06/03/2021
Leaving such decisions in the hands of regional courts is actually a good thing, as any federal ruling restricts local judges' discretions. The benefit of, yet at the same time problem with, Supreme Court rulings is that it sets precedent, and in effect restricts all States' Justice Systems. As such, definitive rulings also cause constitutional issues. For this reason alone, true conservative Justices tend to not favour such rulings. It is much easier to make law than to overturn it.
The article is an opinion piece, and having read it several times now, appears to be misrepresenting this case. Its conclusions are mistaken.
Without having looked at the case, merely going by the article, the only conclusionary facts stated are quotes by the conservative justices:
""In such a case, a discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient," the court's conservative justices wrote." - this explains a lot. They want to leave it up to regional judges and State law to sentence juveniles, rather than tying their hands; they also rightfully claim each State's sovereignty is respected under the U.S. Constitution, rather not having the federal government decide what they can or can not do with juvenile defendants they'll never even lay eyes on.
Justice Kavanaugh actually even writes a note of compassion including the juvenile offender themselves: "Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said: "As this case again demonstrates, any homicide, and particularly a homicide committed by an individual under 18, is a horrific tragedy for all involved and for all affected.""
Here, Justice Kavanaugh outlines States' rights - the first part raises the constitutional rights of individual sovereign States; the second part raises the fact that it should be up to judges and juries - i.e. people who get to lay eyes on - who get to have a personal and in-depth view of an individual before making a determination which has a profound impact on their lives: "He added: "Determining the proper sentence in such a case raises profound questions of morality and social policy. The States, not the federal courts, make those broad moral and policy judgments in the first instance when enacting their sentencing laws. And state sentencing judges and juries then determine the proper sentence in individual cases in light of the facts and circumstances of the offense, and the background of the offender.""
When the article states previous rulings on for instance that except for only the rarest cases juveniles should not receive maximum sentences, but then concludes "the court in this case indicated that it is not inclined to go the extra mile to protect juvenile offenders from the harshest punishments," it's making the mistake of assuming previous rulings are void, which they are not, and in fact it is contradicting itself since it actually quotes the majority opinion, which affirms their decision is not linked to protecting juvenile offenders, rather to do with constitutional rights and discretionary sentencing.
The following states details about the specific case, but fails to address that a Supreme Court ruling on this case - as it has been presented - would not only affect this case, but all other cases now and in the future in discretionary sentencing. Neither would it automatically benefit any individual, as a State can set its laws to adjust against this by imposing entirely different sentences. Additionally, previous rulings which could potentially affect this case still apply.
I am not defending this decision per se, and certainly would side with Brett Jones as has been presented, but the problem with many articles about law is that the writer often doesn't understand how the legal system works, and this one is particularly left-leaning in its presentation, which is egregious in its opinion of conservative appointees and in direct conflict with the legal system and the law.
Quotes of Justice Sotomayer do not reference what she specifically responsed to, but nothing in the article refers to anything even remotely resembling "an abrupt break from precedent" or of using "contortions" or "distortions" or that their decision is to ""circumvent" legal precedent." - on the contrary, legal precedent is becoming ever more unconstitutional due to foolish decisions she tends to favour, and true precedent in the United States is and should be more in favour of discretion.
The article then quotes Cardozo Law School's Kathryn Miller: "It's going to be much harder to convince judges" that evidence of rehabilitation is relevant, she says. " - this ruling, as presented, does no such thing; it favours discretion, it does not attempt to convince judges of rehabilitory evidence or lack thereof.
It goes ""A lot of times these judges really want to still focus on the facts of the crime" even though it is years or decades later, she said. "They're not interested in the rehabilitation narrative."" - that is certainly a problem, which lies with the individual States, their appointees, and the individual judges in these regional cases.
Yet the article's conclusion again misrepresents by claiming "Neither, it seems, is the newly constituted conservative Supreme Court majority." This is not only untrue according to their own article, as it contradicts their own previously written paragraphs, but making it a political leftist sway is not how any article on law should be written.
I'd be glad to look at the case and ruling itself if anyone is interested, and post any addition to what I've stated here based on the posted article itself.
The court's conservatives said that a judge need not make a finding of "permanent incorrigibility" before sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole.
