Originally Posted By Mr X This is a shocker. Not the usual 5-4 "what will Kennedy do?" deal, but rather a 6-3 decision. The left wing of the court managed to pick off Chief Justice Roberts! And, on a cruel and unusual punishment case to boot! I can't help but wonder, what has changed? The only X factor here is Justice Sotomayor, is she THAT persuasive!? Of course and as usual, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will have no part of it. They really dig cruel and unusual punishment (Scalia even endorses torture and sees nothing in the Constitution to prevent it!). But it's quite a refreshing surprise to see the Chief Justice abandon his cronies and vote against the dark side for once. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-7412.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...7412.pdf</a> Thoughts?
Originally Posted By Labuda Having read just the intro of the paper so far (it's late here and I need to get to bed), my only thought is this: HALLELUJAH! I can't believe the State of Florida was crazy/dumb enough to sentence this child to LIFE IN PRISON with no chance of parole. And, btw - has the state of Florida got loads of space available in its prisons or what? How can you get totally rid of parole? Lawmakers in the pockets of jail owners who want big state contracts?
Originally Posted By Labuda Wow, no wonder we hadn't heard about it - it's been that way over 20 years according to this article I found on the Texas Senate website: <a href="http://www.senate.state.tx.us/SRC/pdf/ib0599.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.senate.state.tx.us/...0599.pdf</a> So I wonder how much money in Florida is spent on jails? And how many other people have been screwed over and NOT fought back like this boy?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, Roberts voted with the majority for this particular defendant, but did not agree with the broader decision. <a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/72895/graham-v-florida-supreme-court-expands-eighth-amendment/" target="_blank">http://themoderatevoice.com/72...endment/</a> "By a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that a state may not sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole for non-homicide crimes. The opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that Graham should not have received life without parole, but did not join the opinion because its scope reached beyond the specific defendant. As a result, some have reported this as a 6-3 decision. Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito dissented."
Originally Posted By DAR In Wisconsin you get parole for homicide crimes. I know this because I had a family member involved in a murder case.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well, Roberts voted with the majority for this particular defendant, but did not agree with the broader decision*** Yes, he did qualify his vote. But it was indeed a 6-3 decision I do believe.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to Parts I and III. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion*** Perhaps I'm not quite familiar with exactly how this stuff works, but it seems to me he filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, but NOTHING else. In other words, it seems to me he says, in this case, rule in favor of the plaintiff but I disagree with the other judges' reasoning (that would include the dissenters as well, wouldn't it? he didn't "join" their side either, he signed on with NOONE). To me, that's in no way a 5-4 decision, but again I'm no SCOTUS expert.
Originally Posted By Mr X In other words, I guess what I'm trying to say is wouldn't he have to have JOINED in the dissenting opinion in order for it to be 5-4? I dunno. Kinda weird, I'll grant you. But the simple fact (to me) that he is in concurrence with the other five makes it seem to me that he can't be a "vote number four" on the other side.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Read a little more about it. There were essentially two decisions. Roberts concurred on one, on the specific case in question, but not on then applying the decision to the future. Consider Loving v VA. The court said that not only could the interracial Loving couple be married, but that henceforth all such couples could be. In this case, it's as though Roberts said "okay, the Lovings can be married, but no one else." In other words, he joined the 6-3 decision on this one person, but not the 5-4 decision that that the same principle would apply to others from here on out.
Originally Posted By Mr X I do realize that. Still, to me it doesn't equal to "5-4", more like "5-3" if that makes any sense. He didn't agree with the others, but in a sense he didn't actively oppose them either (even though his method would lead to a case by case quagmire so it doesn't really make much sense to me). But I understand your point. Roberts wasn't very impressive, but it's baby steps I'm looking for (in other words, ANY time that group of four ideologues don't vote in lock-step with each other no matter what the issue).
Originally Posted By Mr X This Supreme Court decision was carefully crafted to exclude murder. So, that would still depend on the State and what their judgement should be.
Originally Posted By DAR Here's a little story. When my cousin was 16 he ran with a pretty bad group of kids, including himself as he would admit, he was a drug dealer. He had a plan that him and four others all around the same age, would set up a deal to sell some weed to this guy but in the process rob him. One of the other kids had a gun, but so did the buyer. As they attempted to rob him, he pulled out a gun, but the kid in my cousin's crew, shot him right in the heart. From what I've heard he was dead before he even hit the ground. My cousin and his crew took the money and the weed and left. A few days later the cops came and arrested them, some at school, some at home where ever. The judge sentenced them to various sentences, all I know is that they're all out including the shooter, well except my cousin that is. See my cousin was the mastermind of the whole deal, plus he was the only one smart enough to divy up the money five ways. And he should no remorse and didn't think he was guilty. So he did this plea where he basically said I don't think I'm guilty but you have enough to convict me. And he was sentenced to 30 years. He's going to be 30 in about two weeks so he's served 14 years of his sentence. He started out in maximum here was transferred to Tennessee, Oklahoma(where is was accused of trying to escape during a prison riot)then moved a few years later to Minnesota in a medium security. And then finally back to Wisconsin where he went to a medium again and now he's in a minimum security facility. He just got approved for work release and the thought is next year he may finally get paroled.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I do realize that. Still, to me it doesn't equal to "5-4", more like "5-3" if that makes any sense.> Some sense; but he didn't join the majority so it's definitely not 6-3, as some sources have reported (one of which you probably read before your OP). <But I understand your point. Roberts wasn't very impressive, but it's baby steps I'm looking for (in other words, ANY time that group of four ideologues don't vote in lock-step with each other no matter what the issue).> Yep.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< [In] Wisconsin you get paroled even if you murder someone as a teenager. >>> <<< Here's a little story. >>> Interesting story. There are a few pieces missing, and I don't know if you know the answers. <<< So he did this plea where he basically said I don't think I'm guilty but you have enough to convict me. And he was sentenced to 30 years. >>> That's called an Alford Plea. But this begs the question: What was he convicted of? You said that he "murdered" someone, but this doesn't necessarily mean he was convicted of that. He may have been convicted of armed robbery, manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder in return for the plea. The distinction is important, as ordinarily when we think of putting someone away for life for murder, it's almost always 1st degree murder. <<< He just got approved for work release and the thought is next year he may finally get paroled. >>> Also interesting. You said he asserted his innocence at the time, but usually a condition of parole is that you accept responsibility for the crime and show remorse (in addition to reform). So, has he had a change of heart since being convicted?
