Miller v. Alabama
| Miller v. Alabama | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated March 19, 2012 |
||||
| Decided June 24th, 2012 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Certiorari to clarify the question of whether the legally mandatory provision of a life sentence without the possibility of a pardon for minor offenders violates the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment enshrined in the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution . | ||||
| decision | ||||
| Statutory provisions on the mandatory imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of a pardon are unconstitutional for underage offenders. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 8. Amendment to the United States Constitution |
Miller v. Alabama is in a US Supreme Court case on the question of whether there is a unconstitutional law enforcing life imprisonment with no pardon for underage offenders.
background
In 2003, Evan Miller and an accomplice in Alabama, Alabama, murdered a man with a baseball bat and set the victim's trailer on fire to cremate the body. Miller was convicted by a jury of unity murder with arson, which, under state criminal law, automatically imposed life imprisonment with no pardon. The judge and jury had no leeway in imposing the penalty.
Graham appealed against the judgment appealed, on the grounds that a legal regulation, which provides for the mandatory imposition of life imprisonment without parole, is contrary to the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States enshrined prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment ( cruel and unusual punishment ). His lawsuit was dismissed by an appeals court. The Alabama State Supreme Court did not accept his complaint for decision. Graham then appealed to the United States Supreme Court , which accepted the case for final judgment.
judgment
With a majority of five of the nine judges' votes, the court ruled that statutory regulations that provide for the mandatory imposition of life imprisonment for underage offenders are a violation of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments and are therefore unconstitutional . In the case of underage offenders, it can be assumed that there is less criminal responsibility and greater potential for possible rehabilitation . Even in cases in which the guilt of the convicted person weighs heavily, there must be a way of taking this into account when determining the sentence. If the law enforces the imposition of life imprisonment without the possibility of pardon, a 14-year-old will be treated exactly like a 17-year-old. In the states where the death penalty has been abolished, a minor then automatically receives the same sentence as an adult.
The court emphasized that a life sentence without the possibility of pardon for underage murderers (see Graham v. Florida ) is still possible. However, the mandatory imposition of this sentence is to be regarded as a cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional due to the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States .