You have to scroll down a lot to find Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Miller v. Alabama (which was joined by Scalia), but it’s worth it. The case involved two different murders committed by 14 year olds. Actually, only one of them directly killed anyone. The other kid was guilty of murder because he was implicated in the crime that led to the victim’s death. Both of these kids received life sentences without the possibility of parole. Today, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that those sentences were unconstitutional. The specific problem was that the judges had no discretion. Once convicted, the judges had to impose this harsh sentence. The Court said that each case involving juveniles must be considered individually on its own merits. In other words, a mandatory minimum sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile, may be cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. As a result, states cannot set such harsh mandatory minimum sentences for juveniles. The two kids can still be sentenced to life without parole, but only after a judge looks at their cases again, with the benefit of discretion.
I hope that is clear.
Justice Thomas has a different view. He thinks that the cruel and unusual standard should only apply to the method(s) of punishment. If being locked in a jail cell isn’t cruel or unusual, then no sentence to any amount of jail time can be cruel or unusual. Using his logic, a state legislature could make stealing from the cookie jar a crime punishable by twenty years in prison and that would not be cruel or unusual. In fact, a sentence of life without parole would be perfectly legitimate. He really, truly argues this.
Justice Roberts is hardly any better in his dissent. He simply states that there is nothing unusual about people serving time in prison. Sure, some sentences might be cruel, but unless they are both cruel and unusual, then there is no problem.
Justice Alito thinks the Court has no right to hold our society to a higher level of decency than when we just hung people from public gallows or shot them down in public executions. If we burned witches in Salem, who are we to think we’re so much more enlightened today? The country’s moral fiber has been eroding since Leave It to Beaver was cancelled so, obviously, however we treated child convicts in the 1780’s should be acceptable today.
Isn’t it unusual if a majority of states don’t set life sentences without parole for juveniles?
I think life without parole for anyone is cruel and unusual for anyone of any age; especially in conjunction with solitary confinement (the latter being straight up torture). Yeah yeah, sociopaths/serial killers. W/e. They won’t be let out as they’d need to be reexamined. Plenty of countries do fine without it. And I consider them to be more “enlightened.”
And the fourth dissent was Scalia, who stated that he just wanted the fucking kids off his god damned lawn.
.
Lawrence O’Donnell was right in tonight’s broadcast. Scalia is nuts. 76 and time to retire.
Is this court the worst in our history? Can we expect anything that resembles justice?
Not the worst, not yet. But they’re knocking on Lochner’s door…
Were the juveniles “tried as adults?” That’s a legal practice I’d like to see revisited in this country some day when we’ve all grown up a little.
Personally, I think a lifetime appointment to the court without limit is a cruelty to the entire nation. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age, and being ruled by the elderly is not a happy state.
Shouldn’t these people be subject to review?
I’d like to see a ballot question on retaining each justice.
Thanks for writing about the Supremes, Booman.
If we burned witches in Salem
I agree with everything you’re saying, but nobody got burned in Salem. They hanged the “witches”.
thanks for the metaphor fix, but it works better the way it is. Logic fail is the point.
By this logic ANY mandatory sentence is cruel and unusual, or could be, simply because a judge can apply discretion to determine what is appropriate.
I am OK with that. It also means a judge could impose sentences beyond the norm if it seemed apporiate.
Taking a life or locking one up is not to be done lightly and we should not take people off the hook for taking the full responsibility and consciousness of doing it. It is always a tough call and sometimes it needs tobe done, but don’t put it on moral auto pilot
I think being murdered is cruel and unusual. So it’s “Oh, that’s too bad! Little Jimmy shouldn’t have to pay with his life for shooting that innocent victim. It’s just society!”
I don’t understand how people who are (justifiably) angry at Trayvon Marten’s murder think that if George Zimmerman were a 17-year old bully he should only have to serve five or ten years time then go on with his life.
Every week in Chicago I hear or read about truly innocent children being accidentally shot by vicious gang-bangers who don’t give a damn where their bullets go. The most recent incident was a grandfather and his two grandchildren who were killed by gunfire from a teen gangbanger shooting at some other gangbangers nearby. Most people including those who live in those neighborhoods believe they only deserve a fast bullet to the head, not hand-wringing by suburbanites who have never been shot at. So the Democratic solution is to ban target shooters. First Daley, now Rahm Emanuel.
What caricatures Liberals have become. A movement that came about to improve working conditions, provide safe food, and protect the environment now cedes all that to corporate profits while concerned with the rights of the truly vicious predators to be “rehabilitated”.
This is shaping up to be an astounding week. Yesterday I read Booman defending the Left and today I read Thomas saying something sensible.
What are you babbling about? The case is about mandatory sentencing for juveniles. No one has mentioned “five or ten years” or “rehabilitation”.
Boy, if only you were actually showing some reading comprehension. Nobody said anything about not having life sentences without parole (although some do think that is an inapprorpiate sentence in any circumstance). The point is whether or not it should be an automatic, no discretion allowed, thing. That is what the ruling is about.
I think being murdered is cruel and unusual.
Agreed, so the state shouldn’t be able to murder people.
Clarence comes from a long line of uber punitive sociopaths who believe the answer always is: “throw the book at ’em!” because “this will teach them a lesson” and “scare otherwise law abiding people to never break the law”.
Problem: this was disproved hundreds of years ago when a study found that people watching public hangings (for thiefs) in London were bing accosted by pickpockets.
the uber punitive approach is also in place to support the prison industrial complex. once this got going, you’ll note the number of life without parole sentences, for adults as well as children, went up considerably.
FAIL. look at the $16 Billion California spends per year on their prison system. it’s not sustainable.
“Justice Alito thinks the Court has no right to hold our society to a higher level of decency than when we just hung people from public gallows or shot them down in public executions.”
Interesting. See, I believe that is EXACTLY how we should deal with Samuel Alito.
great title. you know ICAM.
been calling them sociopaths for awhile now. the entire fucking Party.
After yesterday’s outburst, I’m quite taken with the question, “If Limbaugh and Scalia exchanged jobs, would anyone notice?”