The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2012 | Page 13

slip
mandatory sentencing scheme precludes any conditions
which might justify a lighter sentence. Justice Kagan
explained it eloquently when she wrote, “every juvenile will
receive the same sentence as every other — the 17-year-old
and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the
child from a stable household and the child from a chaotic
and abusive one.” Jackson, the accomplice to a murder,
does not necessarily deserve the same sentence as the
man who actually pulled the trigger. Miller, only fourteen at
the time and severely affected by drugs given to him by the
victim, may not deserve the same sentence as a man who
commits a pre-meditated murder. This concept is supported
by a concurring opinion filed by Justice Breyer who wrote
that the Eighth Amendment should also protect juveniles
who take part in crimes that led to killing but did not intend
to kill from life sentences without parole.
Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion which
emphasizes the difference between murder charges and
non-homicide charges. In 2010, the Supreme Court held in
Graham v. Florida that the sentence of life without parole
was “cruel and unusual punishment” for minors charged with
non-homicide crimes. The court ruled then based on the
“precept … that punishment for crime should be graduated
and proportioned to [the] offense”, as was previously stated
in Weems v. United States6 . Chief Justice Roberts, however,
believes that murder, regardless of the circumstance, is
deserving of life without parole and that such a sentence
should be mandatory for any American. He places the crime
of murder at a level that is almost beyond justification. He
wrote that, under the new ruling, “Even a 17 ½-year-old who
sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen
students and teachers is a ‘child’ and must be given a chance
to persuade a judge to permit his release into society.” It is
his belief that this decision will negatively affect society for
years to come.
While I do agree that murder deserves to be judged in a
different light from other charges, I ultimately side with the
majority opinion: a sentencing scheme which makes lifewithout-parole mandatory for minors who are convicted of
murder is cruel and unusual punishment. Not all murder
cases are the same; in many cases, there are circumstances
which may have been beyond the control of the person
being accused. This is especially true for minors who have
even less control over the situations that they may find
themselves in than adults. Miller’s crime was brutal and
deserving of a harsh sentence; he beat a man with a bat
and left him to die in a house that he [Miller] had set on fire.
However, the approach taken in deciding on an appropriate
sentence for Miller cannot be taken in sentencing every
minor charged with the same type of crime; the case of
Kuntrell Jackson is one such example. Judicial discretion
must be used in the examination of every possible external
circumstance that may have placed the minor in question
in the position to be charged with the crime. Past Supreme
Court decisions have set a precedent that asks that the court
The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association

consider the accused’s age when deciding to what extent
the responsibility (and thus the punishment) falls on his/
her shoulders. I do believe that the ability of our judges to
logically analyze a crime as well as the character and intent
of the person charged with committing it will put Chief Justice
Roberts’ fears to rest.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v Alabama focused
on the second question presented by the defense of Evan
Miller: “2. Does such a sentence violate the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments when it is imposed upon a 14-yearold child as a result of a mandatory sentencing scheme
that categorically precludes consideration of the offender’s
young age or any other mitigating circumstances?” The
answer was a resounding yes: a sentencing scheme that
makes life-without-parole mandatory for youths charged
with murder is unconstitutional and in violation of the “cruel
and unusual punishment” clause. Although I agree with the
minority opinion that “Death is different”, I believe that judicial
discretion should be exercised when deciding the fate of a
minor charged with murder; to do otherwise would be to
ignore the rights of the accused granted by the Constitution
of the United States. The sentencing scheme previously in
place was devoid of proportionality and was harmful to the
credibility of the world’s fairest legal system. ■

No. 10–9646
No. 10–9647
3
Prescription anxiety medicine
4
No. 03-633
5