SCOTUS Hears Arguments on Constitutionality of Life-without-Parole Sentences for Juveniles
By: Steve Grumm
Coverage from the National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro:
Arguments over the constitutionality of a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juveniles provoked strong comments but no clear consensus at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The Court heard arguments in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, cases in which defendants who were 14 when they committed murder were sentenced, in effect, to die in prison without any chance of release during their lifetimes. The cases presented identical issues but were argued separately, possibly because in the second case, defendant Kuntrell Jackson did not actually kill the victim, a video store clerk, but was an accomplice convicted of felony capital murder in Arkansas.
Bryan Stevenson of the Montgomery, Ala.-based Equal Justice Initiative, argued for both youthful defendants, confidently telling the justices that juveniles have proven “deficits” in judgment and maturity that make life without parole an unconstitutional sentence. He invoked the Court’s precedents in Roper v. Simmons, which banned the death penalty for juveniles, and Graham v. Florida, which barred life without parole for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses.