likely that said person will not repeat their behavior since that environment doesn’t exist post school years.
Matt/11, could you clarify why you think it’s “ridiculous”? I do think Alito’s example is ridiculous, since that’s the sort of crime that generally only happens in movies. But generally, what’s ridiculous about the idea that juveniles should have a chance (which may be more theoretical than real) to convince a judge that they should be released into society after 30 years rather than being sentenced to die in prison? In that vein, and to tie in with some of the Europe vs. America discussion, note that in some European countries, the maximum sentence for any crime is on the order of two decades, not life imprisonment. I’m not sure that’s right for literally every case, but for the vast majority of even very serious homicide crimes, I have a hard time seeing what interest other than simple vengeance is served by locking a person up for more than 20 years.
I am proud to see that you also understand the ruling Stephen. Yo, why are you proud? Is Stephen your kid or something?
I don’t see why life without parole is ever appropriate, age of offenders is meaningless here. I think you can always come up with extreme cases where life without parole makes sense. What about Norway’s mass murderer? As I understand it, Norway doesn’t have a legal penalty of life without parole, and its a big issue because no one wants that guy out walking around again ever. But I agree that its probably used too much in the US.
I think you can always come up with extreme cases where life without parole makes sense. What about Norway’s mass murderer? As I understand it, Norway doesn’t have a legal penalty of life without parole, and its a big issue because no one wants that guy out walking around again ever. In Australia we have no death penalty, and in my state although the criminal code says life this is always interpreted to be 20 years. Multiple life sentences can be awarded, and it is in the judge’s discretion whether the sentences are served concurrently or consecutively. That said, consecutively served multiple life sentences would be extremely unusual. In the past 20 years there’s been a number of cases where a serious violent offender is about to be released and the state government has scrambled to find a way to keep them in detention. They are commonly accused of violent sexual offences or sexual offences against children, and the first case occurred in an election year, so there’s some problems with trial by media and scaremongering by politicians. The result is that in most states there is some provision for awarding indefinite sentences at the original trial or for orders of continued detention or supervision post release.
It is true that in some cases (such as serial killers), most people would wish for a life sentence. But this is wrong for two reasons: the first one is that, however unlikely this is, the criminal may change, and after several decades in prison, should be given the chance to. The second, and most important reason, is that if you allow life sentences in some cases, it is inevitable that it will be given to someone that doesn’t really deserve it. However carefully you write your law, it is going to happen. The chance of harming an innocent always trumps that of letting a criminal walk free. This is the basis of a fair justice.
I have never been comfortable with the punishment aspect of imprisonment. And I’m skeptical of the marginal deterrent effect of sentences beyond a certain threshold. As such, I don’t think specific numbers measured in years are really appropriate beyond a very loose guideline — the relevant thing should be “do we think it’s reasonably safe to release this guy”. Which means I don’t think I ever support life without possibility of parole for anybody of any age, but I can see my way to indefinite imprisonment at virtually any age for serious enough crimes.
But this is wrong for two reasons: the first one is that, however unlikely this is, the criminal may change, and after several decades in prison, should be given the chance to. No. Some things mean you are done. Forever. You don’t get to make me a victim in order to give someone the chance to prove they’re really over their raping and murdering skinny brunettes phase.
The second, and most important reason, is that if you allow life sentences in some cases, it is inevitable that it will be given to someone that doesn’t really deserve it. However carefully you write your law, it is going to happen. The chance of harming an innocent always trumps that of letting a criminal walk free. This is the basis of a fair justice. That is true for any punishment you could name. It is a strong argument against the death penalty, since in that case there would be no way to change it if new evidence appears and it becomes clear that the sentence was unjust, but I do not think it works in this case.