The Argument for According Life Without Parole Its Own Category of Heightened Review Under the Eighth Amendment After Graham v. Florida WILLIAM W. BERRY III
نویسنده
چکیده
The Supreme Court has traditionally applied the Eighth Amendment differently to capital and non-capital cases based on the longstanding notion that “death-is-different.” In the recent case of Graham v. Florida, however, the Supreme Court applied its “evolving standards of decency” standard, heretofore reserved for capital cases, to a non-capital case. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited states from sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole for non-homicide crimes. This dramatic change led dissenting justices to argue that this decision marked the end of the Court’s “death-is-different” jurisprudence.
منابع مشابه
More Different than Life, Less Different than Death: The Argument for According Life Without Parole Its Own Category of Heightened Review Under the Eighth Amendment After Graham v. Florida
متن کامل
The Youth Discount: Old Enough to Do the Crime, Too Young to Do the Time
In a trilogy of cases, the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment to the entire category of juvenile offenders, repudiated its “death is different” jurisprudence, and required states to consider youthfulness as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Roper v. Simmons prohibited states from executing offenders for murder they committed when younger than eighteen years of age. Roper reasoned that ...
متن کاملEighth Amendment Meanings from the Aba’s Moratorium Resolution
The American Bar Association’s (“ABA’s”) objection to capital punishment as currently practiced stands as one of the most provocative acts of selfproclaimed Eighth Amendment relevance to occur in many years, ranking with Justice Harry A. Blackmun’s well-publicized renunciation of the death penalty in Callins v. Collins. The ABA insists that its position—that America must institute substantial r...
متن کاملA new test for evaluating Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injections.
An explosion of Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injection protocols has struck the federal courts. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Hill v. McDonough,1 which empowered prisoners to bring challenges to lethal injection procedures under 42 U.S.C. para. 1983, has facilitated a flood of new lethal injection cases. In response, several courts have ordered states to alter their protocols,...
متن کاملConstitutional Law: Parole Status
In Rose v. Haskins,' the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reiterated the orthodox view that since a prisoner parole system is not constitutionally compelled, parole status is merely a "privilege" regulated by statute and not circumscribed by either the specific constitutional guarantees applicable to a criminal proceeding nor the traditional safeguards of procedural due process. However, ...
متن کامل