The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2012

slip Each year, our Summer Law Internship Program Interns are required to write an essay on a current legal topic. This year’s topic was The United States Supreme Court Ruling in Miller v. Alabama, Case No. 10-9646, in which the United States Supreme Court decided today it is unconstitutional for a state to enact a sentencing scheme which mandates life without possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of murder. For more information, please visit http:// www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf. Michael Joseph’s and Andes Marcuse-Gonzalez’s essays were selected as the best out of the 36 submitted. Supreme Court Decision on Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs By Michael Joseph O n March 12, 2012 the United States Supreme Court reviewed companion cases on certiorari for judicial error. The two cases, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, involved fourteen year old males committing murder and sentenced to a mandatory minimum life sentence without possibility of parole. Because of their very individualized situations and recent holdings in the Supreme Court involving juveniles and excessive punishment, the two cases were appealed and debated in Court. After much deliberation, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. This holding did not make life without parole unconstitutional for juvenile offenders, but rather meant that now the sentence is not the mandatory minimum for such crimes committed by juveniles. The Supreme Court cannot eliminate life without parole because of the holding in Roper v. Simmons, which states that “…punishment for a crime should be graduated and proportioned…” to both the offender and the offense. The Supreme Court based its decision on three notions: juveniles have greater reform prospects than adults; juveniles have a lesser culpability and the resemblances between life without parole and the death penalty. Adolescence is a transitional stage of physical and psychological development in a person’s life. During this period, the brain goes through cognitive development which affects a person’s ability to think and reason. Due to this continual metamorphosis of the brain, a juvenile is more susceptible to reform and amend behavior. The United States Supreme Court believes that juveniles do not deserve the harshest forms of punishment because of their lack of maturity and their brain’s inability to control certain irrational behaviors. Justice Kagan also stated that since a child’s character is not as well formed as an adult’s, their traits are less fixed and their actions are less likely to be evidence of irretrievable depravity. In the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court examined the consideration that minors have a lesser culpability due to obvious factors like inexperience, less education and less intelligence. Juveniles have limited control over their environments and are often abused or 10 THE ATLANTA LAWYER August/September 2012 neglected because they cannot legally remove themselves from the supervision of their guardian. Juveniles are very impressionable and subsequently become vulnerable to negative influences and peer pressure. In the case of Jackson v. Hobbs, the defendant had been invited by the much older victim to smoke and drink alcohol in the victim’s home. Teenagers also have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility. Temple University professor, Laurence Steinberg, compares the teenage mind to a car with a good accelerator but a weak brake. With powerful impulses under poor control, they likely result in a “crash.” Steinberg also said, “…when [juveniles are] confronted with emotional or stressful decisions, they are more likely to act impulsively, on instinct, without fully understanding or analyzing the consequences of their actions…” The death penalty and life without parole are two sentencing schemes that share very similar characteristics through the means of how they punish the offender. Both sentences are designed to incapacitate the offender by keeping them locked up to protect society and by deterring the individual and the public from committing the particular crime by attaching severely harsh consequences to the offense. The Supreme Court barred this sentence because of its similarities with the death penalty that these two do not share with any other sentencing scheme. Roper v. Simmons made it unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed by minors. Imprisoning an offender until they die will ultimately impinge the remainder of their life, especially a juvenile since they would spend a greater percentage of their life in prison than an adult. Justice Kagan stated in the Court’s opinion that the penalty when imposed on a teenager, as compared to an older person, is therefore “…the same… in name only.” I agree with the majority opinion of the Court on this case. It is unnecessary, excessive and unconstitutional to require a juvenile to serve a mandatory minimum life sentence without the possibility of parole. If you were to incarcerate a juvenile for the remainder of their life, then the potential that child has would be wasted. No matter how heinous the crime, a child will always have the capacity to change their ways and positively contribute to society. Children are supposed to be The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association

The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2012 | Page 10