A 14 year old is probably young enough that massive counseling could help turn them around. Doubt that funding could be set aside for that though, even though it would be cheaper than life in prison.

Crap to that. We consider them adults at this age if they get pregnant and need taxpayer money to raise their child to become a burden on society. Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time. Ask any family member of the victim if they think it was better their loved one died because a teen "made a mistake".

Murderers? A person or persons are dead by the hands of these murderers...

I just don't get it... What has age got to do with it? The victims will never get any older... Their dead!

OK has the SCOTUS found a way to make the victim "undead"? If that is the case I would agree with this facacta decision. However I can see no difference between a young murderer and an old murderer. How long will it be before the SCOTUS hears a age discrimination lawsuit that will have to allow old murderers out on the street?

This makes no sense whatsoever except that the NRA position is looking better every day. Welcome to the wild wild west everyone!

This freaking society has gone nuts!!!

Hope for their future? Are you kidding me? These kids aren't being punished for smoking a joint or ditching a class. At 14 they are murdering....they don't have a future anyway. They, not we, chose to throw their future away. We, the law abiding, tax paying citizens have the right and responsibility to protect the innocent. And, yet time and time again victim rights go out the window to the assumed rights of the guilty.

What hope does the murdered victims of these fourteen years old have?

On second thought, if one of the victims were one of my family members, I might just want the murderer back out on the street with me.

Some people are "defective" and can't be fixed. A kid who has thought through a murder and possibly is known to have tortured animals or other kids in the past "for kicks" is beyond repair and needs to be removed from society. Ok, so no "life without parole" .. we can replace that with a 90 year sentence then put them on the street at about 70 and see how they do and they'll be slow enough we can keep tabs on them.

People have to put this ruling into context. Murder WITHOUT a review IS unjustifiable against a minor. It doesn't mean they are getting paroled.

I understand with the F up our system has that one day some murderer is getting back on the street as a possibility. But also as a possibility are all the wrongly convicted killers getting more chance to be looked at. How many innocent, even ADULTS have been freed because of reviews lately? It isn't zero.

And it isn't one. Or two. Or three. And so on. It is a hell of a lot more than that.

Now, it is going to be up to proper enforcement and review. In other words, a parole board actually now has to do its job.

Wow, just chil out a little. It is not like they will say "Oh well I guess we will just let the kid go since we can't put him in jail forever". Now instead of Life without the possibility of parole they will have the possibility of parole. They are still going to spend many years in prison and have to get through a parole board in order to be released. Even if it was a murder it was still an act that was performed before they were fully mentally developed, if we as a society wont put a 14 year old to death for such a crime for that reason, life without parole is just as wrong.

You are a fool - I would bet that if a 14 year old killed your spouse you would not be so inclined to give them a second chance. Once again the rights of the criminal have trumped the rights of the victim.

Anyone that is "for" letting these poor, "teen" murders out let them please visit your house first when they go on their next killing spree.

So how much time are these 'kids' supposed to serve?

This Supreme Court (and this article) doesn't say sh!t.

What about their Victims? Do they get a "Reduced sentence" also? No?

Reliant-If you were looking over the casket of a loved one because some scumbag defect of a 13 year old killed them would you still feel the same?

You deserve to die if you take someone elses life. That is one of the main reasons that there are so many juvenile offenders because they don't have any fear of the repercussions. I have never met a 14 year old that didn't understand that death is final or that killing someone is wrong. Prison does not rehabilitate people it just makes them stronger more violent criminals. Get real people.

If you take a life, you shouldn't have a life either.

If your old enough to murder, your old enough to pay the price for it....

Tell me more about this part where they get cruel and unusual punishment!! They kill someone and because they are not older they get out and are allowed to do it again. And me next question is what is YOUNG. Under 30 is young, 40 is young if your as old as some of these Justices. Where do you draw the line on murderers. My brother murdered his ex-wife....he should have been executed for what he did but, he wasn't because it was in California. He died in prison of cancer years later....was that cruel..Not really!! He killed a person that he was mad at. That was the reason he killed her, he did it and there was no doubt of it at all. He was my brother but, guess what...he was a murderer and was very guilty. Why would he be any different than the next murderer.

My biggest problem is that now we are sending this big headline out to all these teen murderers that you can kill and get away with it because your too young to go to prison for it.......open the doors and get ready.....here they come to kill you. They all think they are playing a video game and think it's so much fun ti kill, just like in their games. And if I protect myself is that going to be wrong now too or will they say that I was doing cruel punishment in protecting my family and me.

I can agree with this ruling in principle. In practice, one wonders how a "child" raised in prison will ever turn their life around, but I suppose that it's possible. The sad thing is that we even have a need as country to make decisions on this kind of thing. Why to we have 14 year olds who kill in cold blood?

Excuse me - what about the victims and their loved ones?

"Rehablitation" is a sad joke. Keep these murderers in prison where they belong.

BS Are you kidding NO LIFE ? ........... ok ok ok then 65 years not life.

