Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Treat children differently than adults, U.S. court rules

  • Print

When it comes to matters of sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly, and correctly, made clear that children -- even children who have committed heinous crimes -- must be treated differently from adults. The court has prohibited the death penalty for juveniles and barred sentences of life without parole for juveniles who commit crimes short of murder.

In a 5-to-4 ruling last week, the court wisely extended that principle, invalidating mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of homicide.

Indeed, the court went out of its way to suggest that even if such sentences were imposed on a discretionary basis, rather than automatically, they would require particularly stringent justification under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Given "all that we have said in (earlier cases) and this decision about children's diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, "we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon."

The two cases before the court involved relatively sympathetic defendants, both 14 at the time of the murders. In a case from Arkansas, Kuntrell Jackson and some friends decided to rob a video store; Kuntrell learned en route one of the boys was carrying a shotgun, stayed outside for most of the robbery, but was in the store when another youth shot and killed the clerk. A case from Alabama involved more horrifying facts but more mitigating circumstances: Evan Miller beat a neighbour with a baseball bat and set fire to his trailer after a night of drinking and drug use; the neighbour died of smoke inhalation. Evan's father abused him, and Evan had attempted suicide six times, the first at age five.

Writing the main dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. emphasized the large number of laws invalidated: Twenty-eight states and the federal government impose mandatory life without parole for some juveniles convicted of murder. Foreshadowing his majority opinion in the health-care ruling, the chief justice argued the court was improperly substituting its judgment for that of lawmakers.

These are important points.

The chief distinction, as Justice Kagan noted, involves the mandatory nature of the sentencing, preventing judges or juries from considering the age of the juvenile, the nature of the crime and other relevant circumstances.

Moreover, as Justice Kagan noted, it is not clear the large number of jurisdictions imposing life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide was the product of deliberate choice rather than the confluence of two separate statutes (one letting juveniles be tried as adults, the other imposing mandatory life without parole for homicide).

In the end, the majority has the better argument. Juveniles who commit crimes need to be treated differently because of their lesser culpability and greater capacity for rehabilitation.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition July 10, 2012 A6

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Photo Store Gallery

  • Two baby tigers were unveiled at the Assiniboine Park Zoo this morning, October 3rd, 2011. (TREVOR HAGAN/WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)
  • Winnipeg’s best friend the dragon fly takes a break at English Gardens in Assiniboine Park Wednesday- A dragon fly can eat  food equal to its own weight in 30 minutes-Standup photo- June 13, 2012   (JOE BRYKSA / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)

View More Gallery Photos

Poll

Do you agree with the suspensions levied against three bantam hockey players for abusing game officials?

View Results

View Related Story

Ads by Google