{"id":3514,"date":"2021-04-22T07:47:21","date_gmt":"2021-04-22T14:47:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514"},"modified":"2021-04-22T08:47:14","modified_gmt":"2021-04-22T15:47:14","slug":"major-victory-in-juvenile-murder-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514","title":{"rendered":"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones<\/em> v. Mississippi<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-1259, a case of teenager who murdered his grandfather. The high court pruned back expansive language in its 2016 decision in Montgomery<\/em> v. Louisiana<\/em><\/a>. The decision confirms that the 2012 case of Miller<\/em> v. Alabama<\/em><\/a> requires only that the sentencer have discretion to choose between life without parole and a lesser sentence in the case of a juvenile murderer. There is no requirement imposed by the federal constitution that the judge find that the juvenile is “permanently incorrigible,” a finding that cannot be made with any degree of reliability.<\/p>\n

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion of the Court:<\/p>\n

In short, Miller<\/em> followed the Court\u2019s many death penalty cases and required that a sentencer consider youth as a mitigating factor when deciding whether to impose a life-without-parole sentence. Miller<\/em> did not require the sentencer to make a separate finding of permanent incorrigibility before imposing such a sentence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred separately. He believes that the majority opinion papers over the extent to which the Montgomery<\/em> opinion departed from precedent and that it should be expressly repudiated.<\/p>\n

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.<\/p>\n

I will have more to say on this decision later.<\/p>\n

CJLF’s amicus brief in the case is here<\/a>. The brief of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers and Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, written and filed by CJLF, is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259, a case of teenager who murdered his grandfather. The high court pruned back expansive language in its 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. The decision confirms that the 2012 case of Miller v. Alabama requires only that the sentencer have discretion to choose between life without parole and a lesser sentence in the case of a juvenile murderer. There is no requirement imposed by the federal constitution that the judge find that the juvenile is “permanently incorrigible,” a finding that cannot be made with any degree of reliability.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,49,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-juveniles","category-sentencing","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMajor Victory in Juvenile Murder Case - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259, a case of teenager who murdered his grandfather. The high court pruned back expansive language in its 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. The decision confirms that the 2012 case of Miller v. Alabama requires only that the sentencer have discretion to choose between life without parole and a lesser sentence in the case of a juvenile murderer. There is no requirement imposed by the federal constitution that the judge find that the juvenile is “permanently incorrigible,” a finding that cannot be made with any degree of reliability.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-04-22T14:47:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-04-22T15:47:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514\",\"name\":\"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-22T14:47:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-22T15:47:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259, a case of teenager who murdered his grandfather. The high court pruned back expansive language in its 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. The decision confirms that the 2012 case of Miller v. Alabama requires only that the sentencer have discretion to choose between life without parole and a lesser sentence in the case of a juvenile murderer. There is no requirement imposed by the federal constitution that the judge find that the juvenile is “permanently incorrigible,” a finding that cannot be made with any degree of reliability.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2021-04-22T14:47:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-04-22T15:47:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514","name":"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-04-22T14:47:21+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-22T15:47:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3514#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3514","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3514"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3514\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3523,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3514\/revisions\/3523"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}