#millervalabama

According to the ruling, children under 18 may still be sentenced to life without parole; however, a judge must now determine sentencing on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration “…the characteristics of a defendant and details of his offense before sentencing,” as stated by Justice Kagan. In Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, the perpetrators were both 14 when convicted of murder and given automatic life sentences. Their individual cases have been sent back to lower state courts to be revisited considering this new ruling. Theoretically, though, their sentences could remain unchanged.

The Roze Among the Thorns: This decision can be viewed as a win for both those who support and oppose life sentencing of juveniles. For supporters, juveniles can still be sentenced to life without parole. On the other hand, the opposition can take comfort in knowing that this sentencing will no longer be automatic but determined on an individual basis.

Yet, I’d argue that this decision did not go far enough. Our prison system theoretically functions as a deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation mechanism. However, deterrence and rehabilitation are lost when children are locked up for life without chance of reintegration; they will never again need to be dissuaded from certain behaviors or be rehabilitated for previous crimes if they will never reenter society. Furthermore, sentencing children to life in prison seems an unjust punishment as their crimes would have been committed before their brains had fully developed. (According to the National Institute on Health, brain development is complete around age 25.) If the Court is going to recognize the juvenile death penalty as unconstitutional, life without parole should also be recognized as such.