MONDAY’S 5-4 Supreme Court decision disallowing mandatory life sentences without parole for defendants convicted of murder perpetrated before their 18th birthday moves us significantly closer to a rational system for punishing young offenders. It provides hope for hundreds of prisoners around the country, including more than 60 in Massachusetts, who until now saw no chance of ever walking free.
Massachusetts is one of 28 states affected by the court’s decision in not considering mitigating factors and special circumstances that might warrant parole eligibility. Belying the undeserved reputation for being soft on crime, the Commonwealth arguably has the nation’s stiffest sanction for juvenile murder. Anyone as young as 14 charged with murder is automatically tried as an adult, and if convicted of first-degree murder, receives a mandatory sentence of life without parole.
Comments
In the case of murder, if they're old enough to do the crime. they're old enough to do the time.
What? The most "sensible thing" is to give parole to murderers? The sensible thing is to put them down, fast. (of course, if the juvi kills a dog - off with their head - as the libs have such a twisted set of values...)
I missed the part about where life without parole was prohibited for suitably heinous crimes.
Its always disheartening when an article that is ostensibly about a Supreme Court decision neglects to even mention the Constitution once. The issue is not whether or not we should send juveniles to jail for life- the question is whether the Constitution prohibits it, if it falls under the 8th Amendment definition of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". If its such an obvious answer one way or another, why can't juries or state legislators change the law themselves?