High court could halt move toward leniency for kids who kill

Court Watch

The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested it could halt what has been a gradual move toward more leniency for children who are convicted of murder. In cases over more than a decade, the court has concluded that children should be treated differently from adults, in part because of their lack of maturity. But the court, which has become more conservative over the last few years, could decide not to go any further.

The justices on Tuesday were hearing a case about sentencing juveniles to life without parole. The court has previously said that should be rare, and the question before the justices has to do with what courts must do before deciding to impose a life without parole sentence on a juvenile. During arguments, which the justices heard by phone because of the coronavirus pandemic, Justice Samuel Alito suggested the court has gone too far. “What would you say to any members of this court who are concerned that we have now gotten light years away from the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment and who are reluctant to go any further on this travel into space?” Alito asked at one point, referencing the amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch also indicated they take issue with the court’s most recent case about juvenile life sentences. The case the court was hearing Tuesday is the latest in a series of cases going back to 2005, when the court eliminated the death penalty for juveniles. Five years later, the court barred life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, except in cases where a juvenile has killed someone. Then, in 2012, the justices in a 5-4 decision said juveniles who kill can’t automatically be sentenced to life with no chance of parole. A related decision four years later said those sentences should be reserved “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.”

The justices are now being asked whether a juvenile has to be found to be “permanently incorrigible,” incapable of being rehabilitated, before being sentenced to life without parole. But the court has changed significantly in recent years. More conservative justices have replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose votes were key to the 2012 decision.

The specific case before the justices involves Mississippi inmate Brett Jones, who was 15 and living with his grandparents when he fatally stabbed his grandfather. The two had a fight in the home’s kitchen after Bertis Jones found his grandson’s girlfriend in his grandson’s bedroom. Brett Jones, who was using a knife to make a sandwich before the fight, stabbed his grandfather first with that knife and then, when it broke, with a different knife. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Jones, who is now 31, says he is not “permanently incorrigible” and should therefore be eligible for parole. Mississippi says the Eighth Amendment doesn’t require that Jones be found to be permanently incorrigible to receive a life-without-parole sentence, just that Jones’ youth when he committed his crime be considered. The case is Jones v. Mississippi, 18-1259.

Related listings

  • Michigan court blocks 2-week absentee ballot extension

    Michigan court blocks 2-week absentee ballot extension

    Court Watch 10/18/2020

    Absentee ballots must arrive by Election Day to be counted, the Michigan Court of Appeals said Friday, blocking a 14-day extension that had been ordered by a lower court and embraced by key Democratic officials in a battleground state. Any changes mu...

  • Supreme Court to review Arizona ‘ballot harvesting’ law

    Supreme Court to review Arizona ‘ballot harvesting’ law

    Court Watch 10/01/2020

    The Supreme Court said Friday it will review a 2016 Arizona law that bars anyone but a family member or caregiver from returning another person’s early ballot. The law itself, however, remains in effect through the presidential election and unt...

  • Lawyer: Case of Black inmate set to die reveals racial bias

    Lawyer: Case of Black inmate set to die reveals racial bias

    Court Watch 09/23/2020

    The lawyer for the first Black inmate scheduled to die this year as part of the Trump administration’s resumption of federal executions says race played a central role in landing her client on death row for slaying a young white Iowa couple and...

St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer

A National Presence with clients all over the country. For years, The Law Offices of John M. Lynch, LLC, has been committed to providing clients with the attentive service and the strong representation needed to resolve complex criminal defense, personal injury and general litigation issues. And we have achieved and unparalleled level of success. Our St. Louis trial lawyers aggressively defend state and federal cases involving drug crimes, white collar crimes, violent crimes, DWI and other crimes in the St. Louis area and beyond. As our motto states, YOUR SOLUTION BEGINS WITH US. Call us today for your free consulation!”

Any federal crime allegation or arrest can change your life. The consequences for a conviction are severe, including the possibility of fines, property forfeiture, prison time and other punishments. Aggressive representation is needed to defend against charges at the federal level. The Law Offices of John M. Lynch, LLC, offers experienced federal criminal defense for clients in St. Louis, St. Charles and surrounding communities in Missouri, Illinois and the nation. Our law firm has a proven record of success for cases involving serious federal charges.

Business News

New York Adoption Lawyers Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is a law firm dedicated to serving our clients in New York City. >> read
Chicago Work Accident Lawyers at Krol, Bongiorno & Given have been a leader in the field of workers' compensation law. >> read