Miller v. Alabamans, Research Paper Example

Miller v. Alabamans was a case handled in Supreme Court in 2003 after an incident between Cole Cannon and Evan Miller occurred. It was a summer night when Miller 14-year old and his friends realized that Cole Cannon who is their neighbor had passed put in his trailer. Miller decided to pull out $300 out of Cannon’s wallet and in the process, Cannon regained consciousness. Serious fighting ensued between Cannon and the two boys, where Miller used a baseball bat and both of his fists to attack Cannon. The boys whom they covered him using a bed sheet and started cleaning up the blood on the trailer-overwhelmed cannon. To conceal the evidence in the crime scene, the two boys decided to set the trailer on a blaze. The flames in Cannons mobile home attracted the police, and he was found alive.

In the Supreme Court, Miller was found guilty and charged of capital murder where he was given life without parole sentence. Miller made several series of appeals, which were denied on the state level (Carmichael 2011, p. 116). In November 2011, the case was granted a review after a counsel hired by Miller filed writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The high court made an official rule on June 2012 that life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted were unconstitutional. The rule does not prevent the judges from sentencing juveniles to life without parole. This is if the mitigating factors are considered in the process of administering charges on the juveniles. The rule was to be applied on all offenders  under  18 years.

Miller v. Alabamans is the latest case that represents a series of recent decisions made by the Supreme Court declaring the penalties on the juvenile offenders as unconstitutional. This is under the Eighth Amendment that prohibited unusual and cruel punishments on the juveniles. The Supreme Court began its decision on the case of Roper v. Simmons where all non-homicide life sentences on youth offenses were prohibited (McGinnis 2014, p. 218). The second case where decision was made in the Supreme Court was that of Graham v. Florida where death penalties for juvenile offenders were eliminated. The case of Miller took the next step since the case of Roper had forbidden life without parole for juveniles’ conviction of all the offenses including murder.

The impact of Miller’s ruling immediate and it changed the stand of 29 states. The states saw that their mandatory sentence statutes had been invalidated, and it would not work anymore. The states had a difficult problem to tackle since there were many juvenile offenders who were given life sentences without considering the possibility of parole. As a result, three states; Delaware, Wyoming, and California passed legislation that immediately eliminated life without parole sentences on the juveniles. Advancement on legislation was made to eliminate juvenile LWOP in Connecticut, but it was not made law (Ruddell & Gileno 2013, p. 241). After Miller’s ruling, seven states continue maintaining LWOP as a penalty. The penalty was used in these states, but more restrictions were initiated on the use of the LWOP as a punishment imposed on juvenile offenders. In both North Carolina and Pennsylvania, juveniles who are convicted of second-degree murder cases are no longer punished with LWOP sentences. In Louisiana, Utah, Arkansas, and Nebraska have all reviewed their state laws to allow juveniles were having homicide offences to access parole opportunities. South Dakota has not enacted any rule to allow juvenile lifers automatic opportunities. Instead, changes made on the state laws have made judges have a leeway since they have many options to sentence juveniles having first and second degree homicide convictions. In states like Washington, Missouri, Florida, and Alabama, legislation on mandatory minimum sentence was defeated.

Miller ruling initiated problems in several other states since the legislators were struggling to amend and update their state’s laws. In Iowa, Terry wanted to commute the sentences of the juvenile lifers in the state to 60 years to life led to a case affecting the state in the Supreme Court. Texas State is struggling to amend the legislation in its code to include 17 years old juveniles on those convicted of murder. After a short time, Supreme Court I Minnesota ruled that the ruling in the case of Miller could not apply to juveniles given mandatory LWOP sentences (Van der Laan & Eichelsheim 2013, p. 438).

After one year since the Supreme Court ruling on Miller v. Alabamans case, justice advocates and experts believed that the case had set the background for more progressive amendments on state juvenile laws. Jody Lavy argued that what Miller did should be treated differently since the kids cannot be compared with adults. Jody was the national coordinator and director of a campaign advocating fair sentencing of the children and youths. He supported his argument that in the context of criminal law, young people should not be judged and sentenced the same way as adults. In addition, Lavy pointed out that when young people are imprisoned for life, they will develop some factors, which will contribute to their criminal behavior. The factors include maturity and living environments that the youths are exposed to in the prisons. The factors were not considered previously before the youths are sentenced, but they should be implemented to save the juveniles in prison. Lavy said that the ruling should be applied in all states including those having criminality age lower than 18 years. The states should revise their policies to include those with 17 years such that young people can receive equal protections like those that those Miller was fighting for in his case (Shitama 2013, p. 65).

