US Supreme Court: Miller v Alabama, unconstitutional and retroactive

[shadowraiths]

The United States Supreme Court today decided that states must retroactively apply the ban on mandatory death-in-prison sentences for juveniles.

In 2012, EJI lawyers argued at the Supreme Court that sentencing kids to life in prison without parole for any offense is cruel and unusual punishment, relying on the Court's recognition that children are less culpable than adults because of their unique immaturity, impulsiveness, vulnerability, and capacity for redemption and rehabilitation. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an historic ruling in Miller v. Alabama, holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children 17 or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. The Court wrote that requiring sentencers to consider “children’s diminished culpability, and heightened capacity for change” should make such sentences “uncommon.”

[...]

Today's decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana now requires all states to apply Miller retroactively, which means that in Louisiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Colorado, hundreds of people who were sentenced to die in prison for crimes when they were children are now entitled to new sentencing hearings.​

link

 

[Hiandmighty]

I more or less agree with this.

 

[wendybtn]

But I am curious what is done with an actual diagnosed mentally ill person. Meds may lessen symptomology but they may never cause the cessation of all the disease's symptoms. In other words the person is still mentally incompetent. Do all states have a Vacaville-like institution for these prisoners? If being released endangers themselves or the community at large, that cannot be tolerated.

 

[Margo/Mom]

But I am curious what is done with an actual diagnosed mentally ill person. Meds may lessen symptomology but they may never cause the cessation of all the disease's symptoms. In other words the person is still mentally incompetent. Do all states have a Vacaville-like institution for these prisoners? If being released endangers themselves or the community at large, that cannot be tolerated.

I have not followed this issue, but the ruling looks like really good news. In recent years we have trended away from the notion of special protections/considerations for juveniles, based on an understanding of development.

But, I think you have brought to the table an important consideration. My first response is that prison is not appropriate for people who are mentally ill. But I don't know the answer to your question with regard to facilities. I do believe that our capacity to provide appropriate mental health care for people who are imprisoned falls well below the need--and that a disproportionately high percentage of the prison population suffers from some form of mental illness. I believe that some states have institutions for the "criminally insane," of folks whose illness was either integral to their commission of a crime, or interferes with their capability to assist in their defense. But all states, and are they adequate? Good question.

 

[seattlechiquita]

This is really interesting and will have repercussions from here on. I am half in agreement. When I think of kids that TRULY make a horrible mistake versus little psychopaths, my opinion on the ruling changes.