March 20, 2012
Seeking policy preferences: no LWOP for younger juves or no mandatory LWOP for all juves?
Today's oral argument in the two big JLWOP cases in the Supreme Court (basics reported here) suggests that some Justices may be drawn to a substantive Eighth Amendment rule precluding any and all very young offenders (say those 14 and under) from ever getting an LWOP sentence, while others may be drawn to a procedural rule precluding a mandatory LWOP sentence for any juvenile.
Putting to one side for now constitutional concerns about the development of Eighth Amendment doctrine for this case and other, I wonder which rule would be preferred simply as a matter of public policy among readers of this blog.
March 20, 2012 at 05:46 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Seeking policy preferences: no LWOP for younger juves or no mandatory LWOP for all juves?:
I think that is not need for MANDATORY LWOP when it comes to children under 18...it should be case by case..
Posted by: Moira | Mar 22, 2012 6:50:30 PM
Yeeesh. LWOP for kids is much akin to throwing any possible potential away later in their life. There are some cases where it would apply, but like the previous poster stated, it really should be on a case by case basis.
Posted by: Website | Aug 22, 2012 1:39:26 PM