Actually, I was speaking the the commander of security at a prison, and he said that if a murder was not because of drugs or a sexual deviation, then if that killer is later paroled, he is extremely unlikely to reoffend, and he would actually prefer one of them as a neighbor than some other neighborhood folks. I have worked with murderers on appeal actions, and I concur with him. Some probably (most assuredly) cannot be rehabilitated, but that is what the Parole Board is all about. Make a 30 year minimum, then let them go before a parole board after that. Allow two parole hearings 10 years apart, if they can't satisfy the board after the 2nd, they remain in prison for the rest of their life.

Maybe some of you indignant grownups can organize a lid on Hollywood trash so these kids realize dead hurts and lasts a long time.

No, they shouldn't be in prison. They should be sent to the gallows as far as I'm concerned.

Cruel and unusual, my foot. What is cruel? It should be judged by the crime they committed. If they killed, execution (much less life in prison) is not cruel, it is appropriate justice. What is unusual? Anything that is not usual. Make execution the usual punishment. Then by definition it will neither be cruel nor unusual.

Judicial activism strikes again.

What about the rights of the victims?? Guess they don't matter to the courts. Surprise, suprise.

Why is it when an adult woman manages to injure or kill her her rapist she is considered a folk hero to many people, yet when a severely-abused kid manages to kill their abuser, they are instead deemed as a predator too dangerous to release on society and often given maximum adult prison terms instead? Some of these kids had been badly physically and sexually abused almost every single day of their lives, and a number of them had tried without success to report their ongoing victimization to law enforcement or social services too.

My own feeling is that almost all severely-abused kids who finally can't take any more abuse, and end-up killing their abuser in order to protect themselves from having to suffer any more abuse, deserve another chance at an adult life after several years of therapy, which has to include supportive surroundings that help them to build-up their often destroyed self-esteem.

There is no good reason at all for a severely-abused kid who defends themselves by killing their attacker to be locked-up in an adult prison for any amount of time, where they will subjected to a 500% greater chance of being raped than in a juvenile facility, a 300% greater chance of being beaten or abused by staff than in a juvenile facility, a several hundred percent greater chance of being forced into solitary confinement than in a juvenile facility, and more than a 500% greater chance of committing suicide than in a juvenile facility as well.

I would far rather that we design and operate an intermediate judicial division for serious older teen offenders where rehabilitation, therapy, and release back to society would be to focus of the program, where such younger violators could be incarcerated for periods of time longer than is currently available under our juvenile justice system, or just allow for lengthier incarceration terms for serious juvenile offenders in entirely separate juvenile facilities, where such young people could continue juvenile therapy through their late teens and 20s if necessary to satisfy the need for revenge that some of us so seem to favor.

The US is a signatory on United Nations human rights law regarding the judicial treatment of juveniles and we are also currently the worst world human rights violator of the law that we signed too. Does it surprise you that the US would be the worst country in the world by far in violation of a world human rights law that is nearly universally-respected by all but a very few outlaw nations? How does it make you feel to be a member of a select club of outlaws which ONLY includes Iran, Israel, and Somalia among our planet's over 200 nations? How would you feel if all of the other nations decided to jointly cut us off from raw materials or any other foreign trade because we violate international human rights as badly as we do, since we can not possibly survive on our own remaining raw materials at this point???

What is so difficult about respecting human rights recognized by 99% of the entire rest of the world regarding juvenile justice???

SpyderGirl "One thing people don't understand is that the teenage brain is not fully developed and incapable of considering consequences. There are several studies. Its why teenagers engage in stupid and risky behaviours. Their bodies are pumped full of new hormones and their brains have not matured enough to have impulse control."

14 years olds know the consequences of MURDER unless they are mentally retarded. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen on the web.

Because thinking it far too hard for some people, Old Timer. Part of thinking would be to read the entire article, but you can see from a fair ton of the posts, there are plenty of people who haven't done that.

I think whatever judges wrote this piece of trash should take those murdering kids into THEIR homes when they are parolled.

If you're not going to execute murderers, leave them in prison.

I don't for a second believe that any of you calling for the heads of these kids will ever believe any argument or science that says you are wrong.

But the facts are in, and they are that people of this age simply have not had time for their brains to fully develop. Yeah, I know, they don't just deserve life without parole, they deserve death, evolution is a hoax, and so is global climate change.

Denial of the scientific process isn't sufficient reason to imprison these kids. No matter what FOX or your bible says, science is still our best option for making informed decisions.

Ohoooooo!!! Listen to all the stand your grounders whining in their brew. They think it's kool to have someone kill kids or put them in a pit for life???? The victim didn't get off easy? People in the Christian faith and country should realize that death is the ultimate victory???? Hence, the victim is victim no more???? They will not be rehabilitated in jail, just learn to be hardened criminals. Well, we should not condemn these kids for that; condemn the penal system. Seems as though we should sentence them to the pool halls. Never met a person in a pool hall, young or old, that did not learn a new lesson. LOL!!

What has age got to do with it?

A minor cannot enter into a legal contract. Do you think a 3 yr old that shoots someone should be imprisoned for life?

So how many of those teenagers do you think were sentenced for killing abusive parents? I guess mitigating circumstances don't matter? If it was cold blood then feel free to throw away the key, but you can't tell me that all of them were cold-blooded sociopaths.

I'm sure all the little teenage gang-bangers are going to love this ruling. The gangs are probably making up new initiation rules as we speak to accommodate this wonderful turn of events (for them)!

Why to we have 14 year olds who kill in cold blood?

