In a court ruling today, the Supreme Court decided (5-4) that juvenile offenders cannot receive a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole when the crimes do not involve a killing. Such sentences were viewed to be “cruel and unusual” and thus in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
On the surface, I can’t think of many crimes (absent of a killing or possibly a brutal rape or molestation) that could justify that harsh of punishment. But I would say that the opinion (written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor) sites an unusual comment that I found concerning.
“The judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “demonstrates that the court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.”
My question – since when does a foreign country’s opinion or view of a US law become relevant to how we interpret OUR U.S. Constitution?
In this case, I think Justice Clarence Thomas got it right by commenting “foreign laws and sentencing practices” are “irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not join the Majority opinion, but rather endorsed only a case-by-case approach. He did vote with the majority in saying that in this case, the inmate had received a sentence so harsh that it violated the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated before being posted. Postings are at the sole discretion of the blog moderator. Anonymous postings are no longer allowed. I encourage your comments, but put you name on the bottom line!