According to Lavy, many of the young offenders punished serving LWOP sentences are in states, which were using invalidated mandatory statutes in their ruling. Lavy believed that the amendments and updates resulting from Miller’s ruling would reduce the number of people receiving LWOP sentences. This is because the judges will have permissions or capabilities to impose other sentences on the juveniles. According to Liz Ryan, who is the Chief Executive Officer of campaign for youth justice, Miller v. Alabamans ruling will have serious implications in future on state policy-making. This is in relation to practices of judging juvenile offenders in courtrooms where adults are judged. Liz pointed out that in the case of Miller, it was concluded that kids should not be made eligible for LWOP sentences. According to Liz, kids should not be sent automatically to the adult courtrooms since they will be judged as adults and made eligible for LWOP sentences automatically. Almost every state, to some extent allows criminal prosecution of juvenile offenders, in the same way, as adults are prosecuted. Traditionally, in some states kids are tried in the adult criminal courts as per the motion of the judge. In addition, many states consider what the juvenile is charged with and age before being sent to the adult criminal court. The ruling of Miller v. Alabamans will not change the states laws in relation to criminal prosecution of juveniles, but Supreme Court should intervene and influence the states to amend their policies (Morales 2013, p. 92).

In conclusion, there are direct effects on cases, which involve kids and should be re-examined as per the case of Miller. In this case, many states are raising questions as to why the kids are tried in the adults’ criminal courts. In the courts, there are considerations, which should be put in place before making decision to sentence the juvenile. The case of Miller will act as the precursor since many states will initiate reforms on juvenile justice and punishment. From the ruling of Miller and other rulings made by the Supreme Court, juveniles should be tried differently from the adults. Their offenses should not be compared to those of adults such that they will receive fair judgments in the courts. Courts for the juveniles should be set aside, and the laws governing their offenses should be different from those of the adults.

When a juvenile is punished using LWOP, they will be exposed to a different environments in the prison, and this will stimulate the development of criminal behavior at an early age changing the life of the juvenile. In the prison, the juvenile will interact with different criminal offenders, which expose them to bad behaviors. Rehabilitation centers should be set for the juvenile where their behaviors will be rectified and released after being examined that they have changed. The states should be should amend their laws such they can accommodate the juveniles in a friendly way that will not harass them, but to rectify their behaviors at an early stage. Juveniles should be tried in the courts by considering their age. For example in the of Miller, he will not be tried in the same manner that a 17 year juvenile is tried. The younger needs to be brought up through counseling for them to understand the laws governing their live and offenses that they can commit. This will make them understand the consequences that they will face in case they commit different crimes (Singer 2011, p. 970). After knowing the consequences, they will be vigilant and careful not to commit any crime in their day-today activities.

Another measure to take on the youths is in the community level. Parents should be close to the juveniles by correcting them at early stages before reaching a point that they are held liable by a court of law. This is because the parent is the immediate person with the kids, and they should make sure that they grow up having presentable behavior in the society. The case of Miller is of great importance to other juveniles because the laws governing them were amended in many states, and the use of LWOP was rejected.

References

Morales, F. (2013). To what degree does the length of sentence, age of inmate, race and ethnicity and gang membership predict misconduct among juveniles who are tried and sentenced in adult court?.

Singer, S. I. (2011). Sentencing Juveniles to Life in Prison The Reproduction of Juvenile Justice for Young Adolescents Charged With Murder. Crime & Delinquency, 57(6), 969-986.

Ruddell, R., & Gileno, J. (2013). Lifers Admitted as Juveniles in the Canadian Prison Population. Youth Justice, 13(3), 234-248.

McGinnis, M. S. (2014). Sentenced to Die in Prison: Life Without Parole as an Eighth Amendment Violation for All Juveniles and Especially Those Who Have Not Killed. Hastings Race & Poverty LJ, 11, 201-223.

Van der Laan, A., & Eichelsheim, V. (2013). Juvenile adaptation to imprisonment: Feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 10(4), 424-443.

Shitama, M. K. (2013). Bringing Our Children Back from the Land of Nod: Why the Eighth Amendment Forbids Condemning Juveniles to Die in Prison for Accessorial Felony Murder. Fla. L. Rev., 65, 813.

Carmichael, J. T. (2011). Punishing Juvenile Offenders as Adults: An Analysis of the Social and Political Determinants of Juvenile Prison Admissions across the United States. Sociological Focus, 44(2), 102-123.