Miller v. Alabama (2012) Supreme Court Case Essay

IntroductionThe compulsive Court reviewed the constitutionality of questful look sentences without release enforced upon persons get alongd xiv and younger found conscience-smitten of homicide. The tribunal decl ard unconstitutional a compulsory sentence of deportment without parole for clawren. The states render been barred from routinely imposing sentences based on the crime committed. on that point is a fate for individual consideration of the child life circumstance or the suspect status as a child. The court rejected the defined outlaw on life sentences without parole. This is because in some fictitious characters the instances may be uncommon, alone jurors can go on irreparably corrupted children. The Supreme Court declined to finalise the subject whether there is age below which children with life sentences without parole is unconstitutional. oscilloscope of the caseThe judgment of the court is mainly based on integrating of ii cases. In Jackson vs. Hobb s, Jackson was at the age of 14 when he and other two youth went to a bloodline in Arkansas planning to steal from it. In this case, Jackson got charged as an self-aggrandizing and minded(p) a life term with no parole. In milling machine v. atomic number 13, moth miller was a fourteen stratum of age. Jackson and other boy set fire to a trailer where they had purchased drugs. moth miller was convicted of implementation and given a mandatory life sentence with no parole.The finale was reversed by the Supreme Court. The review of the above cases was approved by the Supreme Court presenting the subject of constitutionality of a life sentence without parole for fourteen year olds who committed finish up crimes. The two cases follow two previous cases before the Supreme Court. In the case of Roper v. Simmons, it was held that deceitfulness of closing penalty on defendants below the age of eighteen go against the one- ordinal amendment. In the case of Graham v Florida, it w as held sentencing defendants below the age of eighteen to life without parole violated the eighth amendment. It was held juveniles are less(prenominal) liable in light of changeability, vulnerability and immaturity.Facts of the caseIn each(prenominal) of the cases above, a fourteen year old was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a mandatory life imprisonment with no parole. In the case of Jackson, the petitioner had accompanied two other boys went to a video bloodline to commit robbery. Jackson learned that one of the boys was having a shot gun. He was on the lookout, once he entered the store one of the boys shot the store clerk. Therefore, Jackson was charged by Arkansas as an adult with aggravated robbery and capital felony murder. He was convicted by the jury of both crimes.A statutory sentence of life imprisonment was issued by the court with no parole. Jackson argued life imprisonment without parole for a fourteen year old violated the eighth amendment. In Miller case , after an even of drug use and drinking the petitioner and a friend palpitate Millers neighbor and set fire to his trailer. The neighbor exitd in the process. At first, Miller was charged as a juvenile. The case was removed and moved to an adult court where he was charged with murder in course of arson. Miller was found guilty by the jury and a statutory life sentence without parole was imposed. The court of criminal appeal of atomic number 13 give tongue to that Millers sentence was non harsh compared to his crime. The mandatory nature was allowed under the eighth amendment.TheDecisionThe Supreme Court held that the eighth amendment outlaw sentencing ashes that direct life imprisonment with no parole for juvenile murder offender. The eighth amendment prohibits erratic and cruel punishment and provides assurance of individual proper(ip) not to be put under extreme sanctions. In Roper v. Simons, it was established that the right stems from perception of justice, therefore pu nishment should be proportionate to the offence and the offender. There were two precedents that reflected on fair punishment.There was one that adopted definite ban on sentencing system based on differences in causticity of penalty and culpability of the offenders. That is why in Roper v. Simons, capital punishment for children was prohibited by the eighth amendment. In Graham v. Florida the eighth amendment likewise prohibited life sentence without parole for juvenile found guilty of non-homicide cases. This case further associated life sentence without parole for juvenile to death sentence. This suggested the turn line of precedent that the court requires sentencing system to consider the details of the offence and characteristics of the defendant before sentencing him or her to death.The two line of precedents sink the court to conclude that life sentence without parole for juveniles in fringeon theeighthamendment. The court decision was influenced by Graham and Roper cases that established for sentencing reasons children are contrastive from adults under the constitution. Children lack maturity and have no developed sentiency of responsibility. This leads them to be impulsive and reckless. In Roper it was held children are exposed to international pressure and negative influences from friends. Therefore, they have less control of their environment because the childs nature is not2 well informed. Graham and Roper emphasized distinguishing traits of children enervating justification for inflicting harsh sentences to juveniles even when they commit outrageous crimes.The court held in 5-4 majority that the eighth amendment forbids unusual and cruel punishment. Justice Kagan reversed Alabama and Arkansas Supreme court decisions. It was held under the constitutionally children are assorted from adults when it comes to sentencing. Justice Breyer had a concurring opinion arguing there is adopt for further determination if the offender intended to kill o r killed the dupe during the robbery. Justice Sotomayor supported the argument. However, Justice Roberts had a dissenting opinion. He argued that the court duty is to apply the law accordingly and not answer questions of fond policy and morality. He argued the majority did not prove the punishment to be unusual. In his opinion, he did not find the punishment infringing on the eighth amendment. The dissent was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A, and Clarence Thomas.My Opinion of the CaseI personally think the ruling by the Supreme Court on Miller v. Alabama is a welcome decision. I concur with Justice Kagan that mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile is like a sentence children to die in prison. Mandatory life sentence also infringes on the eighth amendment. It is true youths lack maturity and have no sense of responsibility. They are exposed to outside pressure and negative influences from friends and therefore their reasoning is not the same as adults. In wake of my su pport for Miller v. Alabama decision, I am sensitive to family victims who want retribution. However, I must fictionalise that sentencing juveniles for life is not the way3 to go. There is need to think about this juveniles who have been given life without parole as our children.They need to be given an opportunity to come out and prove themselves as better commonwealth in confederacy. Friend and families of victims would ask me why they deserve a second chance. It is true they may be mourning but no weigh how painful the mourning can be, that cannot change the reality that children are unlike from adults in society. Children have a great potential for growth, understanding and change. Our sentencing system should not be characterized with vengeance. There may be a need recognize the potential for change. The opportunity should be given to juveniles to experience joy, life, and find meaning. The ban on mandatory life sentence without parole go forth ensure juveniles become educ ated, be creative and impact on the society positively.