In
2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Miller v.
Alabama, which involved two 14-year-old boys who were convicted of murder
during an attempted robbery. The state court allowed the juveniles to be tried
as adults. As a result, at 14-years-old, they were sentenced to life imprisonment
with no chance of parole due to mandatory sentencing guidelines, which did not
allow the judge to consider any factors related to the juvenile’s life. In
evaluating the state’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that life without
parole for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and
unusual punishment, when mitigating factors are not considered in the
sentencing. The judge writing for the majority stated:
“Mandatory
life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological
age and its hallmark features – among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and
failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account
the family and home environment that surrounds him and from which he cannot
usually extricate himself no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”
Jurisdictions
have split on whether the Miller rule is required to be applied to those
sentenced to life prior to the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision. As of mid-2014, ten states have
made changes to their criminal justice systems banning mandatory life sentences
for children under the age of 18 regardless of whether they were tried as
juveniles or adults based on the Miller rule. However, other states have
not applied the Miller rule retroactively as there are currently 2,000-2,500
children that are serving life sentences. Some of those currently serving their
sentences were sentenced as young
as 13. Those states that have not implemented the Supreme Court ruling
retroactively have refused for a number
of reasons such as: (1) wanting to show the public that they are still taking
juvenile crimes seriously, (2) preventing repeat offenders from gaining access
to the public after committing violent crimes, and (3) showing the public that
they have the mindset that criminals cannot change.
Although
the transition to abolish life sentences for juveniles has been slow and some
states have been resistant, the Supreme Court has shown that there is hope.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court announced its intentions to hear Montgomery
v. Louisiana, which could clear up any questions surrounding Miller
and whether the Miller rule
should be applied retroactively to all jurisdictions. The juvenile that was
convicted in the Montgomery case is currently serving his life sentence.
He was convicted at age
17 in 1963 of murder and has been incarcerated in a state penitentiary for
more than 50 years. If the court determines that the Miller rule should be
applied retroactively in the Montgomery case, the approximately 2,000
juvenile offenders serving their current life sentences would be resentenced
based on these less rigid standards. If in 2012 the Court found that requiring
children to serve life sentences in prison was considered cruel and unusual
punishment, the constitutionality of the rule has not changed regardless of
whether the juvenile was sentenced prior to 2012 or after.
It
is crucial that the Supreme Court resolve the questions associated with the Miller
decision and explicitly provide state courts the direction on whether to apply
the rule retroactively or not to those juveniles previously sentenced to life.
If the court decides to rule in favor of the applying the rule retroactively,
the criminal justice system will be affected significantly, particularly
administratively. Some states have begun the process of applying the Miller
rule retroactively by starting the re-sentencing hearings, and will be less
affected by the ruling. However, there are approximately 2,500 juveniles in the
remaining states that have not started the process. Practitioners, courts, and
judges in these particular states will have an influx of new sentencing
hearings on their calendars. In addition to the actual hearings, practitioners
representing and prosecuting these former juveniles sentenced to life will be
tasked with the burden of finding additional evidence for the re-sentencing
hearing. The re-sentencing hearing will consider the juvenile’s home life,
mental capacity at the time the murder was committed, among other things in determining
the mitigating factors present for a new sentence; all things that were not
previously considered by the courts in mandatory sentencing. Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike will
have to dig deep into the juvenile’s past to assist in their cases. In addition, prosecutors will have the burden
of contacting victims’ families to receive their input on the new sentences. The
Supreme Court has not set a date for oral arguments, but it is likely they will
be heard later this year as thousands wait to see if they will be resentenced.
By Emma McArthur
Staffer, Criminal Law Practitioner
Photo
by ssalonso via Flickr
No comments:
Post a Comment