May 22, 2013
Notable Miller-aftermath news from three states
Coincidentally, I saw these three news stories this morning concerning how three states are dealing (or not dealing) with the Supreme Court's 2012 Miller ruling concerning the sentencing of juvenile murderers:
From Alabama here, "Lawyers look to Alabama Supreme Court on juvenile killer sentences after legislature fails to act"
From Louisiana here, "Juveniles serving life sentences could become parole eligible under bill headed to Louisiana Senate"
From Missouri here, "Missouri sentencing law for juveniles draws criticism"
In addition to urging readers to comment on which of this trio of states seems to be doing better or worse job with Miller management, I wonder if anyone knows of a collection of resources (ideally on-line) with a state-by-state accouting of responses to Miller and/or a defendant-by-defendant review of efforts to obtain resentencing based on Miller.
May 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notable Miller-aftermath news from three states:
One more: Texas' 83rd biennial session will close without a Miller fix, leaving no legal punishment on the books for 17 year olds who commit capital murder for at least two more years unless the Governor heeds prosecutors' calls to call a special session over it.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | May 22, 2013 12:37:18 PM
Guess that means they get to go home and do more during the next two years! What govt fucktards!
Posted by: rodsmith | May 22, 2013 11:39:00 PM
The big problem in the states that are subject to Miller is the issue of who goes first -- the courts or the legislatures.
The courts would rather that the legislature goes first, putting the courts in the position of only needing to decide if the fix applies to people already sentenced to lwop rather than judicially creating a new penalty statute that will apply prospectively (something arguably beyond a court's authority according to some).
The legislatures -- divided between a multitude of competing options (e.g. what procedures to require, what the new mandatory minimum should be) -- would rather that the courts go first allowing the legislatures to know what the current law actually is before deciding what, if any, change is needed.
Of course, it takes time for a case to reach a state supreme court and be decided, and, in some states, the regular legislative session only covers the first part of the year, making it impossible to get clarity from the courts before the end of the session and leaving the legislature deadlocked between competing fixes.
Posted by: tmm | May 23, 2013 3:26:29 PM