It is not surprising that states have different approaches to criminal justice. Some states are liberal and others are conservative, so there are variations among them on questions such as how long a prison sentence should be for certain crimes. That is as it should be under our Constitution, which leaves most such questions for the states to decide.
But once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has imposed on all states the personal views of its five liberal justices on the subject of punishing juvenile offenders.
You may recall that in 2005, the high court ruled 5-4 that people who commit murder before turning 18 may not be executed. The court improperly cited “evolving standards of decency” and “international opinion” in claiming that capital punishment for young murderers violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling overturned duly enacted laws in 19 states that allowed the execution of especially vicious young murderers.
Our objection to that ruling was not so much whether the court’s or the states’ view was right. The point is that states, not the Supreme Court, have the proper right to decide.
Now, the court has overreached again.
By another 5-4 vote, the most liberal justices on the court overturned laws in 37 states and federal laws that permit life sentences without chance of parole for juveniles who commit serious crimes short of murder. In the case before the court, a defendant had been sentenced to life in prison for committing armed robberies at age 16 and 17. (Chief Justice John Roberts ruled the sentence in this case was too harsh, but he correctly opposed striking down the states’ laws.)
Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the narrow majority, as he did in the 2005 case. And again he cited the laws of foreign nations, suggesting the United States was out of step with international opinion on locking up violent juveniles for life without chance of parole. Incredibly, even though the federal government and more than two-thirds of the states permit that punishment, Justice Kennedy argued that “a national consensus has developed against it.”
Clarence Thomas, one of four justices who dissented, faulted the slim majority for forcing states to adopt the justices’ personal “sense of morality and retributive justice.”
Life without chance of parole is not necessarily the best punishment to impose on violent young offenders. But with more than three dozen states permitting that sentence, the people of those states plainly believe it ought to be at least an option.
It is disturbing that the Supreme Court continues to rob states of their legitimate constitutional powers.