Sentencing Structures

As the nation waits for the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), let's take a look at another decision they announced yesterday.  In the consolidated cases of Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, the court ruled that mandatory life sentences for minors convicted of murder were unconstitutional.  Essentially, this means that judges can not be legislatively required to automatically sentence those under the age of 18 to life sentences without the possibility of parole, this being a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Sounds reasonable to me.  Personally, I've never much cared for mandatory sentencing for any type of crime or criminal.  Judges should have discretion to sentence people based on mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances--it's part of the job.  While murder is always a horrible crime, there are clearly differences between degrees of guilt for different participants: If a seventeen-year-old and a fourteen-year-old set out to rob someone, and, during the crime, the seventeen-year-old shoots and kills the robbery victim, both perpetrators may be found guilty of murder, but it seems to me they are not equally culpable or deserving of the same punishment.

The most disturbing aspect of the Supreme Court's decision, though, is what it reveals about the dissenting justices: While we all knew that Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts were on the conservative end of the spectrum, their dissents in this case suggest they may also be insane.  In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “It is a great tragedy when a juvenile commits murder — most of all for the innocent victims. . . . But also for the murderer, whose life has gone so wrong so early. And for society as well, which has lost one or more of its members to deliberate violence, and must harshly punish another.”

Well, yeah. . . . And you do realize you just voted to MANDATE the increased "tragedy," right?

More worrisome still was Justice Alito's dissent:

“Even a 17 ½-year-old who sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teachers is a ‘child’ and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society,” he wrote of the consequences of the majority ruling. “Nothing in the Constitution supports this arrogation of legislative authority.”

Since the Supreme Court's decision does not FORBID life sentences, but merely says that such sentences cannot be mandatory, I failed at first to understand what Alito was getting so incensed about.  Then it hit me: Maybe Samuel Alito--presumably a well-educated, incisive man--doesn't know what "mandatory" means?!?  And he's supposed to make a ruling on a healthcare MANDATE?!?

I fear for the Republic.