The liberal quest to tilt the scales of justice in favor of criminals continues. Tomorrow, the U.S Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of sentencing juveniles to life without parole if they have committed murder. In 2010, in Graham v. Florida, the Court struck down as unconstitutional the sentencing of a juvenile to life imprisonment for crimes other than homicide.
Nothing in the Constitution forbids doling out life sentences for juveniles; the sentiment among those seeking to ameliorate the stiff sentences is that juveniles are not entirely responsible for their actions. And the emphasis from the left is always on the immaturity of the criminal, with no mention of the victims. Lawrence Wojcik, an attorney who wrote a brief on behalf of the American Bar Association, stated, “A juvenile has a less developed sense of right and wrong. They should have the opportunity to prove that, at some point, they have been rehabilitated and they are fit to rejoin the community.” The ACLU explained, “Despite a global consensus that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults and recognition that children are entitled to special protection and treatment, the United States allows children to be treated and punished as adults.”
In the law, a juvenile is defined as a person who is not old enough to be held responsible for criminal acts. There are states in which the driving age is as young as 15. Is it rational to argue that someone who can receive a ticket for endangering other motorists and pedestrians should not be accountable when they run down one of those pedestrians, or kill one of those motorists?
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.