Because they have a gun.

I don't have a problem with releasing murders back into society. As long as we release them and house them with the liberals and progressives. That way if they kill again, the left gets to experience it up close and personal.

It's always easy to be magnanomous when it doesn't have any effect on you personally. It's easy to be a philanthropist with other peoles money. Let's make it up close and personal for the left and see how 'forgiving' they really are. Let's open halfway houses for these rehabilitated killers financed by a special tax on people like Soros and Hollywood and place them in the Kennedy's, Clinton's, Reid's, and Streisand's neighborhood.

If the murder crime warrants life without parole, I don't care how young you are! If they've taken a life, they don't deserve a life. A conviction of murder with the sentence of life without parole has to be pretty horrendous.

I don't want to waste one nickel trying to "save" them. A lot of 14 year olds are far from being "children". If it is proven that the person intended and knew exactly what they were doing, then so be it!

Hopeful American, you're a typical right winger. Won't spend a nickle to save them but will spend millions to hang them. Then will bitch that we pay teachers to much.

And if you believe 14 year olds aren't children you must not have, or ever have had any kids. And you probably knew as much at 14 as you do now. Well...from the sounds of it, maybe that last one isn't so far off.

At 14 years of age, they know right from wrong. If they are old enough to do the crime, they should serve the time or better yet they should get death. These animals need taken off the streets permanently or be put in the ground. Their victims have no recourse, they are dead because of these animals. Look at any major city, Chicago, Detroit or Baltimore, youth are killing, robbing and terrorizing law-abiding citizens and are being slapped on the hand and put back in the streets. If you can't lock them up for life, they will have a shorter life on the street. If Police and the courts will not protect citizens from these animals, it's time for citizens to put the animals under the ground.

This is a double-edged sword here because on the one hand there's the rights of the victim and the rights of the courts to decide on an appropriate punishment that fits the crime and then on the other hand there's the issue of fiscal responsibility and having tax payers be responsible for paying to feed, house, educate and care for this young person for their entire life. As a nation, we spend so much more on incarceration than we do on education. Add the fact that our kids are dumber than the rest of the world to a nationwide decline in effective parenting and now the whole country is having to pay (literally) for kids who don't know how to verbally resolve their feelings and were never taught how to control themselves.

@ oldtimer 88224... These are not abused kids that acted out against their abuser. These are kids that planned and executed a killing on another individual. Murder requires an intent and a premeditated plan. Extenuating circumstances allow for the inclusion of lesser included offenses to be charged.... In other words, if they did it as a crime of passion, or in the midst of being beaten or abused, they would get manslaughter or justifiable homicide, not murder.

Before you start comparing crimes, maybe a little bit of actual legal research into the definition of murder versus manslaughter or justifiable homicide is in order. A rape vicitm who kills her rapist is justified in defending herself from imminent bodily harm.

Will the Supreme Court take responsibility if these mini murderers kill again after being humanly released. I sincerely doubt it. Each case has to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. If we're talking about someone who killed an abusive parent or guardian that's one thing but if you're talking about killing for the hell of it that another. What about the monsters who have killed elderly people just to rob them and the kill was for the hell of it. They can't be let loose.

Concerned citizen - throwing more money in education to solve the problem is a non-starter. Most of these kids have already been given multiple educational options and aren't interested. The major problem is that they suffer no punishment for their crimes. No matter what they do, all they get is a slap on the hands and nothing more. It's time to get serious with this, the most violent population, in the U.S. and hold them accountable for their crimes and sentence regardless of their age.

They aren't saying that these kids should get out eventually. They are saying that MANDATORY sentences that say the judge has no discretion in sentencing should be thrown out. An earlier article gave some examples of the kids in this situation. One of them was a 13 year old who was the lookout during a hold up of a liquor store. He didn't kill the clerk himself, but because he participated in the robbery he was convicted of murder. I think there is a possibility that kid could be saved. Another girl kille dboth her grandparents, no reason why was given- but it's possible she had been abused by them or she could just be a psychopath. Either way, it shouldn't be hard to figure out the truth and if it comes to light that her grandfather had been raping her and her grandmother beat her for it then I wold say that she too should at least deserve consideration for release.

If a 12 year old is given a gun by older gang members and told to kill someone or be killed himself- is that really murder?

Maybe what we need to focus all this hate and energy on is the very real degradation of society that creates environments that turn 12, 13 ,14 year olds into killers. WTF has happened to us?

JoeB,

"The major problem is that they suffer no punishment for their crimes."

What do you mean they suffer no punishment for their crimes? The article said there are 80 fourteen year olds currently serving life sentences without parole. It doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.

I agree with the scrotum ( pun intended ), they should not have to face life in prison, no murderer should, if you are fourteen and older and you take someone's life without cause then you should be executed. Period.

Of the 73 children sentenced to die in prison, six were sentenced to die in prison for crimes in which no one was killed. All of these kids are children of color. Only two people in the nation are known to have been sentenced to life without parole for a non-homicide offense at age 13. One is Joe Sullivan, who was blamed by an older co-defendant for a sexual battery that was allegedly committed when they broke into a home together. No physical evidence (like DNA) proved that Joe, and not the older teen, committed this offense. The second is Ian Manuel, who was 13 years old when he was directed by gang members to commit a robbery. During the botched robbery attempt, the subject of the robbery suffered a nonfatal gunshot wound and a remorseful Ian turned himself in to the police. Although the victim of the robbery supports parole for Ian, he remains condemned to die in prison. In one of these nonhomicide cases, a 14-yearold was sentenced to die in prison in California for an offense in which no one was injured. Fourteen-yearold Antonio Nuñez got into a car with two men nearly twice his age who picked him up at a party. One of the men later claimed to be a kidnap victim. When their car was chased by the police and shots were fired, Antonio was arrested and charged, along with the 27-year-old driver, with aggravated kidnapping.

Hopeful American - at least you are being totally honest .

It all comes down to money.

There are always different circumstances surrounding violence , that's why we are supposed to have the best and brightest on the court benches. And thus the different degrees of murder charges. It's the MANDATORY sentence that some people have a problem with.

Ashley Jones is the only girl in Alabama sentenced to death in prison for an
offense when she was 14 years old. From the time she was an infant, Ashley was
terrorized by abusive and violent adults. Her addicted mother abandoned Ashley in
crack houses while she was still in diapers and on several occasions threatened her
at gunpoint. Her father assaulted her, resulting in a hospitalization. Her stepfather
sexually assaulted her when she was 11. Relentless violence in her home left Ashley
depressed, traumatized, and suicidal. At 14, Ashley tried to escape the violence and
abuse by running away with an older boyfriend who shot and killed her grandfather
and aunt. Her grandmother and sister, who were injured during the offense, want
Ashley to come home. But Alabama's mandatory sentencing law does not recognize
mitigation, mercy, or the abusive dysfunction that lead to her crime. Instead, it
condemns Ashley to die in prison despite the fact that today, at 22, she has matured
into a remarkable young woman who is incredibly bright and promising.

Sam Adams, you say they only kill because they have a gun? What about knives, axes, hammers, etc......

At 14, Kuntrell Jackson was arrested and accused of robbery-murder in a video store robbery and shooting that the prosecution acknowledges was carried out by someone else. Kuntrell was with several other teens when the crime allegedly was committed. Before Kuntrell entered the store, another teen shot and killed the clerk. The State of Arkansas sentenced 14-year-old Kuntrell to die in prison despite its concession that he did not kill the clerk. Kuntrell’s life at home had been seriously disrupted when his father abandoned the family three years prior to this incident. Kuntrell’s time in jail as a young child has been horrific. He attempted to escape on two occasions and now is confined in a maximum security prison. 26

Crap to that. We consider them adults at this age if they get pregnant and need taxpayer money to raise their child to become a burden on society

How does aid for the babies (and that is who the financial assistance is for) translated in recognition of 14 year olds as adults? Would you let a baby starve and go without medical care simply because the mother is under the age of 18? Conservatives really do stop caring about children when they're born.

Dominic Culpepper suffered constant emotional and physical abuse from his mother, who beat him severely and told him she wished he was dead. Dominic’s parents divorced and his father moved out, leaving him with his unstable and violent mother. Dominic was befriended by older men in the neighborhood who used him to deal drugs for them. When he was 14, a drug dealer who had threatened and stolen from Dominic came into his home. Dominic attacked him with a baseball bat. Afraid and confused, 14-year-old Dominic moved the injured drug dealer out of the house and contacted emergency services. Emergency services personnel were unable to save the young man’s life and Dominic was arrested for murder. Although Dominic was only 14 and had used the bat against an intruder in his own home, the State of Florida sentenced him to die in prison.

Sorry for the cut and past posts, but I wanted to put up some real-life examples of the types of offenses that get life without parole. These are not cut and dry cases of a psychopath who graduated from killing cats and dogs to butchering an innocent person for fun. Often the "victim" isn't so innocent themselves but are other criminals. Other times we find that the perpetrator of the crime was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Others have lived lives so horrific and were under such stress that is easily used by adults when justifying why they snapped. Honestly, I believe that all mandatory sentences are wrong and that judges should be allowed to JUDGE the situation and sentence accordingly.

If you READ the article (instead of just the headline), it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole. That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum.

Do any remember what we thought about or did when we were 14? What did we think about the world? About right and wrong, about politics, laws? Do any of us decades older now still think the same way?

Children under a certain age are NOT capable of thinking deeply enough to have the same understanding an adult possesses. This is why there is a juvenile court and sentencing system in our country.

Murder is murder. Dead is dead! Tragedy beyond imagining at the hands of a young person is not forgivable. No one is suggesting that they be forgiven but as adults with a deeper understanding, we should be able to acknowledge that the mind of a juvenile evolves, matures. Over time the understanding of what they've done will deepen to a point that some won't be able to live with the knowledge.

No one can bring back the dead, no one can stop violence and punishment that fits the crime is vital. Life with no possibility of parole is critically important for certain types of perpetrators but each crime has its own set of unique circumstances.

Juvenile offenders possess an immature intellect that is easily manipulated by older minds.

Perhaps it is time to hold the parents accountable for the crimes of juveniles, after all they are the ones who were supposed to instill the moral, ethical, and social behaviors that civil societies depend on.

How many rot in jail for crimes committed when they were too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions? How many adults commit murder or other violent crimes and are released, sometimes after serving minimally long sentences?

Juveniles committed to life without parole are being held more accountable than the many adults convicted of the same crime.

Flexibility in sentencing is critical to making sure the punishment fits the crime.

Xina the Awesome,

Thanks for the posts! They're very informative. You appear to have done your homework well, and I agree with your conclusion.

Did you all not READ the whole article?? Their decision doesn't say that a child can NEVER be found guilty and given life imprisonment. The way the state laws read was that the judge and jury could NOT look at the kid's background, upbringing and mitgating circumstances. Kids CAN be given life imprisonment but, for example, the case where the kid didn't even HAVE a gun or commit the murder and he was given life in prison is ridiculous and unfair. All they have done is given the judges and jury the ability to look at mitigating circumstances when giving out the sentence. Geeesh people just get all huffy and kill happy these days I swear.

The lack of reading comprehension demonstrated by some of the comments by posters is amazing. If you READ the article, it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole.

That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum. So all you fearmongers talking about spouses being the next victim need to read before you spout your ignorance.

I guess, in other words, there is no justice for the victim or the victim's families. So, they serve "some" years and free to live their life.

Seems like our supreme court is as screwed up as Obummer!

Romney 2012

People! The operative word there is "MANDATORY". This just means that some discretion can now be applied when sentencing a minor who has committed murder.

Then all of those "what-ifs" you bleeding hearts keep throwing out there as if only one scenario should be taken into consideration for all existing cases (dumb), can actually be used to make that determination.

That way, for the fraction of the cases that actually were the result of an abused child killing their abusers a judge or jury can opt to give them a lower sentence.

It's not totally abolishing the death penalty. So would the radical right folks who apparently have a very low reading comprehension please calm down?

IBChuck said:

Hopeful American, you're a typical right winger. Won't spend a nickle to save them but will spend millions to hang them. Then will bitch that we pay teachers to much.

And if you believe 14 year olds aren't children you must not have, or ever have had any kids. And you probably knew as much at 14 as you do now. Well...from the sounds of it, maybe that last one isn't so far off.

Sorry Chuck - there's plenty of 14 year olds that are way beyond their 14 years. They can be just as evil as a 21 year old. And spoken like a true progressive libbie, you like to give people excuses. If a 14 year old murders with intent, and the crime warrants life without parole, I'm all for it. I'm also for the death penalty it the crime warrants it - even if they are 14.

And although it has nothing to do with this, you pulled out the lame teacher comment so . . . a lot of teachers aren't paid enough to teach the kids they have or ever could be (like in some of the cesspool school districts like Los Angeles Unified), and there's also crappy teachers that should be fired without regard to bs tenure. All that does is potect crappy teachers! And paying them anything is too much!

You keeping your job should be based on how well you do your job, not how long you've been there. Would you go to a crappy doctor because he's been around for 30 years, or would you go to the younger better doctor even though he's only been around for 10 years?

In many societies around the world, a male child goes through a "rite of passage" to be considered a man (i.e. adult). during these rites, the male child is thoroughly taught what their rights and responsibilities are, as well as the consequences for not adhering to them. In the U.S. there is no such rite, generally only a legal pronouncement when the male reaches a certain age. In the Jewish culture, however, there is Bar Mitzvah (or Bat Mitzvar for females, I believe), after which they are considered adult enough to enjoy certain privileges and their attendant responsibilities. At that time, they are no longer considered mere children but adults, old enough to assume the responsibilities and accept the consequences of their actions. It is disheartening that there are no such rites of passage through which children can pass to become responsible adults. Parents, primarily, are responsible for properly teaching their children about their rights, responsibilities, privileges and consequences. A mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is harsh but should be allowed to be imposed. At the same time, judges should also be given some latitude to amend the sentence, based on certain factors. I also believe that the parents should be considered responsible and subject to the actions of their children during the proceedings. That alone should give many parents much to think about.

Reading the description of those two cases, neither deserves life without parole even IF AN ADULT had committed them.

Both are cases where life with the possibility of parole would be far more appropriate punishments.

Many of the critics of this judgment are completely missing the point. What was struck down was MANDATORY life without parole, ie the law DICTATING to the trial judge what sentence he or she HAS to give, no matter what the extenuating circumstances might be.

These were both cases where the trial judge had NO CHOICE but to give a life sentence without parole EVEN IF he or she felt such a sentence WAS NOT APPROPRIATE.

The justices ruled that imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year old convicted of homicide violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishments.

"State law mandated that each juvenile die in prison even if a judge or jury would have thought that his youth and its attendant characteristics, along with the nature of his crime, made a lesser sentence (for example, life with the possibility of parole) more appropriate," noted Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the majority opinion for the court.

Let me translate all of this for you, okay folks?

That's double-speak for:

"We moonbats have NO PROBLEM with letting loose criminal murderous juvenile thugs and don't particularly care if they break down your door and kill your wife and child, so as long as these vermin don't turn up in OUR gated neighborhoods."

Glad I could help you out this, folks. You're welcome.

Did you ever do something you regretted as a child? I know it's a matter of scale. I didn't say they shouldn't go to prison at all.

I don't think you take our children, damaged or not, and just throw away their lives without any hope.

It's like being Pro-Life and Pro-Death penalty at the same time.

Skup, either you have no idea about brain development or you have no brain!

We are not China! If you want to ignore all knowledge of psychology, maybe you would like to move to a 3rd world country? Or is it "revenge" instead of justice?

Typical. Some people just cannot disagree with someone without insulting them also. When someone behaves that way, they throw all credibility they may have out the window.

I only hope that all of you "second chancres" NEVER are put in the role of a grieving relative of a youthful murderer. You will come very quickly to believe in revenge over "justice".

My thoughts exactly Skup. I don't care that it's a kid under 14. So I guess we'll just keep the little snots jailed long enough to let them out to commit yet another heinous crime after the age of 18 so they can be committed for life then?? Bravo!!

It's like being Pro-Life and Pro-Death penalty at the same time.

I believe in life for the innocent. I believe in death for those who have taken it on themselves to prove that they can't live in a civil society. These are not in opposition to one another. Once you understand the series of criteria between the two it doesn't seem so foolish after all, does it?

Those who are for the death sentence aren't simply hot heads who are asking that random people be plucked from the streets and executed but the "pro-choice" crowd rarely consider this when using the false dichotomy quoted above.

Boomer- Sorry for your loss. Comments are much easier when you haven't lived it. I hope that you are able to find peace-also much easier said.

These kids are not ordinary... in any way.

Even the murders they committed are extraordinarily heinous which is the reason for never allowing them to go free.

There are only 80 out of thousands of teen murderers that have received this sentence.

I see nothing cruel or unusual about sentencing someone who begins their life by committing premeditated murder and sometimes torture and molestation to life without parole.

It is however unusual and perhaps insane to imagine a scenario that would justify releasing them.

Research how the age of 18 became the age of adulthood, actually very interesting and it may show that a person even at 18 can make some serious mistakes.

No! Ultimate victory!!!!

It's like being Pro-Life and Pro-Death penalty at the same time.

Aren't most conservatives?

Yeah Boomer, that's why we have laws that govern our actions and don't allow people to simply dispense "justice" on their own. Too many of you just want retribution instead of justice.

Ebeneezer, I am Pro-Life, as I believe all life is sacred. Nothing destroys what we are as people than the death of the innocents (unborn children)

I am Pro death penalty in certain circumstances. For those who have without cause or justification have taken the life of another. When the evidence is positive by DNA/Smoking gun/Witness.

The ones I find interesting are the pro-abortion crowd who feel nothing about taking the life of a being who has done absolutely NOTHING wrong except to exist, while at the same time say that the death penalty is barbaric.

If a person takes the life of another, then his/her life should also be forfeit. I remember my teens (and pre-teens) well, and although I did some stupid things, the thought of killing another person was absolutely out of the question. At 14, I knew right from wrong.

My question to those who make our laws and influence these types of decisions is would you still feel the same way if one of these "kids" murdered a member of your own family. I'm guessing in that case, they would have no sympathy for these young killers.

If you READ the article (instead of just the headline), it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole. That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum.

Actually, Shorty, it is YOU who needs to READ THE ENTIRE article. It DOES say life without parole is unconstitutional.

The justices ruled that imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year old convicted of homicide violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

The first paragraph is worded a bit poorly. It means mandating life without parole is unconstitutional.

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented."

Of course they did, They're the federalists, and they're the deciderers. When a young corporation commits a crime that kills, the corporation should be sentenced to life in prison or the executives of the corporation are put to death. When that happens I'll believe they're people.

Until then, vote these A-holes out by voting for a Democratic president who will appoint some sanity into this corrupt body.

The Supreme Court Monday struck down mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without parole for convicted murderers who were only 14 years old when they committed their crimes.

What an unusual day.

Today, the Supreme Court handed down two surprising decisions.

With respect to these two decisions, is the right-wing court "leaning" left or are its 2 major decisions released today...political ploys?

I think the issue was with the "mandatory" sentence. I believe they can still be sentenced with life without parole at the judges' and juries' discretion.

You are correct. They said manditory sentences are unconstitutional but were very carefully to make it absuloutely clear that sentences of lifewithout parole in states where it was NOT manditory are uneffected by their decision. The defendants in states that had a manditory sentence will have to resentence those defendents. Many will probably STILL get life without parole.

The "rule of proportionality." Interestingly, Roberts does not challenge this key element in the majority decision - he only argues to avoid the decison altogether. However, the "conservative"members of the SCOTUS do not hesitate to use the rule of proporationality when it come to protecting corporations - they see any corporation as proportionally equal, if not greater than, an actual living, breathing American citizen.

This is simple for states to remedy. They'll just impose a life sentence with no parole provision for 50 years.

Is it possible that a 14 year old child could mature and change, given the opportunity? Or do the majority here think a child's personality is firmly establlished by the time a child turns 18?

If you believe the latter, then what does that imply about an 18 year old privileged boy who would lead a group of friends to attack and bully a fellow student who was different from themselves? Any resemblance to the 18 yr old Mitt Romney in this example is not coincidence.

Thommy

I think the issue was with the "mandatory" sentence. I believe they can still be sentenced with life without parole at the judges' and juries' discretion.

