The Supreme Court on Monday appeared split along familiar ideological lines over whether sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a nonhomicide violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Details.

I smell those "evolving standards of decency" in the air again. This should be a non-issue, but these days, the 8th Amendment appears to be morphing into a consensus of personal preferences.

No mention from New York newspapers that Texas is relatively progressive in this area, providing for life with parole even in the case of a capital murder by a juvenile.

The important point to make, however, is that the decision should be a Legislative, not a Judicial, decision. The notion of removing from public debate how a democratic body should set punishments for crimes is absurd, particularly if substantial number of jurisdictions have chosen to reflect their community values by imposing life without parole.

I'm not personally a big fan of life without parole. But, I am a big fan of allowing the public, through its representative, to express their preference in the law.

Anarchy! Bigotry! Unpopularity! How dare anyone think that a mere democratic institution like a legislature could do a better job of determining appropriate punishments when compared to an academically oriented, scientific sentencing commission. Don't you know that democracy only matters when the New York Times says it matters?

Almost a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment - but only for crimes that did not involve killings. The decision affected around 130 prisoners convicted of crimes like rape, armed robbery and kidnapping.

Now the inevitable follow-up cases have started to arrive at the Supreme Court. Last month, lawyers for two other prisoners who were 14 when they were involved in murders filed the first petitions urging the justices to extend last year's decision, Graham v. Florida, to all 13- and 14-year-old offenders.

Details.

Reputable developmental and educational psychiatrists and psychologists will tell you that adolescence really doesn't end for males until, perhaps, as late as the mid-twenties in life. Do we, then make 18 year olds ineligible for military service, keep them from contracting, etc? And why do we let them vote? Do we raise the minimum age for males to 21? How about keeping them in juvenile court until 21? But, that wouldn't be fair to females, who mature faster. Hmmm.
Admittedly, juveniles are less likely to appreciate the consequences of some of their actions, and, of course, not all can be treated harshly for every offense. I have yet, however, to be convinced that a juvenile cannot appreciate the seriousness of his conduct when it comes to rape and armed robbery, much less murder. Is LWOP too harsh for every juvenile? Perhaps. But the idea that a little murderer or rapist is "immature" and needs to be treated with kid gloves is a farce.