In 2003, 14-year-old Evan Miller beat his neighbor to death and burned down his trailer. Miller was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), which is the mandatory sentence for “murder in the course of arson.” The Supreme Court found in the case bearing his name, Miller v. Alabama, that mandatory life sentences for juveniles were unconstitutional, although the court did not ban them outright. The court had already ruled against life sentences for juveniles in 2010. Why didn’t this finding apply to the Miller case?
A. The 2010 finding was not applied retroactively, so it would not have impacted Miller because he was convicted in 2006.
B. The 2010 ruling rejected life sentences for nonhomicidal offenses.
C. The 2010 ruling was not applicable to Alabama.
D. The 2010 ruling was only applicable for juveniles that were not tried as adults.
B. The 2010 ruling rejected life sentences for nonhomicidal offenses.
You might also like to view...
The appointment from a list of private bar members who accept cases on ajudge-by-judge, court-by-court, case-by-case basis are known as:
a. Assigned counsel b. No-drop prosecution c. Public defenders d. The contract model
What options exist for securing U.S. borders? Discuss which option or options you think are most effective.
What will be an ideal response?
Describe the three things that delinquency would result from, according to Reiss
What will be an ideal response?
Approximately two-thirds of the young men and women confined have ______ which will continue into young adulthood.
A. extensive histories of juvenile delinquency B. histories of multiple mental health disorders C. prior convictions for violent offenses D. reluctance to reform their behaviors