The Debate over Life Sentences for Juvenile Offenders

05/24/10

On May 17, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that places new limits on prison terms for juvenile offenders. In its 6-3 decision in the case of Graham v. Florida, the Court found that sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without possibility of parole for crimes other than murder violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling struck down laws in Florida and 36 other states that allowed life terms in non-homicide cases for criminals under the age of 18.

The case in question involved Terrance Graham, who was convicted of armed robbery as a teenager in Florida and sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that the life sentence meant that Graham would “die in prison without any meaningful opportunity to obtain release, no matter what he might do to demonstrate that the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character, even if he spends the next half century attempting to atone for his crimes and learn from his mistakes.” Kennedy argued that young offenders at least deserve “some realistic opportunity to obtain release” if they can show that they no longer pose a danger to society.

Kennedy’s opinion was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Paul Stevens. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred that Graham’s sentence was too extreme but did not join the broader ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissent that was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. Thomas argued that Florida and other states should have discretion to decide how harshly to punish juvenile offenders, and declared that the ruling “simply illustrates how far beyond any cognizable constitutional principle the court has reached to ensure its own sense of morality and retributive justice pre-empts that of the people and their representatives.”

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

• Should juvenile offenders be treated differently than adults under the law? Why or why not?
• Do you believe that a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole represents “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment when it is applied to a convicted criminal who is not yet considered an adult under U.S. law? Does your answer change depending on the nature of the offense?
• Such organizations as Human Rights Watch hailed the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida, claiming that it brought the United States into line with international standards of justice relating to juvenile offenders. To what extent should the U.S. legal system reflect international standards or be swayed by world opinion?
• Organizations representing victims of violent crimes and their families criticized the Court’s ruling, claiming that it showed disregard for the rights of crime victims and the safety of law-abiding citizens. How would you balance the rights of crime victims, who are no less traumatized when the criminal is underage, with the human rights of juvenile offenders?

Read the U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN GRAHAM V. FLORIDA

See more News >