United States Supreme Court 6-25-2012
by: Iahmad • June 26, 2012 • no comments
8th Amendment >> Mandatory Life Without Parole For Juveniles is Unconstitutional
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids statutory schemes that require mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. The decision, written by Justice Kagan, relies on a confluence of two sets of precedents. The first line of cases, in particular Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, established that children are different from adults for the purposes of sentencing because of their diminished culpability and heightened capacity to change. While Graham limited the prohibition against life without parole to non-homicidal cases, the Court acknowledged that the characteristics that distinguish youth from adults are not crime-specific.
In addition, the Court also relied on a holding in Graham that life without parole for juveniles was similar to the death penalty. The second line of cases follows that holding to require individualized sentencing when imposing the death penalty. The Court emphasized that individualized sentencing is particularly important for juveniles so that a judge or jury can take into account mitigating factors such as the background and the mental and emotional development of a youthful defendant. Although youth under 18 may still be sentenced to life without possibility of parole, the Court suggested that this will be uncommon. In fact, Chief Justice Robert's dissent indicates that this decision is just a step towards the absolute prohibition of life without parole for all juveniles in all instances.
Oregon law does not impose a mandatory life without parole sentence for homicide. However, the Court's conclusion that individual characteristics must be considered prior to imposing a life sentence without parole on youth is particularly relevant to those youth who are automatically transferred to adult court and faced with mandatory minimums under Measure 11. Because individualized consideration of factors such as the facts and seriousness of the case, a youth's age, maturity, intellectual functioning, prior record and family background, are not crime-specific, there is no reason why they should not be taken into account when youth are charged with all crimes that require automatic transfer and impose a mandatory minimum sentence. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012).
