Thursday, March 19, 2026

THIEL COLLEGE: Comment No. 3

What is the impact of Miller v. Alabama  on juvenile punishment?


Why do states continue to enact laws that apply the death penalty to non-death cases i.e. child rape?

Posted by at
Labels:

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thiel Student 4:
1. Miller v. Alabama ruled that mandatory LWOP for Juveniles is unconstitutional. This ruling was based on the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling requires judges to consider a young person’s age and circumstances before sentencing, recognizing that juveniles are more capable of change and should be offered a second chance. This decision shifted the justice system toward more individualized and rehabilitative punishment for minors.
2. The reason states continue to enact laws that apply the death penalty to non-death cases is because of political and social factors. As seen in Kennedy v. Louisiana, even in severe child rape cases, the death penalty is not allowed. The court ruled in this case that if a victim does not die, then the death penalty is not allowed. For this case, there was strong public pressure and emotional response to especially serious crimes against children, which pushed lawmakers to support harsher punishments. Second, some states pass these laws to challenge or revisit Supreme Court precedent, hoping the Court might change its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.

March 19, 2026 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...

Thiel Student #5:

1.The impact of Miller v. Alabama made it unconstitutional to automatically sentence juveniles to life without parole, requiring courts to consider age and potential for rehabilitation. This reflects a defensible view that juveniles possess diminished culpability due to ongoing neurological and psychological development, warranting more flexible sentencing.

2.States often enact these laws - the death penalty for non-homicidal crimes - to express strong moral condemnation and respond to public demand for severe punishment only in extreme cases. A reasonable defense is that state legislatures - seen in Coker v. Georgia and Kennedy v. Louisiana - may seek to challenge existing precedent or expand upon legal boundaries in response to evolving societal views on justice and victim harm.

March 19, 2026 at 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...

Thiel Student #9
1.The impact of Miller v. Alabama was that it stopped courts from automatically giving youth offenders a life sentence without the chance of release. The Supreme Court found this practice went against the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, judges must now take into account factors like a minor’s age, life circumstances, and level of maturity before deciding on a sentence. This ruling also reflects the idea that young individuals are still developing and have a stronger potential for growth, leading to a greater focus on fair and individualized sentencing rather than one-size-fits-all punishments.
2. States continue to pass these laws mainly because of strong public and emotional reactions to serious crimes, especially those involving children, which pushes lawmakers to support harsher punishments. Even though rulings like Kennedy v. Louisiana and Coker v. Georgia limit the use of the death penalty in non-death cases, some states still pass these laws to reflect strong moral condemnation and show they are taking a tough stance on crime. States may use these laws to challenge existing Supreme Court precedent, hoping the Court might reconsider its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment over time. This can also reflect changing public opinions about justice and the seriousness of certain crimes, even if those laws are likely to be struck down.

March 20, 2026 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...

Thiel Student #2:
1. Miller v. Alabama had an immense impact on juvenile justice, deeming it unconstitutional to sentence any juvenile to life without parole, no matter what their crime was. This impacted juvenile justice in more ways than just prohibiting life without parole, it also impacted the way juveniles then had to be treated. If life without parole is not an option, juveniles had to be carefully examined and tried in court, and given some specific outcome to help rehabilitate them and hopefully have them learn from their crime. Juveniles are not fully developed, which causes them to make uneducated decisions, so giving life without parole seems unfair if these decisions may be "aged out of" when the individual turned 18. Miller v. Alabama was monumental in establishing rehabilitative justice as the primary purpose of juvenile sentencing.
2. States enact these laws toward non-death cases for multiple reasons, including influence and pressure. Lawmakers only remain in office if the people vote them in, and in order to be voted in, voters have to be happy and in agreeance with your ideals. States make these decisions because it lines up with what the public wants, and how their perception on child related cases is especially stronger and more emotionally biased. People see children as the most extreme form of a victim, and they want harsher laws to protect them, even when death is not involved. The second reason is because states are always attempting to sway the national government into becoming more affiliated with their own morals, because it will make them stronger. Enacting these laws will push the precedent from the SCOTUS, and may work to change their stance on the subject, given how these states are watching it play out. In all instances, public opinion sways everything that happens in government, and without the public support, nobody will remain in office.

