Think back to when you were seventeen. There’s no need to admit real ages here, but most people’s biggest issues probably had something to do with buying a car, finding a date to prom or covering up a dreaded pimple on senior picture day. Even today, most teens only use the words “cruel and unusual” to describe one another’s particularly odd fashion sense or seemingly bad attitude – not when talking about prison sentences.
But imagine for a moment your seventeen-year-old self facing a life sentence in prison without any hope of release. Sure, you probably haven’t made the best life choices up to this point, but could you even begin to understand such severe consequences at that young age?
Terrance Graham didn’t have to imagine what it would be like. He was sentenced to life without parole for robberies committed when he was 16 and 17 years old. But is such a sentence constitutional?
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court considered that question. They were asked if juveniles, such as Graham, who commit crimes not involving murder could be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In a historic decision, six justices ruled that such a sentence was considered cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.
The decision of Graham v. Florida comes a long way from the 18th century, when courts were able to use capital punishment on children as young as seven.
One of the Supreme Court’s first decisions regarding cruel and unusual punishments was to prohibit drawing and quartering, dissection and burning alive in 1878 with Wilkerson v. Utah. Those with weak stomachs and low pain tolerances were forever grateful.
Later on throughout the 20th century, the Court focused on prohibiting sentences for certain crimes. They found punishments such as “hard and painful labor”, revoking a natural-born person’s citizenship, and requiring jail time for an addiction to narcotics all to be unconstitutional in specific cases.
However, throughout history, the length of a prison sentence itself was not questioned under the Eighth Amendment until 1983 in Solem v. Helm. This was the first case in which incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if the time didn’t fit the crime. In that specific case, the Court found that cashing a $100 dollar check on a closed account didn’t merit life in prison. Everyone with an occasionally mismanaged checking account found themselves breathing a little easier.
8th Amendment law continued to evolve in 2005 with Roper v. Simmons when the Court ruled that defendants under 18 couldn’t be executed. With execution just one step away from life imprisonment without parole, the case of Graham v. Florida was next in the progression of Eighth Amendment cases involving minors.
This brief history of Supreme Court cases involving the Eighth Amendment seems to travel in a logical expansion of recognizing human rights. From banning torture to limiting extreme punishments that don’t fit the crime, the Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida seems like the next logical step in societal progress after banning execution for minors.
In the decision, Justice Stevens wrote, “Knowledge accumulates. We learn sometimes, from our mistakes.” His comment can be applied to the Court’s learning process leading up to the decision as well as the second chance many juveniles now have to receive the possibility of parole with their life sentences. In both cases, it’s a step in the right direction.
Posted by Rachel on June 3, 2010 at 12:02pm.
