Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Symposium: Bombshell Or Babystep - The Ramifications Of Miller V. Alabama For Sentencing Law And Juvenile Crime Policy: Symposium Foreword, Paul J. Litton
Symposium: Bombshell Or Babystep - The Ramifications Of Miller V. Alabama For Sentencing Law And Juvenile Crime Policy: Symposium Foreword, Paul J. Litton
Missouri Law Review
Part II of this Foreword briefly addresses one open constitutional question in the wake of Miller: in light of its rationale, is juvenile LWOP – whether mandatory or the result of an individualized sentencing process – constitutionally permissible? I argue that the Miller opinion itself is incoherent insofar as it permits juvenile LWOP as a constitutionally viable sentence. Part III provides a short synopsis of the controversy among Justices regarding the proper methodology for Eighth Amendment proportionality analyses. Then, with particular attention to the authors’ different takes on Miller’s implications for methodology, Part III provides a guide to the symposium …
Juvenile Lifers And Judicial Overrreach: A Curmedgeonly Meditation On Miller V. Alabama, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Juvenile Lifers And Judicial Overrreach: A Curmedgeonly Meditation On Miller V. Alabama, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Missouri Law Review
This Article focuses very little on the implications of Miller and Graham for the population they most directly affect – juvenile offenders previously eligible for sentences of life without parole – and more on the implications of the Court’s reasoning in Miller and Graham for sentencing generally. However gratifying the results of Miller and Graham may be as sentencing policy, they are troubling as a constitutional matter both because they are badly theorized and because they are two strands of a web of decisions in which the Court has consistently used doubtful constitutional interpretations to transfer power over criminal justice …
Other Missouri Model: Systemic Juvenile Injustice In The Show-Me State, The, Mae C. Quinn
Other Missouri Model: Systemic Juvenile Injustice In The Show-Me State, The, Mae C. Quinn
Missouri Law Review
Part II of this Article examines some of the most well-known claims about the Missouri Model of juvenile justice, clarifying that the positive press to date actually describes only one small component of the larger juvenile justice structure: Missouri’s system of residential correction for state-placed adjudicated youth. And while that system has much to admire and replicate, it also has room for improvement In Part III, this Article fills in what has been left out of most public and press stories about Missouri’s larger youth justice system. That is, despite mostly glowing media accounts, Missouri’s at-risk youth are poorly served …
Where The Judiciary Prosecutes In Front Of Itself: Missouri's Unconstitutional Juvenile Court Structure, Josh Gupta-Kagan
Where The Judiciary Prosecutes In Front Of Itself: Missouri's Unconstitutional Juvenile Court Structure, Josh Gupta-Kagan
Missouri Law Review
Part II will describe the juvenile officer’s unique role in Missouri law, and explain how this role makes Missouri an outlier within the United States. Part III will argue that the juvenile officer’s prosecutorial discretion violates the separation of powers required by the Missouri Constitution and informed by the U.S. Constitution. Part IV will describe the real world harms that flow from this violation, with a particular focus on the harms in child abuse and neglect cases. Part V will outline potential policy solutions to this problem.
Miller V. Alabama: What It Is, What It May Be, And What It Is Not, Nancy Gertner
Miller V. Alabama: What It Is, What It May Be, And What It Is Not, Nancy Gertner
Missouri Law Review
In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, held that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for defendants convicted of murder who were under age eighteen at the time of their crimes violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision raises a host of important questions that the University of Missouri School of Law’s recent symposium ably addressed. Is Miller a watershed opinion, prefiguring a new era of substantive Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that would apply to other imprisonment sentences across offender and offense categories? …
Eighth Amendment Differentness, William W. Berry Iii
Eighth Amendment Differentness, William W. Berry Iii
Missouri Law Review
Part II of the Article provides the context for the Miller case, outlining the theoretical underpinnings of the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Part III describes the Court’s “different” jurisprudence, linking the concept of “juveniles are different” to the Court’s longstanding view that “death is different.” In Part IV, the Article demonstrates how the two possible interpretations of the Court’s statement in Miller that “juveniles are different” – as a character-based form of differentness and, in the case of juvenile LWOP, as a punishment-based form of differentness – create distinct theoretical bases for broadening the scope of the Eighth Amendment. Finally, …