March 20, 2026 at 11:17 AM
Anonymous said...

Thiel Student #7:
1. Miller v. Alabama established that no juvenile shall be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, no matter the severity of the crime. Because the brains of children are not developed compared to those of adults, it would be cruel and unusual under the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution to punish them with life without the possibility of parole. This is a direct result of evolving standards of decency, and Miller v. Alabama was one case in a string of many that drew a line between adults and children with regard to judicial sentencing.

2. Some states continue to enact legislation regarding the death penalty that is blatantly unconstitutional because they are hopeful that the Supreme Court will overrule its own precedent. As was seen with Roe v. Wade, the current Supreme Court is willing to reexamine and overturn established precedent. States that are declaring crimes like the rape of a child as being punishable by death hope that the Supreme Court will overrule other precedents, like Kennedy v. LA.
States may also enact this kind of legislation to make themselves seem "tough on crime." Rape and child rape are very emotionally-charged crimes, and states may feel compelled to punish those crimes with the utmost severity. If the goal is to appear as though they are tough on crime, it would be better to enact this legislation and to have the Supreme Court strike it down than to never enact it in the first place.

March 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...

Thiel Student #1:
Miller v. Alabama (2012) transformed juvenile sentencing by holding that mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment. This requires judges to conduct individualized sentencing that meaningfully weighs youth, immaturity, family circumstances, the role in the offense, and capacity for change. This is due to the brain of minors not being fully developed. The ruling later made retroactive in Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), opened resentencing pathways for thousands and led to widespread state reforms ranging from abolishing juvenile life without parole to creating parole-review windows after 15–30 years.

States that continue to pass laws authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide crimes like child rape are legislating against court decisions that bar capital punishment for non-homicide offenses where the victim survives. They do so for reasons that include political signaling to appear tough on particularly reviled crimes, creating test cases to invite the Supreme Court to revisit or narrow previous precedents in light of changed Court composition or evolving legislative judgments, and symbolic affirmation of victim protection even if the statutes are unlikely to be enforceable. In practice, such laws face immediate constitutional challenges and are inoperative unless and until the Court overturns or meaningfully revises Kennedy’s categorical prohibition.

March 22, 2026 at 11:07 PM
Anonymous said...

Thiel Student 8:

1) Miller V. Alabama changed the law for sentencing juveniles, holding that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole were unconstitutional under the Eight Amendment in juvenile cases. The case changed the way that courts treat juveniles facing prison and since juveniles arguably have a higher chance of changing as a person that adults, it was found that they should be treated differently than under regular circumstances.

2) Though in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that execution for cases where there was not a murder was a violation of the Eight Amendment, state legislatures continue to pass laws where those who commit child rape could face the death penalty because it signals a "tough on crime" attitude. This also works as a challenge to the decision by the supreme court and signals that these legislatures are confident in their belief that states should be able to draft their own legislation on matters such as this under our federalist model.

March 23, 2026 at 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...

Thiel Student 6: The impact of Miller v. Alabama on juvenile punishment is important because it prohibits mandatory life sentences without the parole for juveniles. This helps the juveniles to be reshaped into a better person and to be able to give them a better chance at life since they are so young. their brains aren't fully developed yet. and if they did do it without anybody knowing it would violate the eight amendment. States put place these laws for not so serious crimes such as murder which is a guaranteed life sentence or death penalty if convicted. If someone does not die the death penalty cannot be enforce which is why the 8th amendment was created

March 25, 2026 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...

1. Miller v. Alabama changed sentencing for juveniles by taking away mandatory life without parole. This seperates juveniles from adults and forces judges to base their sentences off of the circumstances of the case and the juvenile.

2. States may use these penalties on non death cases due to many factors, one being emotions. In cases such as rape, courts may come down harder especially if it was a child. They also may be doing this to challenge the supreme court. Kennedy v. Louisiana states that it violates the 8th amendment to execute someone who rapes a child and the child doesnt die, states challenge this ruling to show strength and bring attention to themselves wether the win or lose.

April 1, 2026 at 7:00 PM

Post a Comment