Should juveniles be charged with mandatory life imprisonment without parole?
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled "no".
Now, a six-member majority ruled that previous sentences of juveniles should be reviewed. This means that an estimate of 1,200 to 1,500 inmates charged with mandatory life sentences barring parole for murder will "have a chance to argue that they should be released from prison". It seems the Supreme Court is continuing to move away from trying children and youth as adults, as the article below quotes: “the ruling’s overarching lesson was that “children’s diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change” cast doubt on mandatory sentences, and that this “harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.”.
This is such an interesting debate. I think what is important is to consider what the role of our justice system is meant to be. Yes, punishment should be given to individuals that break the law. This helps deter them from committing future crimes, and can set an example that may make others less likely to commit them as well. But if someone is serving a punishment and have been rehabilitated to the point that they no longer pose as a threat to the greater community, hasn't the justice system done what it intended? Especially for youth, we need to consider (and hope) that it is possible for them to grow into functioning members of society.
ReplyDeleteAlthough previous cases have been closed, the 2012 ruling applies to previous sentences of juveniles because they were facing the same circumstances as juveniles today. The ruling was not made because of cultural factors that did not apply in the past. Youth today are not more likely to be rehabilitated than youth 30 years ago. Therefore, their cases should be eligible for review.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete