I caught notice today that the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the case of Miller v. Alabama, concerning whether it violates the 8th Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a child to life in prison without the possibility of parole. To the credit of Anthony Kennedy and the Courts liberal bloc, the Supreme Court has considerably narrowed the use of the death penalty and life imprisonment over the past decade. It is now unconstitutional for the state to execute children, and its now unconstitutional to sentence a child to life imprisonment for anything other than homicide.
And now, this week, the Court will review whether homicide can result in a punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole. It is being argued on 8th Amendment grounds again, and after a string of victories using that clause, it makes sense. However I think it largely misses a point worthy of consideration, trying anyone under the age of 18 as an adult is depriving them of due process under the law.
Permitting the State to try children as adults while simultaneously denying them the right to engage in participatory democracy denies them due process of law, protected under the 14th Amendment. These individuals lack the ability to change their government and to submit them to the whims of legislators who would throw them in jail for the rest of their lives, without parole, can be nothing but a violation of due process. No one under the age of eighteen should be subject to the adult criminal justice system, no matter how heinous the crime, unless we grant them suffrage.
I think a better solution would simply be to lower the voting age to sixteen. Sixteen-year-olds have more and better education than most voters at the turn of the 20th century, they are active participants in our economy, they are permitted to drive and own automobiles, and can be charged as adults. Permit them the vote, and I see no problem in judging their actions as those of adults.
No comments:
Post a Comment