Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz

Miller v Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs No. 10–9646 (and No. 10–9647) US Supreme Court 25 June 2012 - United States of America

Background

Two 14-year-olds were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The relevant state sentencing regimes mandated these sentences and the sentencing judges had no discretion to impose a different punishment.

In both cases, the children unsuccessfully appealed the severity of the sentences to the relevant superior state court, being the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and the sentences were upheld. Amici Curiae subsequently applied on behalf of the children for the United States Supreme Court to review the decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeal.

Reasoning

The court held that mandatory sentencing legislative schemes which require children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole were unconstitutional as they breached the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In considering mandatory schemes, the court examined the fundamental principles of sentencing and held, first, that the case for retribution was not as strong with children as with adults because retribution related to blameworthiness. Second, that the same characteristics that made children less culpable than adults (immaturity, recklessness and impetuosity) made them less likely to consider potential punishments prior to an act and so undermine the deterrent effect of sentences. Third, that sentence of life without the possibility of parole removed any scope for rehabilitation.

Such mandatory sentencing schemes were not considering critical factors relating to children and youth (“immaturity”, “irresponsibility”, “impetuosity”, “recklessness” (pp. 15, 17) and failure to appreciate risks and consequences) when determining if the harshest term of imprisonment was proportional to “the distinctive attributes of youth” (p.9) and to their diminished culpability.

Remedy

The court reversed the judgments of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and returned the cases for further proceedings for re-sentencing not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Role of children

The applicants were both children at the time they were sentenced, though they were adults at the time that the Supreme Court considered their cases.

Enforcement and other outcomes

At the time of the judgment, more than half of the states in the United States had mandatory sentencing schemes which required judges to sentence children to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Following the judgment, the majority of these States have brought their sentencing schemes in line with the Supreme Court’s’s ruling.

It is important to note that certain states have since abolished mandatory life sentences without the opportunity of parole but still require mandatory sentences for the duration of a child’s meaningful life expectancy without the opportunity of parole.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The case abolished mandatory life imprisonment sentences without the possibility of parole for children convicted of homicide in the United States. It confirmed that children are different to adults and judges should retain the ability to take a child’s inherent mitigating factors into account when sentencing them for homicide.

The case built on previous decisions of the Supreme Court relating to the Eighth Amendment and challenging the death penalty and the sentence to life without parole (LWOP), such as Roper v Simmons, Graham v Florida and Montgomery v Louisiana. The court had previously prohibited a sentence of life without parole for a child who committed a non-homicidal offence. However, many US states still permit life sentences for children without parole for homicide – it just is not mandated. Further, many US States still permit what are considered to be “de facto life sentences” for children (50 plus years) which arguably contravenes the Court’s position in this case. Alongside the judicial processes, campaigns were conducted by civil society organisations, such as the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, which was responsible for lobbying and media work.

Country

United States of America

Forum and date of decision

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25 , 2012

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Not applicable. The decision considers domestic law provisions only.

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the applicants:

For the Respondent:

List of amicus curiae:

The amicus curiae comprised 67 organisations and 25 individuals as set out in the Appendix of the Amicus Curia Brief.

In support of petitioners:

In support of respondents:

Case documents

Miller v Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs No. 10–9646 (and No. 10–9647) US Supreme Court 25 June 2012

     Amicus Curiae: 

Secondary documents

Equal justice initiative (EJI), 'Miller v Alabama EJI won a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court striking down mandatory death-in-prison sentences for children' (Equal Justice Initiative (EJI)) <https://eji.org/cases/miller-v-alabama/#:~:text=EJI%20won%20a%20landmark%20ruling,its%20companion%20case%2C%20Jackson%20v. > accessed 11 May 2021

Marshall M, 'Miller V. Alabama And The Problem Of Prediction' (2019) 119 Columbia Law Review <https://columbialawreview.org/content/miller-v-alabama-and-the-problem-of-prediction/ >

Dharmavarapu P, 'Categorically Redeeming Graham V Florida And Miller V Alabama: Why The Eighth Amendment Guarantees All Juvenile Defendants A Constitutional Right To A Parole Hearing | The University Of Chicago Law Review' (Lawreview.uchicago.edu) <https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/categorically-redeeming-graham-v-florida-and-miller-v-alabama-why-eighth-amendment > accessed 21 February 2022

L. Piel J, 'Term-Of-Years Sentences Since Miller V. Alabama' (2020) 50 Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online <http://jaapl.org/content/early/2020/01/24/JAAPL.003918-20 > accessed 28 February 2022

'The Aftermath Of Miller V. Alabama: Hope For Those Sentenced To Life Without Possibility Of Parole For Juvenile Crimes - National Center For Youth Law' (National Center for Youth Law) <https://youthlaw.org/publication/the-aftermath-of-miller-v-alabama-hope-for-those-sentenced-to-life-without-possibility-of-parole-for-juvenile-crimes/ > accessed 28 February 2022

A. Stevenson B, and F. Stinneford J, 'Interpretation: The Eighth Amendment | The National Constitution Center' (Constitutioncenter.org) <https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 > accessed 28 February 2022

H. Boone B, 'Treating Adults Like Children: Re-Sentencing Adult Juvenile Lifers After Miller V. Alabama' [2015] Minnesota Law Review <https://minnesotalawreview.org/article/treating-adults-children-re-sentencing-adult-juvenile-lifers-miller-v-alabama/ > accessed 28 February 2022

Read More
Domestic, Malawi Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Malawi Gisela Sin Gomiz

Moyo v Attorney General of Malawi [2009] MWHC 83 - Malawi

Background

Evance Moyo (applicant) was convicted of a murder he committed at the age of 16.  He was ordered to be detained at Chilwa Approved School during the pleasure of the President in lieu of the then mandatory death sentence for murder on account of the fact the applicant was a child at the time of commission of the offence (consistent with section 11(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act and section 26(2) of the Penal Code).

Prior to trial, the applicant had been remanded in the adult section of a maximum security prison for approximately 5 years.

 The main issues the court considered were whether (i) the applicant’s rights had been violated in being incarcerated together with adults; (ii) section 11(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act and section 26(2) of the Penal Code were unconstitutional; (iii) the applicant should be released immediately or his case be urgently considered by the Board of Visitors; and (iv) the applicant should be compensated.

Reasoning

The Court found that the incarceration of the applicant with adults before and after his trial was a “blatant violation of his fundamental human rights to freedom” (p. 6) under the Constitution (section 42(2) (g)), the Children and Young Persons Act (section 31) and the CRC (Art. 3).

The Court did not find that sentences detaining a child at the pleasure of the President were unconstitutional, citing in particular the comparable provision under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 of the United Kingdom (section 90). The Court held that where a child was detained at the President’s pleasure, the implications were that the situation of the child would be constantly reviewed and that the child must have “access to education and all other amenities that will help him develop into a productive citizen”. The detention system must prioritise the welfare of the child and any incarceration must be for the shortest time possible and as a last resort. The Court held that a sentence at the pleasure of the President was to be equated to an indeterminate sentence which cannot be held to be unconstitutional.

The Court ordered the immediate release of the applicant having regard to the fact that he had been detained for so long without review and that subjecting the matter for further review of the Board of Visitors and then the President would serve only to delay his inevitable release.

The Court ordered no compensation be paid. The Court’s view was that the applicant was incarcerated following due process and that such incarceration was not arbitrary. Despite his incarceration being a violation of the applicant’s human rights, the Court’s view was that immediate release was the best compensation.

Remedy

The Court ordered the immediate release of the applicant with no compensation for the applicant and awarded costs in his favour.

Role of children

Evance Moyo was a child at the time he committed the offence with which he was convicted, but an adult at the time of this case.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The case led to the applicant’s release. In 2012, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, under which Moyo was sentenced at the pleasure of the President, was replaced by the Child Care, Protection and Justice Act 2010, which does not contain any provision that allows for the sentencing of a child at the pleasure of the President. The Child Care, Protection and Justice Act 2010 sought, among others, to recognise the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. While section 26(2) of the Penal Code remains in force, it has been amended such that sentencing at the pleasure of the President is now to be made only on the advice of the Child Case Review Board.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

This case is significant in terms of the development of strategic litigation on criminal justice issues involving children in Malawi. In it, the Court confirmed that the Convention on the Rights of a Child is binding on Malawi and all of its public or private institutions, and therefore national practices should be in line with CRC standards. The CRC has been referred to in other subsequent cases in Malawi relating to the sentencing of children as adults (e.g., The State (ex parte Stanford Kashuga) v. the Second Grade Magistrate Court (Thyolo) and Malawi Prison Service (2015)).

Country

Malawi

Forum and date of decision

The High Court of Malawi

August 25, 2009

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the applicants:

  • Mr M Mambulasa, of Counsel for the Applicant

For the Respondent:

  • Mr S Kayuni, Senior State Advocate, of Counsel for the Respondent.

List of amicus curiae:

Case documents

Moyo v Attorney General of Malawi [2009] MWHC 83

Secondary documents

Odala, V., 2012. The Spectrum for Child Justice in the International Human Rights Framework: From "Reclaiming the Delinquent CHild" to Restorative Justice. AM. U. INT’L L. REV., [online] 27(3). [Accessed 8 June 2022].

Salc Bloggers. 2009. Evance Moyo Judgement Handed Down in Malawi. [online]. [Accessed 8 June 2022].

Southern Africa Litigation Centre, 2009. Malawi's Constitutional Court Hands Down Evance Moyo Judgement. [online] Southernafricalitigationcentre.org. [Accessed 8 June 2022].

The Nation Online. 2015. Court rules on Executive, Judicial powers - The Nation Online. [online]. [Accessed 14 June 2022].

Read More
United States of America, Domestic Gisela Sin Gomiz United States of America, Domestic Gisela Sin Gomiz

Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), No. 03-633 - United States of America

Background

Simmons was convicted of committing a murder carried out when he was 17 years old and sentenced to death when he was 18. The case centred on whether the death penalty constituted cruel or unusual punishment as prohibited under the Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution when applied for offences committed while under the age of 18.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” (543 U.S. 551, 6 (2005)) must be interpreted according to its text, history, tradition, purpose and the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. Citing earlier case-law (Atkins v. Virginia), the court determined that society views children as “categorically less culpable than the average adult criminal” (543 U.S. 551, 13 (2005)). Therefore, the Eighth Amendment requires the rejection of the imposition of the death penalty for offences committed under the age of 18.

The Court relied on three general differences between children and adults in its reasoning. First, the acts of children are “less morally reprehensible” (543 U.S. 551, 15-16 (2005)) than adults because of their level of maturity. Second, children are more susceptible to negative influences and pressure. Third, the character of children is not as fully formed as that of an adult.

The Court held that “when a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity” (543 U.S. 551, 4 (2005)).

Remedy

The Supreme Court declared that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty for offences committed by persons who were under the age of 18 at the time when the crime was committed. The decision of the Missouri Supreme Court (State ex Rel. Simmons v. Roper, 112 S.W.3d 397 (Mo. 2003)) to set aside Simmons’ death sentence in favour of life imprisonment without eligibility for release was affirmed.

Role of children

The plaintiff was sentenced to death at age 18 for committing a murder at age 17 and filed the petition for state post-conviction relief.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The death penalty was immediately abolished for all offences committed by persons under the age of 18 within the United States. The decision rendered unconstitutional the legislation of 19 states at that time, of which six states had carried out executions since 1989 for crimes committed as children. The court order also cancelled the death sentences of approximately 70 people for crimes they committed while younger than age 18, leading to resentencing.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

This case abolished the death penalty for offences committed under the age of 18 overturning the sentences of every person in the United States serving such a sentence and prohibiting any jurisdiction within the country imposing the sentence. The judgment also paved the way for future strategic litigation before the United States Supreme Court against sentences of life without the possibility of parole for offences committed by children, which built on the reasoning of the Court in applying the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The American Psychological Association intervened, introducing evidence of the psychological development of children throughout adolescence, which became an important part of future US litigation relating to the sentencing of children. Litigants also cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in their submissions, which was explicitly cited in the Court’s judgment (543 U.S. 551, 22 (2005)), despite the fact that the United States has not ratified the CRC. This development laid the foundation for the use of the CRC in future cases before the Supreme Court, recognising that the affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations highlights the relevance of those same rights within the U.S. legal system.

Country

United States of America

Forum and date of decision

Supreme Court of the United States

1 March 2005

CRC provisions and other international law provisions

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the petitioner:

  • Stephen D. Hake, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, Missouri

For the Respondent:

  • Jennifer Herndon

Amici curiae:

Further Information on the representation of Christopher Simmons

Case documents

Link to the decision Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), No. 03-633

Secondary documents

Read More