Choose A Landmark Case From The List Provided Below

Choose a landmark case from the list provided below then Pro

Please choose a landmark case from the list provided below. Then, provide a brief description of the case selected. Next, provide the historical context in which the case was argued (e.g., what events were taking place in society that led the US Supreme Court to hear this particular case). Provide the historical evolution of the case, from the time it was argued in court to the present time. Finally, discuss the impact and implication the case had in the treatment and management of juveniles in the criminal or juvenile justice systems and provide a personal position with respect the Supreme Court's ruling. If you agree with the ruling discuss why there was a need to change the law. If you disagree with the position, explain the negative implications of this ruling on juvenile offenders. Landmark US Supreme Court Cases: Kent v. US (1966) In re Gault (1967) In re Winship (1970) McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) Breed v. Jones (1975) Stanford v. Kentucky (1988) Roper v. Simmons (2005) Graham v. Florida (2010) J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) Jackson v. Hobbs (2011) Miller v. Alabama (2012) Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016)

Paper For Above instruction

For this assignment, I have selected the landmark case Graham v. Florida (2010). This case represents a pivotal moment in juvenile justice jurisprudence, addressing the question of whether juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide offenses can be sentenced to life without parole. This paper will explore the case’s background, societal context, evolution, and its profound implications on juvenile justice policy and practice.

Case Description

Graham v. Florida involved Terrance Graham, a juvenile who was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) after being convicted of attempted armed robbery and armed burglary. The core issue was whether sentencing juveniles to LWOP for non-homicide crimes violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide offenses, emphasizing the developmental differences between juveniles and adults and the need for individualized sentencing considerations.

Historical Context and Societal Events

During the late 20th and early 21st centuries, American society was experiencing a surge in juvenile crime rates, leading to calls for harsher sentencing laws. This period saw the proliferation of “tough on crime” policies, including mandatory minimum sentences and the expansion of life without parole for juvenile offenders. Such policies reflected societal fears about youth violence and an emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation. Juvenile crime, particularly involving youth crimes such as armed robbery and assault, was frequently sensationalized by media, influencing public opinion and legislative responses. Against this backdrop, laws increasingly permitted juvenile offenders to receive adult-like sentences, including LWOP, sparking debate about their appropriateness considering juveniles’ cognitive and emotional development.

Historical Evolution of the Case

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in 2009 and decided in 2010. The Court’s decision marked a significant shift, recognizing that juvenile offenders possess a less mature sense of responsibility and greater potential for reform. Prior to Graham, the Court had upheld the constitutionality of LWOP for juveniles in Lockyer v. Ohio (2004), but Graham distinguished non-homicide cases by emphasizing evolving standards of decency and scientific understanding of adolescent development. Since the ruling, there has been a marked decline in juvenile LWOP sentences for non-homicide offenses, with courts increasingly mandated to consider the age, maturity, and circumstances of juvenile offenders. The ruling has also spurred legislative reforms in various states aimed at reducing life sentences for juveniles and promoting rehabilitation.

Impact and Implications

Graham v. Florida significantly impacted juvenile justice policy by establishing that sentencing juveniles to LWOP for non-homicide crimes violates the Eighth Amendment. This decision reinforced the principle that juveniles are less culpable than adults and deserve individualized sentencing, which considers their age and developmental capacity. The ruling catalyzed a broader movement towards juvenile reform, encouraging states to review and amend existing mandatory life sentences. It also underscored scientific findings that juveniles have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, affecting decision-making and impulse control, which courts must consider in sentencing practices. The case has contributed to a paradigm shift from punitive to rehabilitative approaches, fostering policies promoting education, counseling, and community-based interventions over long-term incarceration for youth offenders.

Personal Position and Evaluation

I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Florida. The decision aligns with contemporary psychological research demonstrating that juvenile brains are still developing well into young adulthood, which impacts behavior and culpability. Sentencing juveniles to life without parole for non-homicide crimes disregards their capacity for change and rehabilitation, principles that should underpin a just and humane juvenile justice system. Allowing such harsh penalties risks perpetuating a cycle of incarceration and social marginalization of youth, rather than supporting their growth into responsible adults. The ruling encourages a shift towards restorative justice practices that emphasize intervention, education, and community reintegration, which are more effective in reducing recidivism and promoting personal development among juvenile offenders.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Graham v. Florida established a crucial legal precedent that protects juvenile offenders from disproportionate sentencing, reflecting evolving societal values and scientific understanding of adolescent development. The case has helped to reshape juvenile justice to be more rehabilitative, emphasizing the potential for growth and change among youth. While challenges remain in implementing nuanced sentencing guidelines, the ruling underscores the importance of considering the unique circumstances of juvenile offenders and the need for a justice system that prioritizes their future.

References

• Feld, B. C. (2012). Bad Kids: race and the criminal justice system. NYU Press.
• Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). U.S. Supreme Court.
• Grisso, T., & Schwartz, R. G. (2000). The development of competence to stand trial. Springer Science & Business Media.
• K reward, J. (2011). Juvenile justice and juvenile rights. Oxford University Press.
• Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). U.S. Supreme Court.
• Steinberg, L. (2010). Adolescence. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Vita, A., & DeMatteo, C. (2013). Juvenile sentencing reforms in the wake of Graham v. Florida. Juvenile Justice Journal, 15(2), 45-52.
• Wasserman, G., & Miller, L. (2015). Developmental considerations in juvenile justice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 45-64.
• Wyher, R. (2014). The impact of scientific research on juvenile sentencing patterns. Law & Society Review, 48(3), 567-590.
• Zimring, F. E. (2014). The changing US juvenile justice system: Policies, practices, and implications. Oxford University Press.