Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Health Care Reform Case, Young People Take to the Web

By |

For three days next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will determine the fate of the health care reform law signed by President Obama two years ago. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act introduced a number of changes to how the health insurance industry operates and would cover more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Immediate changes include allowing adult children to remain on their parents’ insurance until they turn 27 as well as the elimination of yearly and lifetime coverage caps. More changes will be rolled out slowly until 2014, when the full law takes effect. But opponents argue one provision in particular is unconstitutional — the so-called individual mandate that takes effect in 2014 and requires most Americans to purchase health insurance or else face heavy fines.

U.S. Supreme Court Questions If Juvenile Killers Should be Given Second Chance

By |

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in the cases of two offenders, sentenced at a young age to die in prison, and may choose to further limit such sentences for minors. Kuntrell Jackson of Arkansas and Evan Miller of Alabama were both 14 years old when they were convicted of a homicide, and both were sentenced to life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP). For more on the background of their cases, click here. A juvenile's "deficits in maturity and judgment and decision-making are not crime specific," said Bryan Stevenson, who represented both offenders. "All children are encumbered by the same barriers." Stevenson argued that this was the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the court’s other two recent cases on juvenile sentencing, Roper v Simmons and Graham v Florida.

Life Without Parole for Juveniles: A Brief Look at the Issues

By |

Tuesday the Supreme Court will take up the issue of life sentences without parole (LWOP) for juveniles convicted of murder. In 2010, the nation’s high court ruled juvenile LWOP sentences were unconstitutional in non-homicide crimes. Now, advocates are hopeful the court will extend the same protection to all juveniles, regardless of the offense. Pointing to research indicating that brains continue to develop into the early 20s, some groups, including the American Bar Association, argue juveniles are uniquely suited to rehabilitation and that a life sentence without the possibility of parole is a violation of the Eighth and 14th Amendments’ prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Juvenile LWOP sentences are, in fact, very rare, especially for 14-year-olds, the age of both juveniles sentenced in the two cases before the court.

Advocates Hopeful, Want Supreme Court to Reject Life Without Parole for Juveniles

By |

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in the cases of two 14-year-olds sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison, many advocates and attorneys predict a majority of the justices will decide that life sentences for juveniles without the possibility of parole amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Children are “categorically different” from adults, says Andrea Dennis, associate professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, and she wants to see the Court acknowledge that. “At a minimum,” she said, “I hope the court would reject mandatory juvenile LWOP [life without parole] sentences for all homicide crimes and require juries be allowed to consider the defendant’s youth and other factors as mitigation.”

In both cases, Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, the sentences were mandatory regardless of the defendant’s age or circumstances and the judges had no discretion in sentencing. In Jackson, a 14-year-old was convicted as an accomplice to the murder of a store clerk. He did not have a gun or pull the trigger.

Children’s Right to Attorney Not Universal, Washington State High Court Rules

By |

A Washington state Supreme Court ruling Thursday upheld a state law allowing trial judges to appoint attorneys to foster children in cases where a court is considering removal from their family. However, the law does not require children to have an attorney, and the justices ruled 9-0 that the right to an attorney is not universal, according to The Seattle Times. While children have a right to due process, trial judges “have the discretion to decide whether to appoint counsel to children who are subject of dependency or termination proceedings,” the justices wrote in their ruling. "It is the child, not the parent,” the ruling continued, “who may face the daunting challenge of having his or her person put in the custody of the State as a foster child, powerless and voiceless, to be forced to move from one foster home to another.”

Children’s rights advocates were disappointed in the ruling, The Times reports, arguing the ruling departs from other decisions that have upheld children’s universal right to counsel. Still, the ruling notes children would be denied attorneys only in rare cases.

