The Supreme Court’s ruling this week prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of murder is a measured and important step in a trend in juvenile justice begun more than two decades ago. The court left open the possibility that minors under age 18 could be sentenced to life without parole — but only if the sentencing judge has made an individualized finding that such a penalty is appropriate, weighing the defendant’s characteristics and the details of the crime.
The 5-to-4 majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the moderate liberals, held that the mandatory punishment is unconstitutional because it fails “to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”
Minors, the court has said in past cases barring the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for those convicted of nonhomicide crimes, have a less developed sense of responsibility and are more vulnerable to peer pressures. Those critical differences mean juveniles should not necessarily get the same harsh punishment as adults, even when they commit horrible crimes.
In the two cases before the court, the defendants were 14 when they committed their crimes. One was present at a robbery in which another person shot and killed a store clerk. The other was convicted of murder when he and another boy set fire to a neighbor’s trailer, killing that person. They asked the justices to ban life without parole for youths 14 and younger — a decisive step the court should have taken.
Alabama and Arkansas, where the murders in the cases took place, contended mandatory life for juveniles cannot be unconstitutional because 28 states and the federal government impose it, which means there is no national consensus against it. But that is not the standard that should be followed in this case, Justice Kagan said, because the court is not banning life without parole, but simply requiring judges to follow a conscientious process in considering whether to impose this punishment.
A point she makes is that legislatures must do the same. Most states authorized this punishment “only through the combination of two independent statutory provisions” — one allowing the transfer of juveniles to adult court, the other setting penalties (including mandatory life without parole) for everyone tried in adult court.
Justice Kagan said that this process, which has led to many young offenders being sent away for life, does not mean “the penalty has been endorsed through deliberate, express, and full legislative consideration.” There is scant proof that lawmakers intended this particular result.
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asserted that Justice Kagan accused legislators of “ignorance” in passing these laws — that they have “accidentally required 2,000 teenagers to spend the rest of their lives in jail.” But Justice Kagan’s persuasive argument is that both judges and legislators must use care in imposing the harshest penalties on juveniles because their age can render a sentence disproportionate and unconstitutional.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on June 27, 2012, on page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Children in Prison for Life. NEW YORK TIMES
In the two cases before the court, the defendants were 14 when they committed their crimes. One was present at a robbery in which another person shot and killed a store clerk. The other was convicted of murder when he and another boy set fire to a neighbor’s trailer, killing that person. They asked the justices to ban life without parole for youths 14 and younger — a decisive step the court should have taken.
Alabama and Arkansas, where the murders in the cases took place, contended mandatory life for juveniles cannot be unconstitutional because 28 states and the federal government impose it, which means there is no national consensus against it. But that is not the standard that should be followed in this case, Justice Kagan said, because the court is not banning life without parole, but simply requiring judges to follow a conscientious process in considering whether to impose this punishment.
A point she makes is that legislatures must do the same. Most states authorized this punishment “only through the combination of two independent statutory provisions” — one allowing the transfer of juveniles to adult court, the other setting penalties (including mandatory life without parole) for everyone tried in adult court.
Justice Kagan said that this process, which has led to many young offenders being sent away for life, does not mean “the penalty has been endorsed through deliberate, express, and full legislative consideration.” There is scant proof that lawmakers intended this particular result.
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asserted that Justice Kagan accused legislators of “ignorance” in passing these laws — that they have “accidentally required 2,000 teenagers to spend the rest of their lives in jail.” But Justice Kagan’s persuasive argument is that both judges and legislators must use care in imposing the harshest penalties on juveniles because their age can render a sentence disproportionate and unconstitutional.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on June 27, 2012, on page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Children in Prison for Life. NEW YORK TIMES
No comments:
Post a Comment