Supreme Court Judges are torn on the issue of sentencing minors (people under the age of 18) to life without parole. Some argue that life sentencing is almost to the same degree of the Death penalty on minors, which is "cruel and unsual punishment." The two judges who favor life sentencing without the possibility of parole are Justice Alito and Justice Roberts, claiming that "death is different." Thus it cannot be compared to the degree of life sentencing. “The worst case you can possibly imagine, that person must at some point be made eligible for parole, that’s your argument?”argues Alito.
However some judges like Justices Kennedy are opposed to giving minors such a harsh degree of life sentencing. “What is the state’s interest in keeping the defendant in custody for the rest of his life if he has been rehabilitated and is no longer a real danger?” said Justice Kennedy. He believes that minors, who are more susceptible to peer pressure and immature choices, are not the worst offenders.
On the contrary, the court is considering appeals by Joe Harris Sullivan, who was convicted of raping an elderly woman when he was 13, and Terrance Jamar Graham, who was found to have violated his probation by taking part in an armed robbery at the age of 17.
Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, on the case of life sentencing with the possibility of parole, suggest to compromise with the concept of case-by-case basis.
In my perspective, people are different; some criminals may change and some may not. If the death penalty and life sentences were abolished, more criminals would be encouraged to commit more crimes. However, sentencing a minor, a person who has yet to learn from the reality of the world, should not be given life sentences without parole. It's a whole life wasted, just like the concept of the death penalty.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azXT0bzvWHWU&pos=9
No comments:
Post a Comment