casper
11-09-2009, 09:05 PM
Supreme Court considers life in prison for juveniles
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON- U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared reluctant on Monday to make it unconstitutional for any juvenile who commits a crime other than murder to be sentenced to life in prison without possible release.
Instead of adopting such a categorical rule, Chief Justice John Roberts said it would make more sense for the judge to consider the juvenile's age and the proportionality of any sentence to the crime committed.
"It avoids all of the line-drawing problems we've been discussing," Roberts told an attorney who argued that life imprisonment without parole in such cases violated the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The nation's high court heard arguments in two Florida cases, one involving a 13-year-old convicted of raping an elderly woman and the other involving a 17-year-old who took part in an armed home-invasion robbery while on probation for an earlier violent crime.
Both received sentences of life in prison without parole. Their attorneys argued that such a sentence unfairly condemned adolescents to die in prison and rejected any hope that they could change and could be rehabilitated.
An estimated 111 defendants in the United States have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for crimes other than murder committed when they were under age 18. About 70 percent of them are imprisoned in Florida.
The two cases could influence juvenile sentencing trends nationwide in view of get-tough efforts by states in recent years to abolish parole and prosecute juveniles for especially heinous crimes as adults in the regular criminal justice system.
Attorneys for the two Florida defendants cited the Supreme Court's ruling in 2005 that abolished the death penalty for juveniles on the grounds they are less responsible for their crimes than adults due to their emotional immaturity.
Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, like Roberts, appeared skeptical of arguments that a constitutional rule should be adopted for all cases other than murder.
Alito mentioned horrific crimes by juveniles, like raping an 8-year-old girl and burying her alive or raping a woman in front of her 12-year-old son and then forcing the boy to engage in sexual conduct with his mother.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote on the nine-member court closely divided with four conservatives and four liberals, said life without parole may not be a deterrent, but could be viewed as retribution.
"Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope, but an adult does not?" Kennedy asked one of the lawyers for the juveniles.
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to reject the suggestion by Roberts to consider each sentence and crime on a case-by-case basis. "Because of immaturity, you can't really judge a teenager at the point of sentencing," she said.
A ruling is expected before the middle of next year.
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON- U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared reluctant on Monday to make it unconstitutional for any juvenile who commits a crime other than murder to be sentenced to life in prison without possible release.
Instead of adopting such a categorical rule, Chief Justice John Roberts said it would make more sense for the judge to consider the juvenile's age and the proportionality of any sentence to the crime committed.
"It avoids all of the line-drawing problems we've been discussing," Roberts told an attorney who argued that life imprisonment without parole in such cases violated the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The nation's high court heard arguments in two Florida cases, one involving a 13-year-old convicted of raping an elderly woman and the other involving a 17-year-old who took part in an armed home-invasion robbery while on probation for an earlier violent crime.
Both received sentences of life in prison without parole. Their attorneys argued that such a sentence unfairly condemned adolescents to die in prison and rejected any hope that they could change and could be rehabilitated.
An estimated 111 defendants in the United States have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for crimes other than murder committed when they were under age 18. About 70 percent of them are imprisoned in Florida.
The two cases could influence juvenile sentencing trends nationwide in view of get-tough efforts by states in recent years to abolish parole and prosecute juveniles for especially heinous crimes as adults in the regular criminal justice system.
Attorneys for the two Florida defendants cited the Supreme Court's ruling in 2005 that abolished the death penalty for juveniles on the grounds they are less responsible for their crimes than adults due to their emotional immaturity.
Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, like Roberts, appeared skeptical of arguments that a constitutional rule should be adopted for all cases other than murder.
Alito mentioned horrific crimes by juveniles, like raping an 8-year-old girl and burying her alive or raping a woman in front of her 12-year-old son and then forcing the boy to engage in sexual conduct with his mother.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote on the nine-member court closely divided with four conservatives and four liberals, said life without parole may not be a deterrent, but could be viewed as retribution.
"Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope, but an adult does not?" Kennedy asked one of the lawyers for the juveniles.
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to reject the suggestion by Roberts to consider each sentence and crime on a case-by-case basis. "Because of immaturity, you can't really judge a teenager at the point of sentencing," she said.
A ruling is expected before the middle of next year.