Thommy,

That the Supreme Court removed the "mandatory" sentencing for juveniles is significant. Before this case was litigated in the relevant states, youths at the age of 14 who committed murder, did not have legal standing to receive less than life sentences. Now, juries and judges have discretion in sentencing the effected young. This Supreme Court decision will give youths that are not incorrigible...a second chance.

That is why I am an Independent which means I think for myself. Murder is wrong except in self defense. War is wrong for too many reasons to go into here but perps both cases need to be rendered ineffective for life.

But I am also adamant about the fact that everyone should be made to pay a fair share for their own medical care and not leave the burden to responsible citizens and our taxes to pay for.

Does that make me a "LibiCon"? "Deer Kill (Middle of the Road)? Or simply someone who thinks for himself and doesn't let others think for me?

Go ahead and rant ASOWGAS!

First off: Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). Not the same thing as self defense.

Second: If you READ the article (instead of just the headline), it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole. That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum.

Which all of this means is when they are let out of prison they will no longer be minors so that when they kill again THEN we can give them a life without parole sentence. I think its called a twofer. But at least at the expense of the second person to lose their life these fine individuals rights were looked after. Hell of a deal.

Who care's. if they kill, They should be killed, Tired of my tax dallor's wasted on such low life people,

some one always has to bring up race. people like YOU are the reason racism wont go away. not a day goes by you dont here someone saying things go one way just because of skin color. either way it doesnt matter what skin color they are, they are 14 thats old enough to know not to kill someone. they got what they deserved.

Well Barry it would seem sine these are MANDATORY sentences the % of black kids would be equal to the % of black kids convicted and the % of white kids equal to the % of whit kids convicted.

I have a better question I wonder what the % of guys named Barry who try to turn this into a racial issue are versus the % on non-ass wipes is?

im not telling you You crack me up, you think there is not racism in our current political climate in this country? Your moniker should be "I'm not telling you because I am an ostrich with my head in the sand - or up my A___S, not sure which.

Not considering this as a racist comment. I suspect the majority are black, simply because of economy of scale. Many of these crimes are gang and drug related. White kids do kill, when they do it seems to be family members or a thrill kill that seems to come from nowhere. I grew up in an area without gangs, but most news and crime reports seem to show many are gang related, and most gangs seem to be black or hispanic. I don't have an answer, so am not sure. I am in South Dakota, most of our folks on death row are white, and are mostly sex and drug related.

Who cares. These 80 kids took a life or lives, depending on the case. They killed and therefore should be punished the rest of their lives!

Their color doesn't matter to me. A murderer is a murderer.

@im not telling you - wow, you discovered how to eliminate racism: don't talk about it anymore and it goes away!!

When there is true equality, among all peoples, regardless of skin color, THEN we can drop race as an issue.

Therefore, logically, if we do not have the former, we can not exclude the latter.

If you feel the ostrich approach is best, enjoy your sunny racism-free life :)

AJ, you need to chillax, if you READ the article (instead of just the headline), it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole. That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum.

What it also means, Lynn, is that each and every time their parole hearings come up we, as law abiding tax payers, have to foot the bill for the parole hearing. A huge cost to us. More importanlty, though, is each and every time their parole hearing comes up... the families of the vicitms have to relive the torturous hell that put the MURDERER behind bars to begin with. This is no fun and completely unfair when som 14 year old thug shoots and kills YOUR innocent uncle for gang initiation or to rob him of $15.

Set and match Lisa. Well done. I agree 100%

I never said it was a right decision..just what the decision actually means. Personally, anyone who commits willful murder needs to go behind bars for life regardless and the parole boards that have freed up prisoners, only to have those same people murder/rape whatever again, need to be held just as responsible.

For some reason people prefer to believe the sob story of, what are most of the excuses, "I found God and am a changed man/woman" and then scratch their heads when the report comes in they killed yet another innocent person. Do they care, not much, they shrug their shoulders and go..."oops" and say, maybe "sorry about that" to the family(ies) of the victim.

If you READ the article (instead of just the headline), it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole. That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum, that is the part that was found to be unconstitutional; not the ability to sentence them to life without parole.

from the article : "The Supreme Court Monday struck down mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without parole for convicted murderers who were only 14 years old when they committed their crimes."

Exactly what can these prisoners do to prove they have changed? These parole boards hear hundreds of cases and they have to make a quick decision that is going to impact not only the prisoner, but the family or families of the victims. Most of the time prisoners learn more bad habits in prison than they do rehabilitation habits. There is a reason that there is more than a 50% recidivism rate. The question is do we want to take a risk with these kids at the chance that they have changed? Do you want one of these convicted criminals living near your loved ones? Not all of them will re-offend, but they didn't have to commit an offence in the first place. They made their choice.

And those probably will be put in prison for life. The ruling didn't say that the couldn't go to prison for life, it just said that the judge and/or jury should be able to take into account mitigating factors for sentencing.

Just like war there is no excuse to murder another human being, those that do should be given the maximum sentence equal to the crime they committed.

Points for using gas lighting in a sentence.

way to be a racist moron.

Haaaa libtards first response when they can't come up with a fact to dispute something is to call you a racist. Way to go "i'm not telling you" you showed them.

@Steven & @ msnotsi:

If you READ the article (instead of just the headline), it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole. That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum, that is the part that was found to be unconstitutional; not the ability to sentence them to life without parole.

from the article : "The Supreme Court Monday struck down mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without parole for convicted murderers who were only 14 years old when they committed their crimes."

