Life without parole unjust for under 21 Year olds...




Life without parole unjust for under 21 Year olds...

According to the Supreme Court in Massachusetts sending under 21 year olds to prison for life without the possibility of parole is unjust. The State's highest court ruled that anyone under the age of 21 cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, raising it from under 18.  There was a 4-3 ruling in favour of the ban, describing life without parole sentences for those under 21 as cruel and unusual under the Massachusetts Constitution.

At the centre of this case was the finding which confirms that the brains of emerging adults are similar to that of juveniles.

In 2013 the court ruled that defendants under 18 could not be sentenced to life without parole based on the fact that "it is not possible to prove that a juvenile is irretrievably depraved," thus under these circumstances such a severe sentence is unjustified."

This ruling took place in the Commonwealth V. Sheldon Mattis case, which extends that finding up to the age of 21.

Mattis was aged 18, when in 2013 he was convicted of the murder of Jaivon Blake in 2011, the victim of a shooting death. Mattis was sentenced to life without parole. His 17 year old co-defendant, was sentenced to 15 years.

As a result of the Massachusetts ruling, Mattis will appear in court for resentencing and to make his case in front of the parole board., and will provide an opportunity for others to follow suit.

There are numerous examples of individuals being sentenced to a life without parole sentence; Massachusetts has over 1,000 such people.

I don't know the details of any of those in Massachusetts but do know about cases in Florida and Texas.

Jennifer Mee from Florida was only 19 when she was found guilty of first degree murder but honestly, the definition of what she had done is manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter as it would be called in the US. Jennifer was involved in a fatal mugging of a young man she agreed to go out on a date with. There was no intent to kill on Jennifer's part and nothing in her trial suggests otherwise. Jennifer was not even in possession of a firearm. She and her two male offenders all received a life without parole sentence. Is this kind of sentence appropriate under the circumstances?

I don't think so.

Just recap; Jennifer was unarmed, had no intention of killing the victim, and was 19.

Her sentence of life without parole is out of proportion to the circumstances of this particular case with the main factor being her lack of premeditation in the tragedy.

The Massachusetts ruling applies to Jennifer but the problem is she is in a Florida prison and it is just a question of when Florida will change their system if they ever do so.

What do others think?

Emotions run high in cases such as this. People do not think rationally and comments such as "She deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison" and "You do the crime you do the time," appear on social media.

If you would like to fill out the petition calling for a ban on life without parole for under 21 year olds then click on the link at the bottom of this article or if you are reading the printed version of this article visit www.freejennifer.blogspot.com and you will find the petition link there.

https://bit.ly/3UzonHU


https://secure.avaaz.org/community_petitions/en/american_supreme_court_abolish_all_life_without_parole_sentences_for_under_21_year_olds_in_america/?cdOVtnb&utm_source=sharetools&utm_medium=copy&utm_campaign=petition-1720009-abolish_all_life_without_parole_sentences_for_under_21_year_olds_in_america&utm_term=cdOVtnb%2Benr

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

American injustic

Image
Written by R. A. Stewart In 2010 Florida women Jennifer Mee was convicted of first degree murder. “Was the death premeditated” “No” Was the death intentional “No” Was the death malicious “No” Did Jennifer actually kill the victim “No” Then why was she found guilty? The answer Under Florida law all participants in a fatal robbery are equally guilty of murder. Is it right... that someone who had no intention to murder can face the same charges as someone who committed the murder? And spend the rest of their life in prison... for a murder she did not commit... but... she is guilty according to Florida law. The worst part of it is that there is no room for a judge to use their discretion. This law is known as “The Feloney Rule.” Florida is not the only state where this law is applicable. A petition is circulation as part of a campaign to change this situation. You can see details on this on the link below: Change.org Abolish the Felony Murder Rule in America!! At Change.org there is a peti...
Read more

The difference between first and second degree murder in Florida

Image
The difference between first and second degree murder in Florida The difference between first and second degree murder in Florida can be summed up in one word, "Premeditation." Was the death intentional? What kind of planning went into the fatality is the difference between first and second degree murder. Premeditation is not the only circumstance which can lead to an individual being charged with first degree murder.  When someone commits another crime such as robbery which results in the death of another person then the resulting charge of those who were responsible will be first degree murder. In Florida as in many other states, all participants in a fatal robbery will be charged with first degree murder; whether they had anything to do with the fatality or not. This is an area which many people believe needs to be looked at and there are several reasons for this; the main one being that the person who pulls trigger should be the one solely responsible for the fatality....
Read more

Florida law change campaign

Image
Florida law change campaign In Florida as in many other states of America, anyone who is a party to a fatal robbery is as equally guilty of committing the murder as the person who did the actual killing. It does not make any difference whether or not there was any intention to kill the victim. If you are part of the crowd  who were involved in the death of another person then you are guilty.  What kind of a sentence do you think a person who was a party to a murder receive? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? Would you believe life without the possibility of parole. How can this be justified? If your son or daughter found themselves in this situation how would you feel? I am calling for a law change which will recognise that these folk who may have been a party to a person's death have actually committed manslaughter if even that. There needs to be a change of law which changes the definition of felony murder that significantly reduces the possibility of a defendant being unfairly ...
Read more