Juvenile Life Without Parole At Issue in Case Before U.S. Supreme Court

By |

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases that could determine whether life sentences without parole for juvenile killers is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Attorneys for the two 14-year-olds involved in the cases will argue forensic evidence shows adolescent brains are not fully developed and that teenagers consequently take too many risks, according to The Los Angeles Times. "Adolescents, because of their immaturity, should not be deemed as culpable as adults," Temple University psychology professor Laurence Steinberg, who spearheaded the research, said. "But they also are not innocent children whose crimes should be excused." The high court abolished the death penalty for juveniles in 2005 and ruled in 2010 that life sentences without parole for juveniles were unconstitutional except in cases of homicide.

State’s Juvenile Justice System Needs Overhaul, Says Chief Justice of Georgia’s Supreme Court

By |

At Wednesday’s annual State of the Judiciary Address, Georgia’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol Hunstein urged lawmakers to overhaul the state’s juvenile justice system, asking legislators to support more rehabilitative services for youth as opposed to incarceration of juvenile offenders. "The same reforms we are recommending to you for adults must begin with children," Hunstein said. “If we simply throw low-risk offenders into prison, rather than holding them accountable for their wrongdoing while addressing the source of their criminal behavior, they merely become hardened criminals who are more likely to reoffend when they are released.”

Hunstein noted that state budget cutbacks have limited services for many mental health and child welfare programs, which she said puts juvenile judges in a position to send youth to detention facilities “or nothing at all.”

She cited Department of Juvenile Justice statistics showing that nearly two-thirds of the approximate 10,000 incarcerated youth in the state suffer from substance abuse issues, while approximately one-third had been diagnosed with mental health complications. The Chief Justice warned legislators that statewide budget cuts have created massive backlogs of court cases in many of Georgia’s counties, which threatens to impede the progress of court resources across the state. Hunstein said she supported proposals from Republican Gov. Nathan Deal to create specialized courts to treat adults with substance abuse issues, as well as military veterans, stating that the system needs to examine the “roots” of offender behavior.

Legal Representation Required in Pennsylvania Juvenile Courts, Says State’s High Court

By |

Juveniles appearing in delinquency proceedings in Pennsylvania will be required to have legal representation following an amendment to the commonwealth’s Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court. The change, effective March 1, follows the “kids for cash” scandal in Luzerne County, Pa. in which juvenile court judge Mark Ciavarella took kickbacks from the builder of two for-profit youth detention centers and routinely denied juveniles in his court their right to an attorney. The new rules say youth under the age of 14 must have an attorney present at all delinquency proceedings and children 14 years of age or older may only waive their right to counsel in very limited circumstances. Even then, the court must be satisfied the waiver was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.

Washington State’s High Court Rules Legislature Not Doing Enough to Fund Education

By |

The Washington State Legislature has failed to meet its constitutional responsibility to fund public education for the last three decades, according to a ruling by the state’s Supreme Court. “By the Legislature’s own terms, it has not met its duty to make ample provision for ‘basic education,’” wrote Justice Debra Stephens in an 85-page opinion. “This court cannot idly stand by as the Legislature makes unfulfilled promises for reform.”

In 2009, the Legislature passed a bill meant to reform funding formulas, HB2261, and update the 1977 Basic Education Act by 2018. In Justice Stephens’ opinion, the high court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to oversee the Legislature’s timely implementation of those changes. “Ultimately, it is our responsibility to hold the State accountable to meet its constitutional duty,” Justice Stephens writes in the opinion.

Georgia Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Appeal of 14-Year-Old Given Life Sentence

By |

Georgia’s high court will hear oral arguments Monday in the appeal of  a 27-year-old Tift County man who was sentenced to life plus 20 years for rape when he was a 14-year-old boy. Jonas Brinkley  is appealing on the grounds that his sentence violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and that greater-than-life sentences should not be imposed on cases not involving homicide. According to prosecutors, Brinkley committed the rape while a 19-year-old friend, Lakendrick Carter, detained the victim's boyfriend in another room.  Brinkley and Carter also stole $180 from the couple before leaving their apartment. Carter was given 15 years in prison plus another five years of probation in exchange for his testimony against Brinkley. Five days after his sentencing, Brinkley, through his attorney, filed a motion for a new trial.