ipl-logo

Greg Ousley Case

632 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Theoriess of moral development and its effects on adolescent

On June 25, 2012, the Supreme court ruled that juveniles who committed murder could not be sentenced for to life in prison. Their reasoning was that it violated the 8th Amendment, that stated the ban of cruel and unusual punishment. However, that is not the only reason to have juveniles not be sentenced for life. I agree with the supreme court’s decision because juveniles who commit crime can be coming from an unhealthy background, their brain is not fully developed, and their characters are still in formation. Greg Ousley murdered his parents on February 27, 1993 with a rifle gun that he was found in his house. Scott Anderson wrote a story about Ousley about how his mother cheated on his father and Greg witnessed it and that his father had little to no communication with him. Being in an environment like that makes adolescents and children in general act out towards their parents or the people around them (Greg Ousley Is Sorry for Killing His Parents. Is That Enough?, Anderson). Although, his mother was loving towards him, she was also always on his case about everything and constantly ridiculed him for …show more content…

A Juvenile writes, “brain imaging studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain responsible for controlling thoughts, actions and emotions are not fully developed” ( Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences, Garinger 5). Grainger is not wrong that is the reason why so many adolescents are risk takers and make impulse decisions because they do not think of the repercussions of their actions. There are age limits to drinking and voting because the people who made those laws believed that adolescents could not handle those acts at their age for their immaturity. Lawmakers would look like hypocrites if they said that adolescents do not have a fully developed mind for drinking and voting, but do for making a decision of killing

Show More
Related
133 Words | 1 Pages

In “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains,” Paul Thompson--a neuroscientist at UCLA--argues that minors should not be sentenced as adults because their brains are not the same as adults’ brains. Even though Thompson believes that minors should be held accountable for their crimes, he presents evidence from recent studies to explain the differences between the brains of minors and adults. It is not surprising that Thompson uses logical evidence to defend his position, given that he is a scientist. However, Thompson frequently uses emotional persuasion--or pathos--to convince his readers that sentencing minors as adults is both unjust and uninformed. Through his use of structure and emotionally charged language, Thompson attempts to convince readers

Read More
383 Words | 2 Pages

A comparison study of two murders in the state of Ms which are Jones v. State of Mississippi (2009) and Parker v. State of Mississippi (2011) and both of these cases have a lot in common. Brett Jones and Lester Parker are currently in jail for a heinous crime. Not only were they 15 years old juveniles doing the time but they both their grandfathers several times for different reasons and because of that they were charged with first and second degree murder and was sentenced to life without parole. Brett Jones Jr. v. State of Mississippi (2009) Brett Jones stabbed his 68 year old grandfather to death and was sentenced to life without parole but because he was a juvenile at the time he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole because his 8th amendment was violated.

Read More
733 Words | 3 Pages

This case is important because the kids that commit crimes are not being killed they are just sentenced to jail for life, but you don't see on the news minors killing and robbing people. No because kids or teenagers are not going around being charged with burglary, kidnapping, stealing and murder in the first degree. The case has not been replaced by any other but it has helped some cases and it has been helped by cases. My opinion on this case is odd, teens should not be wanting to kill people and if they have they should have to pay for it they did kill an innocent person. I understand that he was a minor and because he was it was cruel and unusual to put him to death but at the same time i feel that, it isn't fair that a innocent human being died and he gets to live.

Read More
791 Words | 4 Pages

Additionally, the Court looked into capital punishment practices in other countries. At the time they began hearing the case, the United States was the only country that still had the death penalty as an available sentencing option for juveniles who were found guilty of murder (Arvin, 2005). Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thomas, and Justice O’Connor had a dissenting opinion of the case (Williams, 2005). The dissent was primarily questioning if there was now a national consensus that juveniles would not be sentenced to death.

Read More
606 Words | 3 Pages

During the eighteenth amendment the court had to deal with many court cases due to criminal activity. One of the cases had to deal with Roy Olmstead (Hamm). Olmstead ran a large bootlegging operation, importing liquor from Canada and selling it throughout Seattle, Washington(Hamm). His business was illegal but was protected by the local police and employed a workforce three times the size of the federal unit responsible for enforcing Prohibition in the area (Hamm). Police Lieutenant Roy Olmstead first became a bootlegger, but he was arrested for smuggling liquor in March 1920, when national prohibition was just weeks old.

Read More
476 Words | 2 Pages

Depriving someone or a suspect of their rights is illegal. Title 18 of Section 242 makes acting under and color of law to deprive a person of the privilege or right protected by the Laws of the US or the Constitution (Deprivation Rights Under Color Law). This shows that the police can not keep someone from their civil rights. If people under any color of law deprives a suspect of their rights they will be consequented, and if any damage done to the suspect the consequences are worse. If any one conspires to deprive the suspect of their rights, immunities, or privileges protected by the Laws of the US or the Constitution, will be imprisoned for no more than a year or fined, if not both.

Read More
903 Words | 4 Pages

This was used as a precedent. Any minor that has committed a crime should still have their rights. An adult knows exactly what they are getting into. That is why when it comes to homicide of an adult this precedent does not apply the same way. The court’s decision decided that it is a cruel and unusual punishment that forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.

Read More
1221 Words | 5 Pages

", Oyez). This question and case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court where it was ruled that “life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non homicide offenses is unconstitutional” (“Graham v. Florida.”,

Read More
1528 Words | 7 Pages

Crimes are happening around us whether we pay attention to them or not. Those crimes as dangerous as murder are committed by all ages but should younger criminal in their juvenile age received the same punishment as older criminals. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violates the Eighth Amendment.(On-Demand Writing Assignment Juvenile Justice) Advocates on the concurring side believes that mandatory life in prison is wrong and should be abolish. However, the dissenting side believe that keeping the there should be a life in prison punishment for juvenile who commit heinous crime regardless of their age.

Read More
1118 Words | 5 Pages

Supreme Court reviewed the cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson who were both convicted with committing capital murder at the age of fourteen. Firstly, all defendants are allowed to argue that their punishment violated the Eighth Amendment. According to www.verdict.justia.com, “ On a theory that Miller and Jackson were entitled to individualized sentencing, they were denied the opportunity to argue the relevance of these mitigating factors to their proper punishment in an attempt to persuade their judges that the sentence of LWOP was too harsh.” Specifically, this indicates that the accused people were not allowed to argue that their punishment had violated the Eighth Amendment. Secondly, age matters when deciding the consequence for the convicted criminals.

Read More
582 Words | 3 Pages

The article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” argues that children in prison need to be given a chance to mature and be rehabilitated (Garinger 9). Because these killers likely committed these crimes on impulse, they would often realize after the fact that they were wrong to do such an action. Therefore, when they are released, they will be more careful and think about their actions before committing. If they are given a life sentence, they will never be given this chance to fix their life. Older people who commit murders are less likely to learn from their mistakes since they put more thought into the killing than adolescents

Read More
827 Words | 4 Pages

People will oppose to this law, but at the age of 18 an adolescent's brain is not fully developed yet. Underage drinking is a common action in today’s society. What kids do not know is the effect that underage drinking has on their brain. Since the brain is not fully developed at the age of 18, drinking

Read More
1387 Words | 6 Pages

Over the years, the legal drinking age in the United States has been heavily debated. Some argue that the legal age to drink should be 18 or 19 because people at that age are recognized as adults; others argue that the drinking age should be 21 because people who are able to drink should be more mature and have their lives better planned out. Although people are legally adults at 18, they are not yet mature adults; in fact, according to NRP, “emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don’t reach full maturity until the age 25” (“Brain”). Before earning the right to legally drink, people should allow their bodies to fully develop and gain a better knowledge of how to organize their lives. The drinking age should remain

Read More
1137 Words | 5 Pages

On March 20, 2012, during the oral argument in Miller v. Alabama, Associate Justice Samuel Alito pressed the petitioner's counsel Bryan Stevenson to explain his contention that state legislators did not understand the sentencing consequences of the juvenile transfer laws that they had passed during the 1990s.1These laws facilitated the transfer of children's cases from juvenile court into an adult criminal justice system that required mandatory sentences, such as life without the possibility of parole, for many offenses.2The Supreme Court had consolidated the cases of Kuntrell Jackson, an African American teenager, who had been convicted of capital murder in Arkansas, and Evan Miller, a white teenager who had been convicted of murder in an arson case in Alabama. Kuntrell and Evan had both been 14 years old at the time of their crimes, and in both cases, the minimum and maximum sentences were exactly the same: life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The prosecutor in Miller's case had argued that the teenager deserved to die for his crime but that the Supreme Court had abolished the juvenile death penalty in 2005. Five years later, the high court banned LWOP sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicidal offenses. Now Stevenson, the Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative, urged the justices to use the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments to eliminate all mandatory

Read More
729 Words | 3 Pages

Some people believe that juveniles shouldn’t get sentenced to life in prison because of brain studies, age, and the way of living. Recent brain studies have suggested that teenagers suffer from brain-tissue loss, this might be the reason why they commit idiotic decisions. In Gail Garingers article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” she states “Young people are biologically different from adults.” Then she talks about the young adolescents being sentenced to die in prison. Also how there is a myth about the superpredator and how children are hopelessly

Read More

More about Greg Ousley Case

Related Topics

Open Document