Jones vs missi - Grade: a PDF

Preview

Summary

Opgaven tager udgangspunkt i et debat indlæg angående en ret sag i det Amerikanske domstol...

Description

Okako Adika Professor Meitl 6/20/2021 JONES V MISSISSIPPI (2021) A fifteen-year-old child, Brett Jones, stabbed his old grandfather to death and was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Circuit Court of Lee County in Mississippi, and the laws there deprived him of parole. This was affirmed by the appellate court but was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court on whether or not the life imprisonment without parole for the juvenile violated the eighth amendment with reference to a Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana. The case was heard by Justice John Roberts, jr, who presided over the case and other judges that consist of Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrette. The petitioner argued that the law recognizes on a scientific, legal and moral basis that children who commit crimes are capable of redemption, which is also supported by the Miller and Montgomery cases based on the petitioner's counsel's analysis of both cases. He related those cases and maintained that the sentencing court ought to have carried out the permanent incorrigibility test, and only when such test has proven Brett Jones to be so, he must be given a parole opportunity. The Mississippi Supreme Court only weighed the aggravators and mitigators of the offence. The respondent counsel, Ms Nobile, argued the constitutionality of the mandatory procedural schemes provided in the cases, which emphasized the necessity of assessing the permanence of the child's incorrigibility. She maintains that such schemes will render youth and what accompanies it irrelevant. She further urged sentencing judges to consider how youth may diminish the penological justification for sentencing to LWOP imprisonment. According to her, it was sufficient that the court acknowledged the fact that the petitioner was a child as a mitigating circumstance; thus, sentencing him to life imprisonment, which fulfilled the eighth amendment. She further adumbrated that the inquiry of permanent incorrigibility or transient immaturity is no different from the sentencing court's discretion of recognizing Jones's youth.

All of the Justices raised issues surrounding the application of the decision in Miller and Montgomery in relation to the issue of permanent incorrigibility. Among them, the most active questionnaires were Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Alito critically inquired about the necessity of carrying out the permanent incorrigibility test from the petitioner's counsel. His question was in reference to the rule laid down in the cited cases decided by the same court. To the respondent counsel, Justice Alito wanted to reaffirm the chances of rehabilitation when he said that there are also chances of rehabilitating an adult, let alone a young child who is in his transient immaturity. Justice Sotomayor questioned the petitioner's challenge of not putting to test the permanence of Jones's incorrigibility. She asked that the court sentenced on the basis of the Miller case and treat it as only one of the many factors determining its decision. She emphasized the precision of the sentencing court's discretion in sentencing Jones to LWOP imprisonment. On the basis of her question to the petitioner, she also asked the respondent if it was sufficient for the sentencing court to flaunt the permanent incorrigibility test if it had already acknowledged the petitioner's youth which was contrary, especially to Montgomery. Based on the oral argument of both counsels, it is in my opinion that the evidence relied upon by the petitioner's counsel would prevail because he seems to employ the decisions in both cases among others to support his case, which the respondent counsel did not do. She acknowledged the reliance of the sentencing court on both cases, but she couldn't sufficiently state how both cases could discredit the petitioner's argument. Moreso, it could be decided on a moral basis that the child be given parole as there are chances of being a better person at home although he is serving a prison term. Whether or not it was decided in Miller or Montgomery, it will only be rational to give the child a chance for rehabilitation. The court affirmed the decision of the Mississippi Court in a 6-3 ruling, holding that the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana do not require a sentencing judge to make a separate finding that a juvenile convicted of murder is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole. A discretionary sentencing system where the sentence can take the defendant's age into account is constitutionally sufficient. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion of the court, and Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan.

CITATIONS Krumholz, Susan T., and Carolyn Boyes-Watson. Crime and Justice: Learning Through Cases. 3rd ed., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2018. Miller v. Alabama. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-9646 Montgomery v. Louisiana. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-280...