Juvenile Life-Sentence Cases Raise Question Over Role of Judge - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Juvenile Life-Sentence Cases Raise Question Over Role of Judge - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

PrintShareThis


AP
This October 2002 photo shows Terrance Graham, 15. Graham was given a life sentence without parole for armed robberies when he was 16 and 17.  When a judge sentences a 13-year-old boy to spend the rest of his life in prison without a chance of parole for a crime in which nobody has died, is he meting out justice? Or is he acting as society's cop?  That question was looming in the background Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court prepared to hear two cases in which two Florida boys — a 13-year-old rapist and a 17-year-old repeat offender with a predilection for armed robbery — got the same punishment: life without parole.

The court will decide whether sentencing the teens to life for less than murder constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. But the cases will also fuel questions about the role and power of American judges.  In both cases the judges ruled in large part to protect citizens from future crimes, prompting critics to say that they used their gavels to police society, and not just to administer law.

Florida, like most states, allows judges to impose life sentences without parole for juveniles even when the crime does not result in a victim's death.  "I think the judge in a case like this is acting within the authority delegated to him within the [state] legislature," former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork told FoxNews.com.  On the issue of ruling with the intent to protect society from future crimes, Bork said, "Apparently the legislature authorized them to rule with things like that in mind, so I assume that's a core function of criminal law and what the legislature must have intended — that a judge should consider that function of a criminal law in imposing that sentence."  In one of the cases, Graham v. Florida, Terrance Graham was 17-years-old and on parole when he broke into a man's home and robbed him at gunpoint. Graham pleaded guilty to armed burglary and was sent to prison for the rest of his life. The judge who imposed the sentence concluded that Graham had wasted his second chance at freedom and was a significant threat to society.

In the other case, Sullivan v. Florida, Joe Sullivan was sentenced to life without parole for raping an elderly woman in 1989, when he was 13-year-old.  Graham, now 22, and Sullivan, now 33, are being held in Florida prisons, which house more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants serving life sentences without chance of parole for crimes other than homicide.  Lawyers for the defendants in both cases cite the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Roper v. Simmons, in which the high court ruled 5-4 that a death sentence for someone younger than 18 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment.

Graham's attorneys say the court's reasoning in Roper v. Simmons should extend to their client. The defense claims that like the mentally disabled, juveniles are "categorically less culpable than the average criminal," and that when compared to adults, juveniles "cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders."  But the state has said that the severity of Graham's sentence was "not grossly disproportionate to [the] violent crimes against [his] vulnerable victims." The state also claims Graham's crime was so severe that even he did not challenge his treatment as an adult offender.  Lawyers for Sullivan have also cited the Roper case, saying the high court should declare that a life sentence for a 13-year-old constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The defense has argued that such a sentence imposed on teenagers is unjust because they are "unfinished products, human works-in-progress."

I think that some shoudl be used as martors as part of teaching others a lesson in life that this isn't the way normal society acts but why are they even taking this back to court?  They are more than likely worse since being in prison all these years anyway.  That fact is that prison doesn't soften you to teach you about what you do is wrong or right.  I think they should serve out there sentences if they havent changed.  I am strict as I don't want to see anybody in this world get hurt again by these two criminals as they are all like that anywhere you go!

If you do the tiem you SHOULD do the time is what I think no matter what age as they are given a false sense of hope right now given the publicity they are getting right now as we speak or read or have not on any other thing we see or hear.  They knew the difference between right and wrong at 13 and 17 years old yet they still did it anyway.  To me as the bible states...there is not a chile under the age of 5 yeras that knows the difference between right and wrong so why should we forgive these two and set them free?  I believe as a parent as well if either of my kids were to illegally mess up in society, hoping and praying it doesn't happen, that they should follow in suit and do there time as well.  Yes I was a Military Police Officer and I believed in the things then as I do now that justice is made for justice should be served.