Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

The Supreme Court ruled today that juvenile criminals cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole except in homicide cases. Though 37 states, the District of Columbia, and federal law allow judges to impose life sentences without parole on juveniles, the Court noted that only 109 people were currently serving life terms for crimes committed while they were minors.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, relied heavily on Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court's 2005 decision forbidding the death penalty for minors. Kennedy wrote that no theory of punishment justified locking up a minor for his or her whole life without any possibility of parole.

The case had been brought by Terrance Jamar Graham, who at the age of 16 robbed a restaurant, hitting the manager on the back of the head with a metal bar. No money was taken, and Graham was placed on probation. Less than 6 months later Graham was again arrested, this time for armed robbery. The judge sentenced Graham to life in prison, saying that his only option was "to try and protect the community from [Graham's] actions."

Justice Kennedy's written opinion discussed the history of punishment, pointing out that minors were generally held less responsible for their actions. He also said that it would be difficult for a judge or other official to determine whether a juvenile could ever reform himself, and therefore a life sentence could not be justified.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately, agreeing that Graham's sentence was disproportionate to the crime he committed but refusing to set out a blanket rule forbidding life sentences in all cases other than homicide. Roberts noted that there have been cases of minors committing brutal rapes, and sometimes the victim survived despite efforts by the attacker. In those cases, Roberts suggested, life in prison without parole might be appropriate. Roberts noted that these crimes are rare, and that may be the reason these kinds of sentences are rare.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Samuel Alito, dissented, arguing that judgments of the morality of punishments are best left to the legislative branches.