As is typical for conservatives, Jacoby thinks government can't do do anything right except incarcerate and execute.

Leave it to Jeff to pick the instance which hangs on the border line to make his case. How about you pick the case with a 13 year old and then make the argument. The problem which the Court does not speak to but instinctively recognizes is that society does not consider a minor "mature" enough to drink, to vote, to enter into a contract, to do any number of things that an adult is allowed to do. Why not, because society views them as being too emotionally immature to make certain decisions. Now of course Jeff wants to say when they commit a heinous crime they were emotionally stable. I realize when someone is murdered someone else is emotionally thrown into turmoil. I know that I would want to kill the person myself never mind send them to jail for life. I can't do that and know it because I'm an adult, perhaps Jeff should also start thinking like an adult. Surprisingly enough the Court did.

Glad that Jacoby mentioned the fact that states can still hand-down life with no parole to juvenile offenders. I don't buy the slippery-slope argument that the SCOTUS will at some point forbid true life sentences. There's no indication of it except in JJ's fear-pickled imagination.

"...marks the third time...the Supreme Court has...rationalize[d] a new constitutional barrier to punishing minors convicted of terrible crimes." / / What are you seeking, punishment or vengence? Nothing in the ruling says you can't sentence a minor to life in prison, it just prevents a jury from ignoring the possibility of rehabilitation. / / Sometimes people do change, and while we as individuals may wish to seek vengence, the law should persue justice. / / Citing egregeious examples inflames the issue, but the bottom line is: none of us in middle age would choose to be judged based on choices, or moreover impulsive acts, from our teenage years. / / Should everyone go free? No, of course not, that's foolish, but to say some never can is just as foolish. / / Too bad Romney is afraid to articulate a position, but then I am not surprised.

Anyone who has worked with teens knows the Supreme Court made the right decision. Their brains are not fully developed. There is research from Harvard to support this. Prior to teaching, I believed in "prison for life" when it came to serious crime like murder. My first month teaching high school I had 6 foot, 250lb football player, coming up in my face because I didn't put a "sticker" on his envelope. "I was good today! How come you didn't give me a sticker?" Two senior girls went and complained to "student support" because they didn't get their sticker because they were talking! She told them to go to the dollar store and buy a roll of stickers. "It's not the same," they argued with her. One of these girls went on to be class valedictorian, and went to Bryn Mawr on a full merit scholarship! There was the student who pushed someone off a bike and tried to ride away with it, in front of a police officer! Another student used a gun and robbed a store. He got a jacket full of change and that's how he was caught, coins kept falling out of his jacket as he ran up the street and the police followed the trail. He was nineteen and tried as an adult. There should be severe logical consequences for murder and serious crime; I don't think these teens should be automatically released when they reach 18, 21, or 25 year old. They should serve a long undetermined time to think about what they did, but not life without parole; and only after they have totally complied with the institutions rules and mandates, and received the counseling, career training, and outside supports that will prevent any recidivism and keep the rest of society safe.

I don't think he picked cases to inflame the issue. I think that probably all (or pretty close) of the cases of minors given life without parole are heinous...that is why the sentence was so severe. No minors caught stealing bubble gum were sentenced to life without parole.

Jeff, please don't insult our intelligence (child or adult) by suggesting that because a 17-year-old hero would receive the same recognition as an adult, a 17-year-old murderer should receive the same potential penalty as an adult. Where's the logical connection in that? In one case you're talking about heaps of praise in the other years of a life wasted behind bars. Besides questions about the adolescent mind, we should also be asking whether it makes sense to have such a large portion of our population behind bars. According to a 2008 study, the US had 5 percent of the world's population and nearly 25 percent of the world's prisoners. With 2.3 million inmates, the US has the largest prison population; China, at 1.6 million prisoners and four times the population, runs a distant second. Jeff, does this mean we're the safest nation in the world?

Jacoby writes: "As Justice Elena Kagan's majority opinion concedes, legislators in 28 states plus the federal government have enacted laws mandating that penalty. Liberals may disapprove of mandatory "true life," but it plainly isn't unusual. By definition, therefore, it isn't "cruel and unusual."" But, as usual, this is not the point. The Eighth Amendment reads: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This speaks of how usual the punishment is, not the law. That is, Jacoby needs to find out how common it is for children to be sentenced to life sentences, not how common the law permitting (or requiring) them are. If all the states at once passed a law dictating that people convicted of it would be butchered to death in front of their families on TV, that would not make the punishment usual and common.

As usual Jacoby defines English words to suit his purposes. "Unusual" and "cruel" are not definitive words. What they describe is a matter of opinion. Is something unusual even though it's occurred a few times in recent years? Or maybe it's unusual when compared to the previous 100 or 200 years? After all, many juveniles are tried as adults nowadays, but that's a fairly recent phenomenon. Is water-boarding cruel? Again, a matter of opinion. Jacoby, though, thinks he's unequivocally right, and there's no room for argument. In other words, he's his usual arrogant self.