DUE IN 24 HOURS
ATTACHED
Read Instructions Carefully
This is a discussion forum that is mandatory part of this course.
The idea is to create collaboration amongst your cohort and stimulate intellectual conversations. The instructions are as follows.
1. You are to make three (3) post each week. (10 Points Each)
2. Your initial post (first post) is due Tuesday of each week.
3. Your initial post MUST be at least 250 words and cited scholarly references
4. You must respond at least two (2) times in a week to your colleagues post. Your follow-up (Second & Third) must be at least (150 words and contain at least two scholarly references that are different from your initial (250 word) post.
5. All of your post CANNOT all be on the same day. Thus, you must post on at least (3) separate days in a week.
Discussion Question
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentences violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Read the court’s opinion in Miller v. Alabama (
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-9646) and summarize the court’s rationale for its ruling. Do you agree or disagree with the court’s rationale in this case? Why?
PEER POSTS:
KEITH’S POST:
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentences violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Read the court’s opinion in Miller v. Alabama (
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-9646
) and summarize the court’s rationale for its ruling. Do you agree or disagree with the court’s rationale in this case? Why?
The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
Some judges held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. While a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate the Eighth Amendment, such a sentence would be an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for children. Then another judge gave a concurring opinion. He argued for an additional determination that the offender actually killed or intended to kill the robbery victim. Without such a determination, the State could not pursue a mandatory life sentence.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. filed a dissenting opinion. He reasoned that the Court’s role is to apply the law, not to answer questions about morality and social policy. The majority of these judges did not sufficiently characterize the punishment as unusual, therefore the punishment did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
The Court has consistently ruled that capital punishment itself is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, but that some applications of the death penalty are “cruel and unusual.” For example, the Court has ruled that execution of mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, as is the death.
I agree with the courts outlook on these rulings. These cases are unfortunate but aren’t cruel and unusual. There are consequences for anyone’s actions.
RONDRA’S POST:
Do I agree or disagree with the court’s rationale in this case? Why? I agree with the court’s decision. No one told Miller to get high and kill his neighbor. If he was old enough to do drugs, he was old enough to know right from wrong. Why should his life sentence be considered when he did not care about the life, he was taking from Mr. Cannon?
The Eighth Amendment states that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. In the case of Miller vs. Alabama the court discussed if juveniles who were convicted of murder should receive mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. The argument was that life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment.
In this case fourteen-year-old Miller was with his friends and got high. While under the influence of drugs Miller and his friends decided to rob his neighbor, beat him, and set his house on fire to cover the crime in which they had committed. Miller and friends were tried as adults and Miller was found guilty and convicted of murder. He was given life and his appeal was denied by the trial court. The ruling was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court on June 25, 2012, issued an historic ruling in Miller v. Alabama and its companion case, Jackson v. Hobbs, holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children seventeen or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. In 2012 The Miller v. Alabama decision requires the lower courts to conduct new sentencing hearings where judges will have to consider children’s individual characters and life circumstances, including age, as well as the circumstances of the crime.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-8 (Links to an external site.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-9646 (Links to an external site.)
https://legaldictionary.net/miller-v-alabama (Links to an external site.)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-9646 (Links to an external site.)
eji.org/cases/miller-v-Alabama/
