The Supreme Court Case, Graham v. Florida, describes Terrance Jamar Graham and his case on whether or not it goes against the Eighth Amendment/ is cruel and unusual punishment to give a life sentence to a juvenile who has not committed homicidal crime. Growing up, Graham had a rough life. His parents were addicted to crack cocaine, he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in elementary school, started drinking and using tobacco at age 9, and smoked marijuana at age 13. When he was 16, Graham and three of his friends attempted to rob a restaurant. One of his friends worked at the restaurant and left the back door unlocked around closing time. Graham and one of his accomplices walked in with black masks on. The accomplice …show more content…
The first one was a home invasion where they held two men, Carlos Rodriguez and his friend, at gunpoint. They locked them in a closet and ransacked the house. When they attempted a second robbery, Meigo Bailey got shot. Lawrence dropped Bailey and Graham at the hospital, but when he tried to leave a cop flagged him down. He tried to speed away but crashed into a pole. Graham was arrested and ended up admitting to even more previous crimes. Since Graham broke his probation by possessing a firearm, committing crimes, and associating with persons engaged in criminal activity, he was convicted of his past offenses and sentenced to life in prison. Graham filed a motion, challenging his sentence under the Eighth Amendment, but it was denied, which The District Court of Appeal affirmed, stating that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment nor is it cruel and unusual …show more content…
He states, “In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas argues that today's holding is not entirely consistent with the controlling opinions in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), Ewing v. California (2003), Harmelin v. Michigan (1991), and Rummel v. Estelle (1980). Given that "evolving standards of decency" have played a central role in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence for at least a century, this argument suggests the dissenting opinions in those cases more accurately describe the law today than does Justice Thomas' rigid interpretation of the Amendment. Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commitment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete. While Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old, the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing