Comparing Jackson And The Juvenile Justice System
1. Facts:
a. The current case encompasses to separate sets of facts and actors. Although distinct in certain areas, both proceedings revolve around the same basic issue: a fourteen year old convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without parole. Consequently, the matter was addressed jointly as opposed to separately. In November of 1999, fourteen year old Kuntrell Jackson and two other boys set out to rob a nearby video store. In route, Jackson learned that one of the other conspirators was carrying a sawed-off shotgun. Jackson decided to wait outside while the other perpetrators proceeded into the store. Eventually, Jackson entered the store to find the clerk being held at gunpoint. When the cashier threatened to call the police, the gunman shot and killed her. Consequently, Arkansas law gives the discretion to charge a minor as an adult to prosecutors. In this instance, the prosecutor sought to charge Jackson with capital felony and aggravated robbery. Similar to Jackson, Evan Miller was a fourteen year old boy charged as an adult with murder. In 2003, Miller and his friend, Colby Smith, attempted to seal a wallet containing …show more content…
Historically, children have been regarded as constitutionally different from adults. This fact is evident in the way past cases have been decided. Certain juvenile characteristics such as their “ immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences” illustrates the clear discrepancy between children and adults. Furthermore, the majority contend that instances that call for punishment as severe as life imprisonment without parole will be exceedingly uncommon and rare. Requiring that all juvenile convicted of homicide are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole regardless of age or other mitigating factors violates the principle of proportionality. Therefore, this violation is a clear infringement upon an individual’s Eighth Amendment rights and thus,
a. The current case encompasses to separate sets of facts and actors. Although distinct in certain areas, both proceedings revolve around the same basic issue: a fourteen year old convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without parole. Consequently, the matter was addressed jointly as opposed to separately. In November of 1999, fourteen year old Kuntrell Jackson and two other boys set out to rob a nearby video store. In route, Jackson learned that one of the other conspirators was carrying a sawed-off shotgun. Jackson decided to wait outside while the other perpetrators proceeded into the store. Eventually, Jackson entered the store to find the clerk being held at gunpoint. When the cashier threatened to call the police, the gunman shot and killed her. Consequently, Arkansas law gives the discretion to charge a minor as an adult to prosecutors. In this instance, the prosecutor sought to charge Jackson with capital felony and aggravated robbery. Similar to Jackson, Evan Miller was a fourteen year old boy charged as an adult with murder. In 2003, Miller and his friend, Colby Smith, attempted to seal a wallet containing …show more content…
Historically, children have been regarded as constitutionally different from adults. This fact is evident in the way past cases have been decided. Certain juvenile characteristics such as their “ immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences” illustrates the clear discrepancy between children and adults. Furthermore, the majority contend that instances that call for punishment as severe as life imprisonment without parole will be exceedingly uncommon and rare. Requiring that all juvenile convicted of homicide are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole regardless of age or other mitigating factors violates the principle of proportionality. Therefore, this violation is a clear infringement upon an individual’s Eighth Amendment rights and thus,