Law: Graham v. Florida - Case Study Example

Case Law – Graham v. Florida No: Case Law – Graham v. Florida Case History Graham committed armed burglary at the age of 16 years with other two defendants. A co-defendant hit the head of a restaurant manager with hard object during the commission of crime, causing injury, which did not culminate to the death of the manager. Graham was charged as an adult and not as juvenile, which is within the purview of the prosecutor in Florida (Fine, 2009). He was convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed robbery by the trial court. He received a 12-month sentence and was released on completion of awarded sentence. In another crime, which was committed after 6 months, he was trialed by the Florida State Court on account of armed home burglary for which he received life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, the solicitor of Graham took plea that burden of life sentence without parole to an adolescent, prima facie is the infringement of Eight Amendment, and hence represents malicious punishment. It was not agreed by the District Court of Appeal of Florida on the grounds that Grahams sentence cannot be termed as a facial violation of the Eighth Amendment and it did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Fine, 2009). Judgments of Subordinate Courts The Judicial District Court in Scott County, Iowa in the case of State v. Jason Means can be taken as an example. Here in this case, Means was involved in kidnapping and homicide at the age of 17 years. The trial court found him guilty and convicted him of kidnapping and second-degree murder cases by awarding life imprisonment without parole on the kidnapping charge and on the second-degree murder and other associated charges, for which, he was awarded 90 years consecutive punishment (Parker, 2005). The High Court in the said case held that life without parole is appropriate for homicides; it has nothing to do with the age of the defender. On December 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of Missouri in the case of State v. Anthony Andrews endorsed the sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in the year 2011 held the same view in State v. Omer Ninham, where Ninham was convicted at the age of 14 (Parker, 2005). Opinion of Supreme Court On filing an appeal against the judgment of District Court of Appeal of Florida, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the cited court with a view that a state has no right to sentence a juvenile to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide crimes. The opinion of the court was drafted by the Lord Justice Kennedy and assented by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts was agreed to the extent that Graham should not have received the life imprisonment without parole. On the other points of the judgment, he was not in agreement with other sitting judges in the bench since its scope reached beyond the specific defendant. Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito dissented with the opinion of mentioned judges. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had written the judgment for the majority, reasoned that this case advocates a particular type of sentence since it applies to an entire class of juvenile offenders; we found the categorical analysis in the case of Atkins, Roper vs. Kennedy. Therefore, the Court had to consider a) objective criterion of societys standards b) determine if punishment violates the Eight Amendment of the Constitution. Here, the Court held that the punishment in question was unconstitutional. The Court made a point to note that such sentences for juvenile’s offenders have been abolished and lost their utility all over the world (Sweete, 2010). During the last leg of trial, the prosecutor requested the court of law for sentences that ranged from 30 years and 15 years on two charges leveled against him respectively. Defense lawyer prayed 5 and 4 years sentences on the mentioned cases. Whereas the trial court sentenced Graham for life imprisonment since Florida has abolished its parole system, therefore, sentence merited no possibility of release for Graham except pardon or commutation. Florida had 77 other life prisoners whose non-homicide crimes had been committed as juveniles. Apart from aforementioned state, ten other states added another 50 juvenile non-homicide offenders who were awarded the sentence of life imprisonment without a parole (Sweete, 2010). According to the Eighth Amendment Clause of the United States Constitution, which I quote here for ease of reference: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” (Sweete, 2010) In examining the cruel and unusual provision, the Supreme Court had to address the question of unusualness first and of the opinion that life imprisonment without parole was not a usual sentence for non-homicide crimes done by the juveniles. Hence, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the subordinate court (Sweete, 2010). The competent Court is of the considered opinion that punishment for each crime should be in proportion and gradual. Under the said perspective, it should be looked at categorical prohibitions against different categories of sentences for particular defendants. In Roper v. Simmons, the Court held that juveniles who committed homicides could not receive capital punishment in shape of death penalty. The maximum sentence in view of the court for a homicide by a juvenile should be life imprisonment without parole. Resultantly, Graham’s sentence enables him to be placed in the same bucket of punishment, as when he committed murder at the age of 16 (Sweete, 2010). The Court considered application of such capital punishment in two ways a) the absence of such sentences in other countries b) used before introduction of Eighth Amendment d) court had to face severe criticism in the past from the constructionists on this count (Fine, 2009). While hearing the mentioned case, the court declined to confine to the case of Graham and issued a broader line of action for such punishment as null and void. In the process, it expanded the reach of Eighth Amendment. It created a new categorical prohibition, which negates the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses that were committed by juvenile offenders. The court made no exceptions to the new categorical prohibition (Fine, 2009). In the similar case of 2012, the Court heard arguments in the case of Miller v. Alabama with regard to the constitutionality of mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders in this case and in murder cases. The Court in its ruling strikes down the mandatory sentences being cruel and unusual punishments, which are in contravention of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Barnes, 2012). Conclusion We have studied threadbare divergent opinions of District Trial Court, High court, State Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We are of the view that we should go by the opinion of the Supreme Court of the USA, which termed the judgments of the subordinate courts as violation of the USA Constitution and therefore, set aside their judgments in the case under reference and other similar cases. For ease of reference, we quote here the operational part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of USA in the Graham Case: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” References Barnes, Robert. (2012). "Supreme Court says states may not impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile murderers". The Washington Post. Retrieved on 19 July 2012 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-states-may-not-impose-mandatory-life-sentences-on-juvenile-murderers/2012/06/25/gJQAv1H21V_story.html Fine, Lauren. (2009). "Death Behind Bars: Examining Juvenile Life without parole in Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida". Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar 5: 24–44. Parker, Alison. (2005). The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch. Schmalleger, Frank. (2012). Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction. New York: Prentice Hall. Sweete, Elijah. (2010). Graham v. Florida – Supreme Court Expands Eight Amendment. The Moderate Voice. Retrieved on 19 July 2012 from http://themoderatevoice.com/72895/graham-v-florida-supreme-court-expands-eighth-amendment/ Read More