To the Editor,
Your January 25th piece states that the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled earlier that day, that juveniles sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without parole for murder must have a chance to revisit their cases and fight for parole eligibility. This ruling should be grandfathered to older cases consisting of now-adults, who were tried and convicted as adults while they were juvenile. Not only in 28 states and in the cases of the Federal Government, because that creates an inequality of justice within your country. Terms such as ‘irreparable corruption’, ‘irretrievable depravity’ and ‘diminished culpability’ were used to speak about youth. This caught my attention, because they were each used in a way where their potential for reform was
…show more content…
It is mentioned that the ruling’s lesson for the long run was that “children’s diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change cast doubt on mandatory sentences”. This being said, I went out and found a source, quite similar to you, though who expressed the knowledge that children are different. Justice Elena Kagan (High Court Bars Mandatory Life Terms For Juveniles, 2012) said that thanks to their “immaturity, impetuosity and failure to risk and consequences”, children are different. Children are more capable of reform and of change. The chance to revisit their cases and apply for parole eligibility would give thousands of individuals in prison a new hope. Even though the law isn’t set in stone and youth can still be charged with life without parole, depending on the judges decision at the end of a case, the judge being required to take into consideration the mental capacity of the youths understanding (or lack of understanding) about their wrongdoing and its consequences will make these harsh