On the evening of July 15, 2003, Cole Cannon went to the home of Evan Miller to make a drug deal with Millers mother (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). Evan Miller and his co-defendant Colby Smith followed Cannon back to his own trailer where all three of them smoked marijuana and played drinking games. After a while Cannon passed out and Miller stole Cannon’s wallet. Miller and Smith split $300.00 between them (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). While Miller was putting the wallet back in Cannon’s pocket, Cannon work up and attacked Miller grabbing him by the throat. Smith hit Cannon with a nearby baseball bat and Cannon released Miller. Once released, Miller then struck Cannon repeatedly with the baseball bat (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). Miller placed
…show more content…
Miller then appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on the bases of unconstitutionality of sentencing a fourteen-year-old to life without parole and the mandatory imprisonment of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.).
Millers petition for rehearing was denied. Miller’s petition for certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court was also denied. The Supreme Court of the United States however, did grant certiorari on November 7, 2011 (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.).
The U.S. Supreme Court would judge the case on whether sentencing a fourteen-year-old to life in prison without parole violates the Eight and Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.). Miller’s counsel argued that sentencing a fourteen-year-old to life without parole without considering certain factors such as his age violates the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments’ ban on cruel and unusual punishment (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.). The state of Alabama argued that punishing a fourteen-year-old to life without parole does not violate the Eight or Fourteenth Amendment, but serves a justifiable penological goal when the crime is aggravated murder (Carrizales & Schultz, …show more content…
A state will not be required to guarantee eventual freedom, but it must provide an opportunity of release that is based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation (Miller v. Alabama, 2012).
The question in this case is whether the imposition of life-without-parole of a fourteen-year-old violates the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (Miller v. Alabama, n.d.). The Eight Amendment forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court areas of cruel and unusual punishment; in proportional sentencing and in individual sentencing (Rhodes, 2015). The Eight Amendment also requires that the punishment be graduated and proportioned to the offense. It forbids grossly disproportionate sentences (Rhodes, 2015).
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision and remanded. The Court held that the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for juvenile homicide offenders. The Court felt that a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate the Eight Amendment, but would be an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for children (Miller v. Alabama,
Miller then appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on the bases of unconstitutionality of sentencing a fourteen-year-old to life without parole and the mandatory imprisonment of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.).
Millers petition for rehearing was denied. Miller’s petition for certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court was also denied. The Supreme Court of the United States however, did grant certiorari on November 7, 2011 (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.).
The U.S. Supreme Court would judge the case on whether sentencing a fourteen-year-old to life in prison without parole violates the Eight and Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.). Miller’s counsel argued that sentencing a fourteen-year-old to life without parole without considering certain factors such as his age violates the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments’ ban on cruel and unusual punishment (Carrizales & Schultz, n.d.). The state of Alabama argued that punishing a fourteen-year-old to life without parole does not violate the Eight or Fourteenth Amendment, but serves a justifiable penological goal when the crime is aggravated murder (Carrizales & Schultz, …show more content…
A state will not be required to guarantee eventual freedom, but it must provide an opportunity of release that is based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation (Miller v. Alabama, 2012).
The question in this case is whether the imposition of life-without-parole of a fourteen-year-old violates the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (Miller v. Alabama, n.d.). The Eight Amendment forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court areas of cruel and unusual punishment; in proportional sentencing and in individual sentencing (Rhodes, 2015). The Eight Amendment also requires that the punishment be graduated and proportioned to the offense. It forbids grossly disproportionate sentences (Rhodes, 2015).
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision and remanded. The Court held that the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for juvenile homicide offenders. The Court felt that a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate the Eight Amendment, but would be an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for children (Miller v. Alabama,