Civil liberties are rights guaranteed by the American Constitution. They are natural privileges that are innate to every person. Generally, violation of these liberties results in the injured parties seeking legal action against violators. This paper summarizes and discusses a civil liberty case between Jones and Mississippi.
Summary
Brett Jones knifed his granddad to death. This situation occurred when Jones was fifteen years. As a result, the Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi, convicted Brett of killing (Jones v. Mississippi, n.d.). It imposed a compulsory sentence of life imprisonment. Also, Mississippi rules disqualified Brett from getting a conditional release. Jones filed an appeal in the appellate court. However, this court affirmed the sentence and conviction. Still, in a post-conviction relief proceeding, Mississippi’s Supreme Court demanded that Brett get reconvicted after a trial to decide if he remains eligible for liberation entitlement (Jones v. Mississippi, n.d.). Successively, the American Supreme Court verdict in Miller v. Alabama, ruling that compulsory lifespan in jail without the likelihood of early release condemnations for minors, dishonored the Eighth Amendment’s veto on strange and harsh sentences (Jones v. Mississippi, n.d.). As a result, the circuit court conducted this trial considering aspects set out in Miller. It ruled that Brett was never eligible for early release privilege.
Question
Does the Eighth Amendment need penalizing power to determine if a minor is eternally irredeemable before it might inflict a life condemnation without the option of conditional release?
Decision
The court provided a 6-3 majority ruling for Mississippi. In this case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh read the majority decision. The six Justices ruled that a sentencing authority should never find juveniles permanently incorrigible before enforcing life sentences without a chance for parole (Jones v. Mississippi, n.d.). The majority argued that an optional condemnation scheme is lawfully adequate and necessary to inflict a life punishment deprived of liberation on perpetrators who committed homicide under 18 years.
Justice Clarence wrote an opinion agreeing with this judgment. The Justice argued that this Court must have given similar results by asserting that Montgomery got erroneously ruled (Jones v. Mississippi, n.d.). Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissenting judgment, and Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer concurred. Generally, Justice Sonia reasoned that the popular efficiently sidesteps intent look decisis by reading Miller to need only “an optional sentencing process where minors get considered.” According to Justice Sonia, sentencing discretion is crucial under Montgomery but not adequate under Miller (Jones v. Mississippi, n.d.). Therefore, the Justice maintained that a sentencer should judge that juveniles are those exceptional kids for whom life cycle deprived of conditional release is a legally allowable judgment.
Online Story
According to the New York Times article, the Supreme Court decided that judges must not determine that youth wrongdoers remain beyond rehabilitation hope before condemning them to perish in prison (Liptak, 2021). This article shows that the decision signaled the end of simple juvenile punishment. In this case, it ended a tendency that restricted the accessibility of austere penalties for minor wrongdoers before they become adults. I have learned that civil liberties protect folks from oppressive or unjust government actions. This phenomenon demonstrates that civil liberties are a vital portion of democracy. I learned that such rights ensure that every citizen, including youth offenders, receives fair treatment and remain respected in society. In this scenario, civil liberties included the need for the due procedure of law and the right to freedom and life (Liptak, 2021). The American Supreme Court forbids execution for crimes committed by individuals aged fifteen or below. However, in the Jones v. Mississippi case, the Supreme Court went against its goal of reducing harsh punishments for minor lawbreakers by altering this course in a 6-to-3 verdict (Liptak, 2021). According to many, this decision violated the civil liberties of youth wrongdoers below 15 years.
References
Jones v. Mississippi. (n.d.). Argument2.Oyez.org. https://argument2.oyez.org/2020/jones-v-mississippi/
Liptak, A. (2021, April 22). Supreme Court Rejects Limits on Life Terms for Youths. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/us/supreme-court-life-terms-youths.html
write