Montgomery v. Louisiana
January 25, 2016 7:44 AM Subscribe
"Petitioner Montgomery was 17 years old in 1963, when he killed a deputy
sheriff in Louisiana. The jury returned a verdict of “guilty without capital punishment,” which carried an automatic sentence of life without parole. Nearly 50 years after Montgomery was taken into custody, this Court decided that mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “ ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’" Today, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, said that ruling will apply retroactively.
Argument preview: A new look — maybe — at life sentences for youths
Argument analysis: A barrier to deciding juvenile sentencing issue?
NYTimes Opinion (from October)
What Happens to Old Sentences When the Law Changes
Argument preview: A new look — maybe — at life sentences for youths
Argument analysis: A barrier to deciding juvenile sentencing issue?
NYTimes Opinion (from October)
What Happens to Old Sentences When the Law Changes
In dissent, Scalia compares Kennedy et al. to Vito Corleone
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:09 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:09 AM on January 25, 2016
How does the US compare to other countries? Life Imprisonment around the world.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:13 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by filthy light thief at 8:13 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gah. How wasn't this a no-brainer?
posted by schmod at 8:18 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by schmod at 8:18 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gah. How wasn't this a no-brainer?
Look at the ones who voted against it. Less a no-brainer than a no-souler.
posted by Etrigan at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
Look at the ones who voted against it. Less a no-brainer than a no-souler.
posted by Etrigan at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
Look at the ones who voted against it. Less a no-brainer than a no-souler.
This - America makes much more sense when you think of it as being largely governed, and in no small part populated, by ghouls.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:25 AM on January 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
This - America makes much more sense when you think of it as being largely governed, and in no small part populated, by ghouls.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:25 AM on January 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
Ooh, ooh, now do non-violent marijuana possession!
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:04 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:04 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
HOLY SHIT this is awesome. Sucks that it even had to be considered by the Court but sometimes the good guys win.
Moment of silence here for those incarcerated wrongly whom this ruling will not affect. Understood that it's retroactive but it's too late for some. :-(
posted by Sheydem-tants at 9:08 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Moment of silence here for those incarcerated wrongly whom this ruling will not affect. Understood that it's retroactive but it's too late for some. :-(
posted by Sheydem-tants at 9:08 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Article from a couple years ago on the Kid CAT group of lifers convicted as juveniles at San Quentin prison.
posted by larrybob at 9:14 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by larrybob at 9:14 AM on January 25, 2016
Gah. How wasn't this a no-brainer?
Because it's a complicated legal matter and not a "Well, which decision do I like the most or think is most humane?" question. (Not that the previous sentence would no longer be relevant if this were the case, but I should point out that though it may not be clear from the original post, the matter before the court here wasn't about whether or not life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders is unconstitutional, but about retroactivity.)
Just look at the opinion of the court and the dissents. This is complicated stuff and to think otherwise does a great disservice to the whole existence of the Supreme Court.
posted by Dalby at 9:16 AM on January 25, 2016 [12 favorites]
Because it's a complicated legal matter and not a "Well, which decision do I like the most or think is most humane?" question. (Not that the previous sentence would no longer be relevant if this were the case, but I should point out that though it may not be clear from the original post, the matter before the court here wasn't about whether or not life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders is unconstitutional, but about retroactivity.)
Just look at the opinion of the court and the dissents. This is complicated stuff and to think otherwise does a great disservice to the whole existence of the Supreme Court.
posted by Dalby at 9:16 AM on January 25, 2016 [12 favorites]
IANAL, but the opinion seems to include language that says there needs to be retroactivity anytime the Court issues a "substantive new rule of Constitutional law." In other words, not just this decision, but any such decision must be applied retroactively by state courts. Page 8 of the decision:
posted by beagle at 9:20 AM on January 25, 2016
This Court’s precedents addressing the nature of substantive rules, their differences from procedural rules, and their history of retroactive application establish that the Constitution requires substantive rules to have retroactive effect regardless of when a conviction became final.Do I understand that correctly?
posted by beagle at 9:20 AM on January 25, 2016
Every time I see Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in a decision, I always think of this article from the Onion.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:21 AM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:21 AM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
There are ~2570 people in prison in the US who were juveniles sentenced to life without parole. Assuming 30 years left in their sentence, that's 675 million hours of life, consigned to the inside of a jail cell. If there's ~40 years left in the sentence, we're close to a billion hours of human life.
posted by DGStieber at 9:26 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DGStieber at 9:26 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
So if the kid had been a few months older he'd be out of luck? What's the line here? 18? 21?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:29 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:29 AM on January 25, 2016
Do I understand that correctly?
Yes, but you will no doubt be shocked to learn that what qualifies as a "substantive new rule of Constitutional law" is a hotly-disputed matter. For instance, a few years back the Court held that failing to inform undocumented defendants of the potential for deportation as a collateral consequence of a guilty plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. You would think that the definition of "ineffective assistance of counsel" was a substantive matter and to be applied retroactively. According to the Court, not so much.
posted by praemunire at 9:31 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, but you will no doubt be shocked to learn that what qualifies as a "substantive new rule of Constitutional law" is a hotly-disputed matter. For instance, a few years back the Court held that failing to inform undocumented defendants of the potential for deportation as a collateral consequence of a guilty plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. You would think that the definition of "ineffective assistance of counsel" was a substantive matter and to be applied retroactively. According to the Court, not so much.
posted by praemunire at 9:31 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just look at the opinion of the court and the dissents. This is complicated stuff and to think otherwise does a great disservice to the whole existence of the Supreme Court.
But it isn't that complicated - if SCOTUS says "this sentence is unconstitutional", it's unconstitutional period. It shouldn't have required the Court to come back and say "what part of 'unconstitutional' did you not get?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:31 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
But it isn't that complicated - if SCOTUS says "this sentence is unconstitutional", it's unconstitutional period. It shouldn't have required the Court to come back and say "what part of 'unconstitutional' did you not get?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:31 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
But it isn't that complicated - if SCOTUS says "this sentence is unconstitutional", it's unconstitutional period. It shouldn't have required the Court to come back and say "what part of 'unconstitutional' did you not get?"
Yeah, so, this is absolutely the sort of talk that I'm referring to.
posted by Dalby at 9:38 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, so, this is absolutely the sort of talk that I'm referring to.
posted by Dalby at 9:38 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Great documentary about this on Netflix called Lost for Life.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:39 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:39 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Please, feel free to explain it to us in more detail than "Read the opinion." Because to some of us, it seems rather apparent that "This widespread practice is completely unconstitutional" should include "...and therefore should not continue to apply to a lot of people."
posted by Etrigan at 9:46 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Etrigan at 9:46 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
So if the kid had been a few months older he'd be out of luck? What's the line here? 18? 21?
I assume it depends on the state.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on January 25, 2016
I assume it depends on the state.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on January 25, 2016
My question is how long can sentences be then? Because 30 years, 40 years etc isn't life, but it really is.
I'm glad for this decision, and I'm glad people are looking more at youth offenders as youth.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:50 AM on January 25, 2016
I'm glad for this decision, and I'm glad people are looking more at youth offenders as youth.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:50 AM on January 25, 2016
My question is how long can sentences be then? Because 30 years, 40 years etc isn't life, but it really is.
I believe that a 16 year old offender with a 40 year sentence could be released at the age of 36 in many states.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:53 AM on January 25, 2016
I believe that a 16 year old offender with a 40 year sentence could be released at the age of 36 in many states.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:53 AM on January 25, 2016
I really think that youth should never be sentenced to more than their age, because how can they comprehend living in jail longer than they have been alive?
And that should be a maximum.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:53 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
And that should be a maximum.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:53 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do you know what happens in twenty years? In 1995 the United States was in the dot Com boom. It keeps children from becoming functional adults.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:55 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:55 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
It keeps children from becoming functional adults.
And of course the state should weigh that against punishing a teenager who probably knew that murdering someone was wrong.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:57 AM on January 25, 2016
And of course the state should weigh that against punishing a teenager who probably knew that murdering someone was wrong.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:57 AM on January 25, 2016
I was curious about the facts of the original case and found a good summary here. (Juvenile Justice Information Exchange)
posted by farmerd at 9:59 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by farmerd at 9:59 AM on January 25, 2016
Yeah, so, this is absolutely the sort of talk that I'm referring to.
Your point?
Because mine is that not every ruling that comes out of SCOTUS is some complicated issue. In fact, quite a lot of them wind up being the Court either having to state "yes, we really meant that", or the Court being oblivious to common sense *cough*CitizensUnited*cough*.
And frankly, looking back at the history of shitty SCOTUS rulings, the Court is quite capable of making a mockery of itself on its own without help.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:00 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Your point?
Because mine is that not every ruling that comes out of SCOTUS is some complicated issue. In fact, quite a lot of them wind up being the Court either having to state "yes, we really meant that", or the Court being oblivious to common sense *cough*CitizensUnited*cough*.
And frankly, looking back at the history of shitty SCOTUS rulings, the Court is quite capable of making a mockery of itself on its own without help.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:00 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting that like Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, the plaintiff here had an IQ in the low-70s.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on January 25, 2016
My question is how long can sentences be then? Because 30 years, 40 years etc isn't life, but it really is.
First, understand that this doesn't change the law, just establish that the law applies to some older trials. That said:
They can still get life. They can even get life without parole in the right circumstances. But those circumstances have to be demonstrated.
This is oversimplifying, but much in the same way that there has to be an additional finding to bring about the death penalty for adults, there must be an additional finding to bring about life without parole for juveniles. The celebrators in the room will soon shirk when they understand how narrow all of this is.
Also, rather than revisit the case, say, in ten years, or when you're 25, or whatever, the prosecutor can try to establish that you're beyond saving during the trial. So it's still not a high barrier to overcome.
Read the ScotusBlog links. They've got your back.
posted by parliboy at 10:03 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
First, understand that this doesn't change the law, just establish that the law applies to some older trials. That said:
They can still get life. They can even get life without parole in the right circumstances. But those circumstances have to be demonstrated.
This is oversimplifying, but much in the same way that there has to be an additional finding to bring about the death penalty for adults, there must be an additional finding to bring about life without parole for juveniles. The celebrators in the room will soon shirk when they understand how narrow all of this is.
Also, rather than revisit the case, say, in ten years, or when you're 25, or whatever, the prosecutor can try to establish that you're beyond saving during the trial. So it's still not a high barrier to overcome.
Read the ScotusBlog links. They've got your back.
posted by parliboy at 10:03 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Boy, I sure do love doing y'alls reading for you. This is a great work ethic in the classroom. Who needs assigned readings when the professor can just lecture to you?
Here are the difficulties. And I'm no lawyer, so someone is free to have at all the imprecisions and complete and wholesale misunderstandings in the following post. I'm not out there saying this is a good or bad decision precisely because I haven't decided to sit down and understand the internal intricacies of the law involved here. I'm merely just looking at the text and spitting out the highlights, which is apparently too much for some people.
First, because there's a question as to whether Miller v. Alabama, "announced a new substantive rule," because this is what Teague v. Lane requires for retroactivity to happen. If it's just a new procedural rule, then retroactivity need not occur. From today's opinion: "While the Court held that new constitutional rules of criminal procedure are generally not retroactive, it recognized that courts must give retroactive effect to new watershed procedural rules and to substantive rules of constitutional law."
There's been a lot of disagreement in the courts over this. see also from today's opinion: "In the wake of Miller, the question has arisen whether its holding is retroactive to juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided. Courts have reached different conclusions on this point. Compare, e.g., Martin v. Symmes, 782 F. 3d 939, 943 (CA8 2015); Johnson v. Ponton, 780 F. 3d 219, 224–226 (CA4 2015); Chambers v.
State, 831 N. W. 2d 311, 331 (Minn. 2013); and State v. Tate, 2012–2763, p. 17 (La. 11/5/13), 130 So. 3d 829, 841, with Diatchenko v. District Attorney for Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655, 661–667, 1 N. E. 3d 270, 278–282 (2013); Aiken v. Byars, 410 S. C. 534, 548, 765 S. E. 2d 572, 578 (2014); State v. Mares, 2014 WY 126, ¶¶47–63, 335 P. 3d 487, 504–508; and People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶41, 6 N. E. 3d 709, 722. Certiorari was granted in this case to resolve the question."
The ruling of Miller v. Alabama is also more nuanced than simply that life sentences without parole are unconstitutional. From today's opinion it was said that: "Miller required that sentencing courts consider a child's 'diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change' for condemning him or her to die in prison." This isn't a simple case of something being unconstitutional. This reads a lot like a procedural issue. And there's no court ruling that says Court required procedural changes be retroactively applied to resolved criminal cases.
And before even that question is answered, it first needs to be established that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Louisiana Supreme Court in this context. Note that this isn't a simple case of: "LOL the Supreme Court is the master court so ofc it has jurisdiction."
According to Scalia on Teague v. Lane, Teague's holding was that: "federal courts could not... overturn state convictions on the basis of a "new rule" of constitutional law... unless that new rule was a "substantive rule..." This doesn't read like a commandment would: "State convictions must be overturned if there is a counteracting new, substantive rule." Only that, federal courts cannot overturn state convictions if it's just a procedural rule. The opinion itself states that there's maybe some difference in interpretation because: "Teague... [had no] occasion to address whether States are required as a constitutional matter to give retroactive effect to new substantive rules."
posted by Dalby at 10:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here are the difficulties. And I'm no lawyer, so someone is free to have at all the imprecisions and complete and wholesale misunderstandings in the following post. I'm not out there saying this is a good or bad decision precisely because I haven't decided to sit down and understand the internal intricacies of the law involved here. I'm merely just looking at the text and spitting out the highlights, which is apparently too much for some people.
First, because there's a question as to whether Miller v. Alabama, "announced a new substantive rule," because this is what Teague v. Lane requires for retroactivity to happen. If it's just a new procedural rule, then retroactivity need not occur. From today's opinion: "While the Court held that new constitutional rules of criminal procedure are generally not retroactive, it recognized that courts must give retroactive effect to new watershed procedural rules and to substantive rules of constitutional law."
There's been a lot of disagreement in the courts over this. see also from today's opinion: "In the wake of Miller, the question has arisen whether its holding is retroactive to juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided. Courts have reached different conclusions on this point. Compare, e.g., Martin v. Symmes, 782 F. 3d 939, 943 (CA8 2015); Johnson v. Ponton, 780 F. 3d 219, 224–226 (CA4 2015); Chambers v.
State, 831 N. W. 2d 311, 331 (Minn. 2013); and State v. Tate, 2012–2763, p. 17 (La. 11/5/13), 130 So. 3d 829, 841, with Diatchenko v. District Attorney for Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655, 661–667, 1 N. E. 3d 270, 278–282 (2013); Aiken v. Byars, 410 S. C. 534, 548, 765 S. E. 2d 572, 578 (2014); State v. Mares, 2014 WY 126, ¶¶47–63, 335 P. 3d 487, 504–508; and People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶41, 6 N. E. 3d 709, 722. Certiorari was granted in this case to resolve the question."
The ruling of Miller v. Alabama is also more nuanced than simply that life sentences without parole are unconstitutional. From today's opinion it was said that: "Miller required that sentencing courts consider a child's 'diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change' for condemning him or her to die in prison." This isn't a simple case of something being unconstitutional. This reads a lot like a procedural issue. And there's no court ruling that says Court required procedural changes be retroactively applied to resolved criminal cases.
And before even that question is answered, it first needs to be established that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Louisiana Supreme Court in this context. Note that this isn't a simple case of: "LOL the Supreme Court is the master court so ofc it has jurisdiction."
According to Scalia on Teague v. Lane, Teague's holding was that: "federal courts could not... overturn state convictions on the basis of a "new rule" of constitutional law... unless that new rule was a "substantive rule..." This doesn't read like a commandment would: "State convictions must be overturned if there is a counteracting new, substantive rule." Only that, federal courts cannot overturn state convictions if it's just a procedural rule. The opinion itself states that there's maybe some difference in interpretation because: "Teague... [had no] occasion to address whether States are required as a constitutional matter to give retroactive effect to new substantive rules."
posted by Dalby at 10:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The argument in Teague is bullshit in much the same way the way courts handle prosecutorial misconduct is - instead of trying to engage in legal hairsplitting to determine "is this substantive or not", it should be treating everything as such, because these sorts of issues get to the legitimacy of the system. Arguing that "well, your constitutional rights were violated, but it's a procedural issue, so you get no relief" is the sort of thing that makes people less trusting of the system.
Second, just because the legal profession is engaged in navel gazing does not oblige us to join them. In fact, in cases like this, we should be smacking them upside the metaphorical head with something hard, saying "how the hell is this even a question?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:01 AM on January 25, 2016
Second, just because the legal profession is engaged in navel gazing does not oblige us to join them. In fact, in cases like this, we should be smacking them upside the metaphorical head with something hard, saying "how the hell is this even a question?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:01 AM on January 25, 2016
Also, it's worth remembering that SCOTUS is not final because it's right, but that it's "right" because it's final.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:03 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:03 AM on January 25, 2016
Boy, I sure do love doing y'alls reading for you. This is a great work ethic in the classroom. Who needs assigned readings when the professor can just lecture to you?
Oh, I'm sorry, I confused this law class for a message board where someone was making unsupported claims and telling me to find support for them myself.
posted by Etrigan at 11:05 AM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh, I'm sorry, I confused this law class for a message board where someone was making unsupported claims and telling me to find support for them myself.
posted by Etrigan at 11:05 AM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, it's worth remembering that SCOTUS is not final because it's right, but that it's "right" because it's final...
Second, just because the legal profession is engaged in navel gazing does not oblige us to join them.
The argument in Teague is bullshit
To quote yourself: Your point?
All I'm concerned with is correcting the sentiment expressed by schmod and explaining why this is a difficult case.
Oh, I'm sorry, I confused this law class for a message board where someone was making unsupported claims and telling me to find support for them myself.
The complicated legal nuance begins literally on the first page of the PDF linked by savetheclocktower. Why is the burden of evidence on me to support my claims and not on you?
It'd be one thing if we were having good faith arguments, and you had misunderstood some of the legal nuance. In such a case, a response such as: "Just read the opinion" would be disingenuous. You had, and you're having difficulty in following it. Instead you're treating what is essentially the equivalent of pop-news representations of scientific journal articles as gospel fact.
posted by Dalby at 11:17 AM on January 25, 2016
Second, just because the legal profession is engaged in navel gazing does not oblige us to join them.
The argument in Teague is bullshit
To quote yourself: Your point?
All I'm concerned with is correcting the sentiment expressed by schmod and explaining why this is a difficult case.
Oh, I'm sorry, I confused this law class for a message board where someone was making unsupported claims and telling me to find support for them myself.
The complicated legal nuance begins literally on the first page of the PDF linked by savetheclocktower. Why is the burden of evidence on me to support my claims and not on you?
It'd be one thing if we were having good faith arguments, and you had misunderstood some of the legal nuance. In such a case, a response such as: "Just read the opinion" would be disingenuous. You had, and you're having difficulty in following it. Instead you're treating what is essentially the equivalent of pop-news representations of scientific journal articles as gospel fact.
posted by Dalby at 11:17 AM on January 25, 2016
Seriously considering passing this thread along as an example of how not to discuss things with others. With a few key phrases edited out, this thread could have stayed on track.
posted by jragon at 11:23 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by jragon at 11:23 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
The point you're missing is that the "complicated legal nuance" exists solely because the legal community has created it for themselves. The rest of us are not obliged to have to respect their reasoning. And again, I did explain why I feel the argument in Teague is bullshit - because the legal system should not be engaging in these hairsplitting exercises over "well, is this a substantial issue, or is it procedural?", but instead should be treating these as a matter of "the defendant's constitutional rights were violated, this must be rectified."
Just because the legal profession is engaged in arguments of exactly how many angels are on this particular pinhead doesn't mean we're obliged to respect it, or that we shouldn't call it out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:35 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just because the legal profession is engaged in arguments of exactly how many angels are on this particular pinhead doesn't mean we're obliged to respect it, or that we shouldn't call it out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:35 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
because the legal system should not be engaging in these hairsplitting exercises over "well, is this a substantial issue, or is it procedural?", but instead should be treating these as a matter of "the defendant's constitutional rights were violated, this must be rectified."
They *are* doing the latter, precisely because they are doing the former.
posted by Dalby at 11:38 AM on January 25, 2016
They *are* doing the latter, precisely because they are doing the former.
posted by Dalby at 11:38 AM on January 25, 2016
They *are* doing the latter, precisely because they are doing the former.
No, they aren't. The substantive versus procedural argument is bullshit, because fucked over is fucked over, regardless of if it's a fucking due to a substantive issue or because of bad procedure. And honestly, the argument comes across as a bit of legal ass covering.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:48 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, they aren't. The substantive versus procedural argument is bullshit, because fucked over is fucked over, regardless of if it's a fucking due to a substantive issue or because of bad procedure. And honestly, the argument comes across as a bit of legal ass covering.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:48 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
America makes much more sense when you think of it as being largely governed, and in no small part populated, by ghouls.
Or in the parlance of the subgenii, "asouls."
posted by mrettig at 11:49 AM on January 25, 2016
Or in the parlance of the subgenii, "asouls."
posted by mrettig at 11:49 AM on January 25, 2016
because fucked over is fucked over
You're changing the goalposts. You said before it was a matter of constitutional rights. Well, what are our constitutional rights? The complete extension of our rights as afforded by the Constitution isn't explicit and clear. Nowhere in the Constitution nor in Supreme Court cases has it been held that life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. So sure, someone's getting fucked over, but the question is whether their legal rights are being fucked over.
posted by Dalby at 11:54 AM on January 25, 2016
You're changing the goalposts. You said before it was a matter of constitutional rights. Well, what are our constitutional rights? The complete extension of our rights as afforded by the Constitution isn't explicit and clear. Nowhere in the Constitution nor in Supreme Court cases has it been held that life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. So sure, someone's getting fucked over, but the question is whether their legal rights are being fucked over.
posted by Dalby at 11:54 AM on January 25, 2016
Mod note: This is seeming kinda needlessly confrontational at this point; if you want to have a conversation here, that's fine, but let's cool it with the sniping and such and act like we actually like it here and aren't commenting under duress or whatever.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:05 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:05 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nowhere in the Constitution nor in Supreme Court cases has it been held that life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional.
Miller v. Alabama held that mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. Montgomery received a mandatory life sentence without parole, ergo his constitutional rights to not receive such a sentence had been violated.
posted by Etrigan at 12:11 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Miller v. Alabama held that mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. Montgomery received a mandatory life sentence without parole, ergo his constitutional rights to not receive such a sentence had been violated.
posted by Etrigan at 12:11 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
From today's opinion: "Miller required that sentencing courts consider a child's 'diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change' for condemning him or her to die in prison."
From Miller v. Alabama: "By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality..."
There's nothing unconstitutional about a juvenile getting life without parole. There *is* something unconstitutional about REQUIRING that ALL juvenile homicide offenders get life without parole.
posted by Dalby at 12:15 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
From Miller v. Alabama: "By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality..."
There's nothing unconstitutional about a juvenile getting life without parole. There *is* something unconstitutional about REQUIRING that ALL juvenile homicide offenders get life without parole.
posted by Dalby at 12:15 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
And after Miller, all cases where the defendant was a juvenile and sentenced under a mandatory life without parole statute should have automatically been reopened for assessment at the very least. More preferable would have been to just toss the lot out on the principle that the underlying statute was of dubious constitutionality, and thus it is better to errors on the side of caution. It is ridiculous to make all these people have to open their own cases because on the conduct of the state.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:22 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:22 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's an interesting quote from Martin v Symmes, mentioned in today's opinion, on the nature of procedural vs substantive rules: "Substantive rules “alter[ ] the range of conduct or the class of persons that the law punishes,” but procedural rules “regulate only the manner of determining the defendant's culpability.” Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 353, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). New substantive rules include “rules prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense.” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 330, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (prohibiting execution of mentally retarded criminals).4 “Such rules apply retroactively because they necessarily carry a significant risk that a defendant ․ faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.” Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Miller announced a procedural rule, not a substantive rule. The Court eliminated mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile homicide defendants; it did not eliminate those sentences: “[W]e think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon,” but “we do not foreclose a sentencer's ability to make that judgment in homicide cases․” Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2469. Thus, Miller does not prohibit a category of punishment (life sentences without parole) for a class of defendants (juveniles) because of their status (age). See Penry, 492 U.S. at 330. In other words, Martin does not “face[ ] a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.” See Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352."
posted by Dalby at 12:28 PM on January 25, 2016
Miller announced a procedural rule, not a substantive rule. The Court eliminated mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile homicide defendants; it did not eliminate those sentences: “[W]e think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon,” but “we do not foreclose a sentencer's ability to make that judgment in homicide cases․” Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2469. Thus, Miller does not prohibit a category of punishment (life sentences without parole) for a class of defendants (juveniles) because of their status (age). See Penry, 492 U.S. at 330. In other words, Martin does not “face[ ] a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.” See Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352."
posted by Dalby at 12:28 PM on January 25, 2016
But that's the thing - how is there any real difference between "the manner of determining the defendant's culpability" and "the class of persons that the law punishes"? If the procedure limits or alters the base for culpability, it is necessarily altering the class of people the law punishes. This is why the argument of "substantive versus procedural" makes no sense, because the procedural is going to be substantive.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:00 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:00 PM on January 25, 2016
Suppose the Supreme Court held that the Constitution required that, before a defendant can be convicted of murder, the judge first hold a hearing and make a finding that the defendant is not suffering from major mental illness. Defendant A did not receive this hearing, and, if he was the appellant in the case before the Court, he would have his sentence overturned. But, had Defendant A's judge held that hearing, he might have made that finding anyway. That is how a procedural change might not alter the substantive outcome, and that is why if defendant A was instead convicted prior to the resolution of the Supreme Court Case, his sentence would not be overturned. The right to a procedure is not the right to an outcome. In fact, even if Defendant A were the appellant, the prosecutors might well choose to re-try Defendant A under the new standard, and win.
In a very technical sense, altering the manner of determining culpability alters the class of people punished, because it excludes the set of "people who did not receive the benefit of the required procedure." But it does not alter the class of people punished in any way vis-a-vis the crime committed or their own characteristics; it only alters the class based on the nature of its interaction with the justice system. That's not an unprincipled distinction, though it's not very satisfying.
posted by praemunire at 2:28 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
In a very technical sense, altering the manner of determining culpability alters the class of people punished, because it excludes the set of "people who did not receive the benefit of the required procedure." But it does not alter the class of people punished in any way vis-a-vis the crime committed or their own characteristics; it only alters the class based on the nature of its interaction with the justice system. That's not an unprincipled distinction, though it's not very satisfying.
posted by praemunire at 2:28 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's the same sort of bullshit they do with prosecutorial misconduct, and it's just as faulty here as it is there.
And even if the result is that the prosecutors retry the case with the new standard, that is a superior result than the hairsplitting we have today. Maybe after these cases get thrown back to the prosecution a few times, they'll be more conscientious about how they prosecute.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:42 PM on January 25, 2016
And even if the result is that the prosecutors retry the case with the new standard, that is a superior result than the hairsplitting we have today. Maybe after these cases get thrown back to the prosecution a few times, they'll be more conscientious about how they prosecute.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:42 PM on January 25, 2016
Age of adulthood should not depend on the State you live in.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:13 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:13 PM on January 25, 2016
My guess is that it's a weird proxy for weighing other types of interests.
Making these decisions apply retroactively means a huge amount of work for state courts, and in a way that is less politically palatable--it's a lot easier to sell the idea that we must release prisoner X because the court determined that the definition of the crime itself was unconstitutional than that the defendant didn't get some kind of procedure which might not have changed the outcome. The general public is a lot less tender of procedure as a bulwark of liberty than the average lawyer is.
My sense is that this distinction is largely driven, as so often, by the moral intuition that it's worse to be punished for a crime that turned out not to be a crime than for a crime that might not have been properly proven.
posted by praemunire at 9:33 AM on January 26, 2016
Making these decisions apply retroactively means a huge amount of work for state courts, and in a way that is less politically palatable--it's a lot easier to sell the idea that we must release prisoner X because the court determined that the definition of the crime itself was unconstitutional than that the defendant didn't get some kind of procedure which might not have changed the outcome. The general public is a lot less tender of procedure as a bulwark of liberty than the average lawyer is.
My sense is that this distinction is largely driven, as so often, by the moral intuition that it's worse to be punished for a crime that turned out not to be a crime than for a crime that might not have been properly proven.
posted by praemunire at 9:33 AM on January 26, 2016
« Older Conversations From the Comic Book Store | someone needs a semiotic square Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by savetheclocktower at 8:08 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]