Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Not Just Kid Stuff - Extending Graham And Miller To Adults, Michael M. O'Hear
Not Just Kid Stuff - Extending Graham And Miller To Adults, Michael M. O'Hear
Missouri Law Review
Part II more fully unpacks the central jurisprudential values that animate Graham and Miller. By reference to these values, Part III explains how Graham and Miller may be reconciled with Harmelin and Ewing. Finally, Part IV discusses the application of Graham and Miller to one particular category of adult offenders – those sentenced under the three-strikes provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) – and concludes that at least some of these offenders may have viable Eighth Amendment claims
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, …