Notice to new members intending to register - from January 9th 2012

**pj663** · #1 06-25-2012, 09:43 AM

This morning the us supreme courts rules that it's unconstitutional to sentence juveniles under the age of 18 to life in prison without parole for murder. My question is what about those who committed the crime at 18 yrs of age? Would giving a 18 yr old the death penalty be unconstitutional? Cruel and unusual? I have a pen pal in TX who was only 18 at the time of his crime so this question seems appropriate because he barley turned 18 at the time. Where is the line drawn? Could this be a new argument? Could this question be considered in light of the new law?

BLoved · #2 06-25-2012, 12:28 PM

The line is now being 18 at the time when the crime was committed. This was ruled so by the Supreme Court back in 2005.
Those who were under 18 at the time of the crime for which they were sentenced to death, but not yet executed of course, had their sentence commuted to life in prison.

**pj663** · #3 06-25-2012, 02:01 PM

I understand and know that fact. However in 2005 this new law was not in existance. Therefore I'm asking this question that I stated above. Those who were under 18 at the time of the crime for which they were sentenced to death, but not yet executed of course, had their sentence commuted to life in prison. Now they are saying that lwop is cruel and unusual punishment for murder. So now what? What about the death sentence imposed on a 18 year old? Would LWOP be suffcient? Better yet for all? That is my question. Thank you for your response.

BLoved · #4 06-25-2012, 02:24 PM

Ah, okay, I was mainly focusing on

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj663

... My question is what about those who committed the crime at 18 yrs of age? Would giving a 18 yr old the death penalty be unconstitutional? Cruel and unusual? ...

and thinking of your pen pal.
Once they are 18 they are no longer juveniles. So for your pen pal this will not make a difference I'm afraid.
For those who already had their sentence reduced, I'm not sure if any of them got LWOP. The cases I know of do have a parole eligibility date. But it surely could be interesting for those who don't.

**pj663** · #5 06-25-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLoved

Ah, okay, I was mainly focusing on and thinking of your pen pal.
Once they are 18 they are no longer juveniles. So for your pen pal this will not make a difference I'm afraid.
For those who already had their sentence reduced, I'm not sure if they all had LWOP. But it surely could be interesting for them.

I'm sorry love you are telling me something that I already know. I got that he is not a juvenile. Check. However this is a matter of consitution not only for my pals but in general to all on death row are you following me? If they are now saying since 2005 that LWOP is unconstitutional for a juvenile what about those and not just 18 yr old that are sentence to death? I would think death would be unconstitutional and lwop would be appropriate. Once again thank you I hope to get more replies.

mammastalkin · #6 06-26-2012, 09:10 AM

I hope the court is headed towards a ban of ALL executions-regardless of age. A few lawyers are trying to make the case that one be considered a juvenile until the age of 21. Medically speaking, we know the brain is not fully developed until a person is 21 or so. Is it fair to hold that person to an adult standard? Probably not. But no one has had any success along these lines.

**pj663** · #7 06-26-2012, 03:32 PM

Thank you Penny and Bloved for your response. Laws are changing. In 2005 it was law that the death penalty is cruel and harsh punishment on a minor. LWOP was the worst punishment that a juvenile could get for murder. Now in 2012 it is consider cruel and unusual to punish a juvenile to lwop. On MSNBC last night they mention exactly what I'm trying to say. If the us supreme courts consider LWOP cruel and unusual for a juvenile and if they consider DP and LWOP haveing the same characteristics then why do we still have the Dp in the US? It's a question to think on. And yes I agree I do hope that one day the DP can be abolished altogether for everyone.

nomireatras · #8 06-26-2012, 04:59 PM

I am in south Florida tonight and there was a piece on the local news about this and the news anchor was saying that their legal advisors thought that anyone who had been sentenced as a juvenille with a LWOP sentence would now have that sentence overturned and would be given a new sentencing hearing. This was just someone's opinion but noteworthy nonetheless I think.

mammastalkin · #9 06-27-2012, 07:33 AM

I've had a chance to read the decision and it does not hold that LWOP is unconstitutional for juveniles. Rather it says that mandatory LWOP for juveniles is unconstitutional. The judges will be able to apply whatever sentence he/she deems appropriate. So LWOP may still be given to juveniles.
TX actually banned LWOP for those under 18 several years ago. All those that had their sentence commuted from death because of their age, are eligable for parole in 40 years.

**pj663** · #10 06-27-2012, 08:59 AM

Still Mamma the fact that they have a chance to parole and the fact that it is no longer mandatory is a big change compared to before. If you read further it shows that they have to consider their age family circumstances and background before making that decesion. I read it fully it's still a good start.

314470 · #11 09-10-2012, 03:28 PM

To my understanding, the law was changed because there was empirical evidence to support the idea that the brain of juvenile offenders may not have developed enough to enable them to realize the seriousness of their crime(s). Juveniles who were sentenced to life without parole now have the opportunity to go back before a judge and be sentenced under the new sentencing guidelines, because the old parameters violated their constitutional rights.

Everyone knows that people develop mentally at different rates - one 16 year-old may be able to understand what some 20 year-olds do not. Of course, the law must draw the line at some definitive point in the maturation process. And, as of right now, that age is 18. Whether or not your friend had the cognitive ability to understand his crime is altogether another issue. I assume he was assessed by a psychologist, who determined he was able to comprehend the ramifications of his actions during the event that resulted in his death sentence. His competency would have been something the court took into consideration before he was sentenced.

In my opinion, the ruling made by the supreme court and the issue raised in this thread have nothing to do with each other, when it comes to the law. If an adult, someone above the age of 18, who is not mentally deficient, commits premeditated murder, knows there is a possibility they could be sentenced to death. Under the old system, juveniles who were convicted of the same crime could be sentenced one way only - life without parole, with no concessions given to their developmental state. The differences between the two scenarios are clear. Your friend, according to the law, could have received a life sentence without parole; however, his crimes were so heinous that the judge - who had the option to sentence him differently - agreed with the jury's recommendation for the death penalty. This wasn't at the judges discretion previously, in the case of juveniles; essentially, their hands were tied by the sentencing guidelines.