Now life sentences for non-homicides committed by under 18s are unconstitutional.

Edit as I read through the opinion: I am amazed at how "national consensus" means "whatever supports our argument." The government pointed out that 37 states allow LWOP for juvenile non-homicides, 7 permit it for juvenile homicides, and only 6 ban it entirely. But Kennedy was very quick to point out that, well, they may allow it on paper, but only 12 jurisdictions actually have anyone serving such a sentence. Shouldn't that mean that the states are actually doing a good job of determining punishments that are "graduated and proportioned to the offense"?

Also, I still despise the argument that just because a person doesn't kill means that they are "categorically less deserving" of harsh punishment. Give me a quick bullet to the head any day over a prolonged rape and torture that leaves me a vegetable, thanks. Isn't part of proportioning the punishment to the offense considering what damage was actually done?

Edit once more: I think that CJ Roberts's solution is the best. It lets the courts consider the defendant's age and the Court's previous conclusion that juveniles are less culpable as a factor in determining whether LWOP is cruel and unusual. There may well be cases where it is, but that solution at least gives courts the option where a 17-year-old commits a violent, depraved, and thoroughly planned non-homicide.

[This message was edited by AndreaW on 05-17-10 at .]

[This message was edited by AndreaW on 05-17-10 at .]

Maybe I'm just tired, but I am confused. The Court sounds like it is saying that sentences must be governed by the facts of the case, and the punishment range for those facts must be proportionate. If a punishment falls within the lawful range of punishment for the type of crime, but is "excessive" for the facts of a particular crime, isn't the Court substituting its judgment for the factfinder? And isn't the Court effectively setting sentencing guidelines with the benefit of their 20/20 hindsight? And is the Court ever going to say that a sentence isn't harsh enough?

+1, Andrea.

"It follows that, when compared to an adult murderer, ajuvenile offender who did not kill or intend to kill has a twice diminished moral culpability. The age of the of-fender and the nature of the crime each bear on the analysis."

And, once again, SCOTUS injects international law into the mix. This type of review is a one-way street. Apparently, you can only get softer with the 8th Amendment.

They also ruled today that sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences but are deemed to be a continuing danger may continue to be held on a federal civil commitment.

Opinion

I wonder if that's laying the ground work for more law on Congress's "necessary and proper" clause.

Can you say "health care"?

The "Kennedy Rule", to wit:

"If the Court has declared anything unconstitutional, and the vote was 5-4, and the fifth vote was provided by Kennedy, then the case was wrongly decided and the majority opinion was incoherently reasoned."

(This was formerly known as the "O'Connor Rule" according to its originator).

[Copied from a post on Kennedy v. Louisiana]

What I find as disturbing as the ruling is the fact the Court tripped over themselves trying to classify the defendant as a non-violent offender. One of the defendant's victims was bashed upside the head with a metal bar twice, another had a gun pointed at his chest for about 30 minutes. The Court strives to paint this defendant in a light not even Rembrandt dare attempt. Isn't the normal excuse for almost every murder/robbery "I never meant for it to happen." or "Everything happened so fast. Things just kind of got out of hand."?

Reading the comments of the trial court, I beleive the trial judge had a very firm grasp of the situation at hand when he commented ". . . the only thing I can do now is to try and protect the community from your actions.� How did the Supreme Court factor public safety into their consideration of this case?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
And, once again, SCOTUS injects international law into the mix.

---

Actually, they injected only a certain type of international law. For an interesting take on that type of jurisprudential cherry-picking, read on:

Did Justice Kennedy consult the Sharia?

Under Graham, Florida now has to reduce the sentences of some heinous offenders. I guess this is what the majority was thinking when it stated that juvenile offenders must be afforded "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-05-18/story/least-6-duval-inmates-qualify-resentencing-under-supreme-court-ruling

And now an editorial in the LA Times takes the position that LWOP should not even be assessed juveniles who murder:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-juveniles-20100519,0,5172858.story

It's really alright though because, under "the evolving standards of decency" standard, that can readily be arranged.

[For the uninitiated, I should point out that Texas law does not even permit LWOP for juvenile capital murderers. TPC sec. 12.31(a)(1)].

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 05-20-10 at .]

Interesting you bring up California. They only have two juveniles who will be resentenced under Graham. There was a third non-homicide juvenile who was originally sentenced to LWOP, but after an appellate reversal, he was resentenced in October to a sentence that meets the new rules.

186 years.

I'm sure he feels much better.

That falls under one of appellate advocacy's first principles: as a defendant,"be careful what you ask for." Perhaps Florida can exercise grace in a similar fashion!

OK - the 186 years REALLY made my day. It appears that there are certainly many opportunities for states to legislate punishment that will not violate the "rule" established by the Supreme Court. Legislation may include minimum requirements regarding the length of sentence served before parole eligibility (like 3g offenses, for example) - maybe even a requirement that 90% of the sentence be served before parole eligibility. Another possibility would be to require that juveniles considered for parole would have to receive a unanimous vote in favor of parole. While the court's decision appears to make a major change in the law, it may be that with time we realize that the practical effects are no so far reaching.

And that is why it wasn't such a big deal for Texas to switch LWOP to life (with a minimum of 40 years before parole eligibility) for juveniles. For years, the 40-year minimum was satisfactory for application to adults. And, by the way, not one defendant has yet to serve out that 40-year minimum and reach parole eligibility, so this is all a theoretical application of penal law.

Few will live to see it applied. Even fewer will receive it. Inevitably, though, someone will get it and kill again. At that point, perhaps, SCOTUS will have someone with law enforcement experience on it.

Oops.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/05/solicitor-general-revises-data-on-federal-juvenile-sentences.html

Didn't something like this happen when Justice Kennedy outlawed the DP for juveniles, too? You'd think he'd learn his lesson.

It is a disturbing adjunct to the nebulous "evolving standards of decency" analysis.