On Monday the justices took the unusual step of applying the 2012 ruling retroactively, meaning that all those juvenile murderers sentenced to such automatic life terms in the past will have a chance for release. Under this decision, thousands of people sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles could be given back some portion of their life.
Advertisement
Montgomery, who was tried twice in the murder in East Baton Rouge Parish and eventually sentenced to life, contends he has evolved from a troubled youth to being a productive member of the community at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, serving as a mentor to other inmates.
Although the court in 2012 had not altogether barred mandatory life without parole sentences, it was reserved for crimes reflecting “irreparable corruption”, Kennedy said.
The heart of Miller is that a judge may not sentence a juvenile offender to life without parole without considering “how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison”. The justices, in their ruling on Monday, said that their 2012 ruling could be applied retroactively to inmates convicted before that decision was issued.
Monday’s 6-3 ruling provides much-needed clarity for 2,300 inmates, most of whom live in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Louisiana.
District Attorney General Brent Cooper said the case of James Ellison “Jamie” Rouse is the first case he thought about when asked how the opinion may apply in his district, which includes Giles, Lawrence, Maury and Wayne counties. He was sentenced to life also, but he is eligible for parole after serving 50 years.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who disagreed with the earlier rulings, dissented on Monday.
Delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court definitively extended the protections for children in the criminal justice system.
Louisiana and other states argued before the court that if they were forced to hold new sentencing hearings, it would be hard, time consuming, and expensive. Roughly 1,000 of them would be affected by a decision in this case, according to a study by The Phillips Black Project, a non-profit law group that represents prisoners facing severe sentences. He insisted state courts only have the duty to apply the old rules and are not bound by the new rules.
Over the last 15 years, the Supreme Court’s rulings on juvenile offenders have provided more leeway for rehabilitation. The court, however, did not say at the time whether their ruling should be retroactive and affect juveniles sentenced to life before their ruling. States keep the right to uphold life sentences, but they no longer can be mandatory.
Advertisement
OPINION: Prison Reform in the US: Big Business as Usual? Offering parole hearings to the inmates does not guarantee that they will be released.
