Comments on: LWOP for juve not cruel and unusual: CT Supr. Ct

By: Expanding Graham | a public defender

Expanding Graham | a public defender — Tue, 18 May 2010 02:48:58 +0000

[...] aside: the issue of whether LWOP for juveniles who commit a capital felony is cruel and unusual was considered and rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court in post-Roper, pre-Graham [...]

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:48:39 +0000

The key word here is “mandatory” transfers to adult court. The advocates for the under age 18 killers (most of whom are incredibly guilty of very heinous aggravated and cold, calculated multiple murders or murder rapes – and most of whom were 17 – likely have appropriately earned life sentences) should concentrate their efforts on the mandatory nature of these transfers. The victims families of these cases are under assault – they need to be found, notified, and supported to be a part of this public policy debate. Please see our website at http://www.jlwopvictims.org.

The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers
NOVJL

By: Gideon

Gideon — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:01:47 +0000

It is, in a sense. But not having seen the brief, I don’t know how well the argument was presented. Seems like a throwaway with the heavy reliance on Roper.

I’m just not sure this presented the proper opportunity to hold that LWOP violates 8th Amendment. Further, I do think that hands were tied with sole reliance on Fed Constitution.

Maybe if there was a claim under the State Constitution, more thought would have been given.

By: Jen

Jen — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:58:31 +0000

Accordingly, in the absence of a constitutional prohibition against the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of release, the wisdom of this sentencing scheme remains with the legislature.

That is a complete punt. And the lazy man’s way out.