Respondent's Legal Argument.
The respondents counterclaim by contending that Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, excludes a holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment. In addition, the respondents contended that mandatory life-without-parole terms for juveniles cannot be unconstitutional because twenty-nine jurisdictions impose them on at least some children convicted of murder. .
Rules of Law.
The Eighth Amendment, which forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. In addition to the Eighth Amendment, the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment, that no state should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.
Issue.
Does a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen year old child convicted of homicide violate the Eighth Amendment under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?.
Holding.
Yes, a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen year old child convicted of homicide violates the Eighth Amendment under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision.
In a 5 (Kagan, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor) to 4 (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) decision, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miller and Jackson, the petitioners.
Reasons.
Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court to determine whether a mandatory life-without-parole term for a fourteen year old convicted of homicide violates the Eighth Amendment or whether mandatory life-without-parole terms for juveniles is not unconstitutional. The rationale of the decision made was that in Graham v. Florida (2010) the Court held that life-without-parole violates the Eighth Amendment when imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders. In addition, Roper v. Simmons (2005) held that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment for children under the age of eighteen.
