The initial report from AP this morning said that the Supreme Court had banned life-without-parole for juveniles convicted of murder. That is wrong. The Court actually held in Miller v. Alabama that a mandatory sentencing statute for JLWOP is unconstitutional. In other words, the Court is continuing on the track of applying to life-without-parole for juveniles the same kinds of limitations it has long applied to the death penalty for adults. First they banned the penalty for crimes less than murder. Today, they require that the sentencer have discretion to impose it or not.
<< Least Surprising Headline of the Week | Main | Some Further Thoughts on Miller >>
Woodsonizing JLWOP
Categories:
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Search
Recent Entries
Monthly Archives
- April 2013 (115)
- March 2013 (84)
- February 2013 (79)
- January 2013 (81)
- December 2012 (96)
- November 2012 (65)
- October 2012 (110)
- September 2012 (74)
- August 2012 (95)
- July 2012 (70)
- June 2012 (80)
- May 2012 (86)
- April 2012 (84)
- March 2012 (78)
- February 2012 (58)
- January 2012 (63)
- December 2011 (42)
- November 2011 (73)
- October 2011 (108)
- September 2011 (98)
- August 2011 (95)
- July 2011 (84)
- June 2011 (90)
- May 2011 (125)
- April 2011 (90)
- March 2011 (123)
- February 2011 (96)
- January 2011 (102)
- December 2010 (106)
- November 2010 (88)
- October 2010 (102)
- September 2010 (107)
- August 2010 (83)
- July 2010 (78)
- June 2010 (96)
- May 2010 (102)
- April 2010 (108)
- March 2010 (105)
- February 2010 (100)
- January 2010 (113)
- December 2009 (58)
- November 2009 (72)
- October 2009 (89)
- September 2009 (85)
- August 2009 (62)
- July 2009 (61)
- June 2009 (72)
- May 2009 (65)
- April 2009 (60)
- March 2009 (90)
- February 2009 (56)
- January 2009 (57)
- December 2008 (71)
- November 2008 (62)
- October 2008 (74)
- September 2008 (52)
- August 2008 (33)
- July 2008 (56)
- June 2008 (71)
- May 2008 (54)
- April 2008 (83)
- March 2008 (51)
- February 2008 (40)
- January 2008 (40)
- December 2007 (34)
- November 2007 (41)
- October 2007 (45)
- September 2007 (47)
- August 2007 (42)
- July 2007 (49)
- June 2007 (61)
- May 2007 (55)
- April 2007 (55)
- March 2007 (55)
- February 2007 (57)
- January 2007 (51)
- December 2006 (30)
- November 2006 (46)
- October 2006 (52)
- September 2006 (30)
- August 2006 (44)
- July 2006 (34)
- June 2006 (26)
- May 2006 (14)
- April 2006 (1)
About C & C Blog
About CJLF
Issues
- Academia (22)
- Blog (10)
- Cases (117)
- Civil Suits (21)
- Clemency (6)
- Constitution (27)
- Counsel (83)
- Criminal Procedure (124)
- Death Penalty (1169)
- Drugs (66)
- Evidence (178)
- Federal Courts (78)
- Federalism (1)
- Firearms (10)
- First Amendment (40)
- General (735)
- Habeas Corpus (353)
- Humor (65)
- International (84)
- Judicial Selection (47)
- Juveniles (77)
- Mental State (191)
- News Scan (1526)
- Notorious Cases (157)
- Off Topic (25)
- Policing (4)
- Politics (118)
- Polls (20)
- Prisons (165)
- Probation and Parole (19)
- Public Order (36)
- Rehabilitation (12)
- Search and Seizure (119)
- Sentencing (330)
- Sex offenses (24)
- Social Factors (38)
- State Courts (40)
- Studies (235)
- Terrorism (177)
- U.S. Supreme Court (1057)
- Use of Force (17)
- Victims' Rights (29)
Links
Blogs
SCOTUSblog
Bench Memos (NRO)
The Volokh Conspiracy
Sentencing Law & Policy
How Appealing
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
Homicide Survivors
FedSoc Blog
The Cert Pool
Bench Memos (NRO)
The Volokh Conspiracy
Sentencing Law & Policy
How Appealing
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
Homicide Survivors
FedSoc Blog
The Cert Pool
The problem, of course, is that Apprendi would seem to apply to all the old cases. Thus, as a practical matter, these guys are going to get their shot at parole. And what about states with mandatory parole etc.? Ugh.
What's lost in this is the victims' families. They likely endured court proceedings etc. Now this lawless court decides to upset the apple cart. Words cannot express my contempt for these people. They have violated their oaths and they should endure all the shame that goes with that. A price will be paid for this lawlessness in blood. And it will be some innocent person who bears it. That's an awfully high price to pay for being stylish.
“A price will be paid for this lawlessness in blood. And it will be some innocent person who bears it.” It is important to elaborate upon what this means.
First, since recidivism is inevitable, it will not be a “some innocent person” but many new innocent victims who pay the price for today’s judicial “lawlessness.” They will be subjected to murder, rape, permanent physical injury and lifelong trauma at the hands of the convicted murderers about whom today’s “lawless” justices are so concerned. And, of course, the new victims will not have judges worrying about them; nor will they receive the full panoply of due process trials, multiple appeals and endless habeas proceedings.
Second, because recidivist murders are predictable,* today’s “oath violators” effectively have condemned to death currently unknown and unsuspecting law-abiding victims. Although some on the side of victims disagree with this characterization, I maintain,** when state actors knowingly condemn people to death, that is tantamount to capital punishment. So today, in order to save convicted murderers from life without parole, the Supreme Court has imposed the death penalty upon the innocent.
* http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/11/03/a-death-penalty-red-herring-the-inanity-and-hypocrisy-of-perfection.aspx
** http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/02/the-sinister-secret-of-abolitionists--do-death-penalty-opponents-really-oppose-capital-punishment.aspx