I believe that any adult who murders should go to prison for life. However, let me give you this example that mandatory life sentencing would put a 14 year old in prison.

A 14 year old is being abused by his father, who is his only parent. He doesn't know what to do as he has no place else to go. He kills his father in cold blood. It was wrong and he should be punished. But life without parole? Probably a bit too much in his case.

America is one of the ONLY places that still has the death sentence. Our idea of justice is polluted by political concerns and pandering. When racism was open we know what happened. Now the SAME things happen and it is called the war on drugs, instead. Putting children in adult jails is wrong, period. We USED to have laws preventing that. Children are NOT adults their brains are not finished developing, they do stupid, impulsive things because of it. Most children up on murder charges are there because we failed THEM in the first place.

No, murdering someone is cruel. Imposing a 50 or 60 year sentence on someone who choses to murder is justice.

I say hang them in three days and save the taxpayers a whole lot of money. Look back at history, as early as approximately 125 years ago, there were certain crimes society did not tolerate, and you knew if you did the crime you were going to pay dearly for it when caught. None of this slap on wrist, sorry you had a tough childhood, spend 25 years on death row.

and yet, Charles (17.2), they still did the crime. I would agree that Death Row is a joke. It is actually more expensive for us as a society to fund death row than it is to use life imprisonment. Too m any prisons are breeding grounds for gangs, however, so prison needs to be reformed, but the parole board has a good function, and is generally, although not always, correct.

The fact that there are 80 14 year olds capable and willing to murder makes ME cry. I, too, can't imagine life in prison at that age. However, I didn't have to be subjected to such punishment as I never murdered. Again, society is punished once again as our courts consider leniency on the alleged rights of the guilty.

A murderer should be forced to forfeit all but the most basic human rights-and have no civil rights afforded to them and certainly none given because of their age.

Do a little research on these child killers most of their crimes were so cruel it would make you sick. They just didn't kill a lot of them raped dismembered, burned and brutilized their victims many who were much younger than themselves. These killers were possibly serial killers that got caught early. Do you want to let them out and see. Some even bragged about their crimes in court. Life in prison is to good for most of these "Child Killers".

I'm sure some of these kids are monsters, but the one I just read about in Texas waited outside the video store, when the two older kids went in and killed a clerk. He has now spent more than half his life in prison (with no chance of ever getting out) for being stupid enough to hang out with the wrong people. This young man needs our pity and our help.

Some of them deserve what they got, but it still seems that life in prison is excessive for a child! And maybe we should change the definitions of child and adult, but until then it seems like the system is remiss for allowing a child to be punished as an adult (especially as an accessory).

I remember being 14. I also remember knowing that murder is wrong at 14.

Is life in prison at 14 excessive? Sure, but so is having your life shortened at the hands of one of these "children."

That's good for you.

Our children are often coming home to empty houses, with no adult supervision, they are encouraged to buy games where the entire game is about murder and plunder, and they play these games for hours, sometimes days at a time. Do you really think it doesn't cheapen their idea about the importance of life? No wonder we have more children committing major crimes. They play games like CALL OF DUTY and GRAND THEFT AUTO, those are their GAMES. Unreal the society we have here.

And now I understand it when people say "Don't hate the player, hate the game." It's because it's all the evil video game's fault that people are stupid. Now don't get me wrong. I've wasted more than enough hours in front of those things...including playing games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty. That's a lot of time I could have been doing anything productive.

Once again it's easier to assign the blame on to someone, or something, else instead of looking at the root issue. The issue is that we no longer value any level of personal accountability in this society. We are all victims, and therefor are not liable for our actions. This mentality erodes not only any semblence of responsibility, but also motivation and common sense. It's just common sense that YOU DON'T KILL PEOPLE, no matter what the evil video games tell you.

Maybe when I was 14 I was just smarter than the average bear...who came home to an empty house and was encouraged to play video games while my Mother had to work to support me. This notion of unmonitored children with violent toys isn't new. In fact, entire generations have grown up with it, and yet it's always easier to blame a thing instead of the person.

William there are drugs for your illness.

The Supreme Court is full of old, old liberal people. They want peace and harmony and let's all sing around the campfire. They think everyone is worth saving and they want to be saved - they are dumb asses!!

Well... actually not... look at the statistics. Most crime is "young person" related. We've got 80 year old guys in prisons for stuff done in their youth. You should check out the articles on the old prisons needing all the medical care.

Who cares if a murderer that went in at 20 is now 80 and needs medical care? his victim will never get to need medical care again or turn 80 or see their children again. SCREW them let em rot and die.

If you READ the article (instead of just the headline), it says no MANDATORY life w/o parole. That DOES NOT mean that these kids can't still be sentenced to life without parole. It just can't be a mandatory minimum.

There's no doubt that a normal 14 year old is more than capable of knowing right from wrong. The only caveat would be that adolescents don't have as much control, and tend to be impulsive. But if they have gone to the trouble of planning a murder (Murder 1), then they have obviously had enough time to come to their senses. If we were talking about life without parole for teenagers guilty of Murder 2 I would be for this.

I agree.

What an ignorant comment. Most children have zero interest in killing, silly.