The US
Supreme Court, following a ruling that outlawed the execution of juveniles and
life in prison without parole, has recently ruled that it is unconstitutional
to impose mandatory life sentences without parole on juveniles in murder cases.
The Court found that such a ruling constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Interestingly,
the clip (link below) points out that the US is the only country that imposed life in prison
sentences upon children. This ruling could reopen sentencing for approximately
2,000 juveniles. I fully support this ruling: I cannot imagine having the rest
of my life decided upon my actions as a child or teen. While some may fear that
eliminating this mandatory minimum will prevent less of a deterrent for crime,
they should consider the role of judicial discretion in sentencing and of the
parole board in granting parole. This ruling marries the flexibility of
sentencing with the ability of the judge and parole board to use their
discretion to best protect the community. Ultimately, I believe this ruling
will help a vast number of people.
The
Massachusetts Supreme Court took recently US Supreme Court ruling even further,
outlawing life without parole for juveniles. This is the first ruling to find
that life without parole for juveniles based upon the finding that it is
unconstitutional under the state constitution. After 15 years of incarceration,
juveniles must come before parole board, which will decide if the individual
has indeed grown up and been successfully rehabilitated. There is a retroactivity
element, and all persons who were sentenced in this way will be scheduled for
hearings before the parole board. The parole board will take into account the
person’s age when offense was committed and consider the rehabilitation the
individual has made in the time since. 62 old cases will be reviewed under this
new ruling.
Concerning
juveniles convicted of murder, they would receive a parole hearing in a minimum
of 15 years. New legislation clarifies that a Judge may decided the amount of
time in which the defendant is eligible for parole to be a minimum of 15 years
or a maximum of 25 years. Given that judges and parole boards would remain t
have discretion over when parole was available and if parole was to be granted,
I believe wholeheartedly that this is a small step in the right direction. I
find myself morally opposed to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and this new
ruling regarding juvenile justice would allow for the consideration of
mitigating circumstances in sentencing. When considering the age of the
offenders when the crime is committed, mitigating circumstances must be
considered before sending someone to die in prision when they haven’t even
lived a quarter of their life yet. I have complete faith that this ruling will
allow more flexible sentencing for juveniles who do not deserve to die in
prison, while also allowing the discretion of the parole board to protect the
community from those that are unable to be rehabilitated.
For more on this subject, check out:
No comments:
Post a Comment