The sentencing of juveniles for heinous crimes is always an area of contention, but recent Supreme Court rulings have answered many of the questions. Now, the High Court must decide whether life without parole is constitutional for minors who committed murder when they were 14 years of age or younger.
This is one of the last questions to be addressed. The Court has already ruled on the application of the death penalty to minors.
In the 1988 case Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Court found that sentencing a person under the age of 16 to death constituted “cruel and unusual punishment,” which the Eighth Amendment bars.
The High Court then extended that provision to include people under the age of 18 in the 2004 case Roper v. Simmons, reversing Stanford v. Kentucky, a 1989 case that held the execution of 16- and 17-year-old minors was constitutional.
Issues regarding the death of minors have been clarified, but a sentencing to life without parole still remains a gray area. The 2010 case Graham v. Florida ruled that sentencing a minor to life without parole was unconstitutional. However, they did not apply this concept to cases that involved murder.
The outcomes of the earlier cases rested on the Eighth Amendment, which states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” These current cases before the Supreme Court are no exception.
A person who has yet to reach his or her 15th birthday is young enough to be a college student’s little brother or sister. Imagine sending a family member to a life sentence in prison.
The question of whether or not they understand their actions and the ramifications that come with them is at the center of this debate. If they cannot weigh the outcome of their actions against the consequences, it is unfair to put the full weight of a punishment on their shoulders.
Fourteen-year-old “children” have much psychological development to undergo before they understand long-term consequences, and 10-year-old children have even further to go. This punishment falls under the definition of “cruel and unusual.”
Make no mistake, these children need to be rehabilitated and recourse needs to be taken for the heinous crimes they committed; however, life in prison does not match up with the Eighth Amendment.
This argument also comes down to the fundamental debate over prisons: Are they used for punishment or rehabilitation? Hopefully the latter is the answer, particularly for people so young.
While financial matters and human rights are two different subjects, we must look at the practicality of the situation, and this practicality also says that children need time to develop before facing the harsh consequences the world can deal them.
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
