How Does Miller Violate The 8th Amendment

Alexander Hamilton once said, “[T]he first duty of society is justice.” Justice has been a repeated theme in political history and it is a shame that it may not be served for Miller. Evan Miller and Colby Smith, both 14 and 16 respectively, murdered Cole Cannon in his own home. The two teens attempted to steal cash from Cannon’s wallet while he was sleeping, but during the process, they had awoken him. Cannon grabbed Miller by the throat in response to the two teen thieves, but before anything could happen, Smith grabbed a nearby bat and knocked Cannon out. Miller then proceeded to hit Cannon repeatedly with his fists or the bat. The two teens flee the scene after they beat Cannon. They returned later to set the house ablaze to destroy evidence

In Harmelin v. Michigan, Harmelin objects his life without parole sentence, claiming it violates the Eighth Amendment on the grounds of being “cruel and unusual”. The outcome of the case rules the sentencing constitutional, reasoning that just because it may be unusual or uncommon, does not make it a violation. Even though the punishment itself may be cruel in comparison to other punishments, it is not historically unusual or unprecedented. The case itself speaks a great volume about the proportionality of crime to punishment. Considering Harmelin only possessed cocaine as his crime, and received a life sentence without parole, the court ruled in favor of Michigan. This shows that there is no proportional punishment for crimes. If Harmelin gets a life sentence without parole for just possessing an illegal drug, a life sentence without parole for murder fits the outcome of Harmelin v. Michigan. If there was a proportionality rule, by definition and logic, Miller will be sentenced to death or life without parole at the minimum. Any sentence less severe only makes the Harmelin v. Michigan outcome seem pointless, it breaks the logic one would use to justify the Harmelin

The argument is often supported with scientific evidence claiming that minors’ brains don’t stop developing until the age of 25. It is then reasoned that minors cannot be held responsible for their actions due to the fact that their brains are still developing. This is completely true, but there is just one big flaw in this reasoning. It is claimed that the brain does not stop developing until the age of 25, but the line for responsibility is drawn at 18. Why is it drawn at 18? Is there a massive difference between the mind of a 17 and 18 year old? If moral and ethical responsibility is tied to age and the development of the brain, why shouldn’t we set the line at 25? Following the logic of developmental and age differences, the punishments should be lowered for those who are under 25. But we know that will not happen, because the age difference and brain development is not a major factor in determining moral responsibility. The major factor is the mental capability that is often determined by psychiatrists where insanity is determined to be a factor. In Miller’s case he confessed to the crime and did not plead insanity, neither was he determined to be insane. This reveals that he had moral knowledge of his wrongdoing during Cannon’s