Link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2015/10/supreme_court_dispatch_montgomery_v_louisiana_asks_the_justices_to_weigh.single.html
Date: Tuesday, Oct 13
Summary: In a 2012 Supreme Court case Miller vs. Alabama, the court ruled that juveniles convicted to mandatory life in prison without paroles was unconstitutional as it violates the Eighth Amendment. However, the court gave the states discretion to re-examine cases of juvenile convicted criminals. Factors considered include the offender's "immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences" due to their age when said crime took place. In Montgomery vs. Louisiana, Henry Montgomery, at the age of 17, was convicted of killing a white deputy sheriff and sentenced to mandatory life in prison without parole. Now at the age of 69, Montgomery hopes to get his case re-examined. Montgomery vs. Louisiana poses the question whether every state should be required to re-sentence or offer parole to anyone currently serving life sentences for crimes committed before the age of 18.
Questions-
Should age a factor in determining parole eligibility?
If the Montgomery case passed, how would cases be prioritized for re-trial?
I think that age should be a factor in determining parole eligibility. When juveniles are convicted to life sentences without parole, I feel the sentencing is too harsh. It would be a better solution, if the convict's case was retried after serving several years in prison, and then the court can determine if they are eligable for parole. If the Montgomery case passed, cases would be prioritized for re-trail based on the severity of the crime, the degree of remorse, the age of the juvenille.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that age should not be a factor in determining parole. Someone 17 years old that commits the same crime as a 70 year old man should be punished in the same manner. No leway should be given to someone due to thier immiturity or situation. The factor that should be looked at is their improved behavior and what they take from their aciton. If the Montgomery case passed, younger people would be looked at with a higher priority.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if the court decided to try Montgomery as an adult, he should be sentenced as an adult was, life without parole. However if the court tried him as minor the sentence should be less harsh than life without parole. States should only retry those who were sentenced to life as a minor rather than an adult.
ReplyDeleteI believe that age can be a factor in determining parole eligibility, but only on a case to case basis. Science has shown us that teenagers have forming brains and do not logically think in some situations. This should be considered when having such an extreme sentence of life in prison. I think that the overcrowding of jails is an issue that is because of these extreme sentences.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, age should not be a factor in determining parole. It simply doesn't make sense that two people (with different ages) commit the same crime receive more severe/less harsh punishments because of their age. Rather than age,a factor that could be considered instead is if the individual has a mental illness or not. As for the Montgomery case, if it were passed, he would have been trailed as an adult would have.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that age should not be a factor in determining parole eligibility. If someone committed the crime, they should receive the appropriate amount of punishment for the crime, no matter what the age of the criminal is. However, I do believe that states should give criminals the opportunity to retry their cases if they were committed before the age of 18. If the Montgomery case passed, then the minors would be tried as adults.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tianny's and Mary's comments above. If someone has committed a crime, they shouldn't be subject to different consequences just because they are younger which includes being a minor. It simply isn't fair for someone to have less harsher punishments just because they are a different age. I do believe that the states should be in control of these cases, including letting them retry them if they seem unjust or unfair.
ReplyDeleteAge should not be a factor for determining the punishment of a convict. Just like race and gender shouldn't be incorporated in punishment, age is no excuse for committing a crime, especially one as serious as Montgomery vs. Louisiana. A convict is a convict, and the degree and nature of a crime should be the only thing factored into the punishment.
ReplyDeleteAge should not be a factor for determining parole eligibility. people with different age should still have the same rights and response. Just like race and gender should not be counted in punishments. If the Montgomery case passed, the cases that would be priority re-trail should be the crimes committed when they are under 18 and have serve enough time in prison.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the Montgomery case passed, the precedent for the future would highlight severity of the crime and the age of the juvenile. Age should be considered in determining parole eligibility. Juveniles under the age of 18 is convicted to life sentences deserve the opportunity to be on parole. Sentencing juveniles for life is cruel and I believe that a more reasonable sentence is a couple years in jail/prison and following up with rehab/therapy. This would be a better solution because it would make sure that the individual is ready to assimilate back into society. Also, this will solve our country’s outrageous number of inmates in prisons!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, age should only be used as a basis when the crime is not too severe compared to other crimes. In addition, I believe that the person convicted of this crime should also show remorse or a will to change if they want to be reconsidered for parole. I do not believe that it would be fair if some one, under the age of 18 for example, brutally murdered some one, but got reconsidered for parole when some one who committed the same crime did not get reconsidered. Yes, teenagers still have developing brains and the decision making process may not be as string as in adults, but that by no means justifies extreme actions such as killing another human being. Most nearly everyone who is sane knows that it is plain wrong and completely illegal, so in that sense I do not believe age should be a determining factor. However, I do say sometimes because there is always an exception to the rules. If the mMontgomery case passes, the courts would be full with re-examining cases to determine eligibility for parole, which would result in extremely long trial process for other cases.
ReplyDelete