Michigan Supreme Court bans mandatory life sentences for 19 and 20-year-olds in murder cases
As a result, hundreds of people will be eligible to return to local courts for new sentences and an opportunity for freedom. At the same time, friends and relatives of murder victims will have to revisit the cases, too.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 opinion, said mandatory life sentences for people who were 19 and 20 at the time of the crime violate a ban against "cruel or unusual punishment" in the Michigan Constitution. The court made a
similar decision for 18-year-olds
in 2022.
A mandatory life sentence "that does not allow for consideration of the mitigating factors of youth or the potential for rehabilitation is a grossly disproportionate punishment," Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote.
Michigan was among only 16 U.S. states that impose mandatory life terms on anyone convicted of first-degree murder who was over 18, according to the
MacArthur Justice Center.
A life sentence in Michigan still can be possible for someone 19 or 20, though it will be rare. The burden will be on prosecutors to show that someone convicted of murder should never get a chance at parole. Judges will hear evidence about family life, mental health, education and other factors, the same process followed for people 18 or under.
Welch said the court's decision was rooted in scientific research about brain development and a young person's ability to fully grasp the consequences of their actions.
"As late adolescents mature into fully developed adults, they become less prone to reckless decision-making, more likely to consider and appreciate consequences, and less susceptible to peer pressure," Welch said.
In a dissent, Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement said lawmakers, not the court, should decide whether to change the law.
"Courts should not reshape the law with every shift in scientific consensus, especially when it is the Michigan Constitution that is the subject of reshaping," said Clement, who was joined by Justice Brian Zahra.
During arguments in January, Flint-area assistant prosecutor Katie Jory urged the court to think about the impact on victims' families if nearly 600 sentences are reopened.
They will be "forced to reopen these old wounds, stop where they are in their grieving process, go in front of a court again and bare publicly their soul regarding the hurt that they have experienced based on the murder of their loved one," Jory said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
42 minutes ago
- Axios
Private nuke waste storage in NM seen as "impossible" in near term
A company seeking to open a temporary storage site for commercial nuclear waste acknowledged that New Mexico's political opposition has at least temporarily clouded its prospects. Why it matters: Holtec International said a Supreme Court ruling in June over waste storage reaffirmed the company's license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to pursue the site in southeastern New Mexico. Driving the news: Holtec, however, said in a July 28 letter to the project's local supporters that opposition from the New Mexico Legislature and Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was a hindrance. "Unfortunately, the passage of state legislation that effectively prohibits the construction of the [site], combined with the continued public opposition expressed by New Mexico's current administration, has made further advancement of the project impossible in the near future," William F. Gill, Holtec's vice president and senior counsel, said in the letter. Lujan Grisham's predecessor, Republican Susana Martinez, backed the project. But state lawmakers passed a law in 2023 seeking to block it. Gill said the company would seek to terminate a revenue-sharing agreement with the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, the local group backing the project. The agreement would give the alliance a share of the project's revenue once the facility was operational in exchange for land. Zoom in: Holtec spokesman Patrick O'Brien said in a statement that the project isn't doomed and "remains a viable part of the solution" to spent fuel accumulating at nuclear reactor sites. "The two parties, with a nearly decade-long relationship, have discussed options available moving forward on both the revenue sharing and land purchase aspects under the current agreement, and will continue to do so," he said. Lujan Grisham — who has expressed repeated fears that a temporary site could become permanent — is term-limited and leaves office in January 2027. Catch up fast: The Supreme Court ruled in June that Texas and oil interests can't challenge the NRC's permit for a separate privately owned temporary nuclear waste storage site not far from Holtec's.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Verdict and sentencing for Brazil's Bolsonaro is set for early September
SAO PAULO — A verdict and sentence in the coup trial against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro will be delivered early next month, the country's Supreme Court announced Friday. The court said the five-justice panel that heard the right-wing leader's case will deliver verdicts and sentences on the five counts against him from Sept. 2 to 12. Bolsonaro, who has drawn the strong support of President Trump and who remains under house arrest, is accused of leading a conspiracy to stay in office after his narrow election defeat in 2022 to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro denies wrongdoing. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro and several of his allies headed a criminal organization that plotted to overturn the election, including plans to kill Lula and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the criminal case. Prosecutors have presented message exchanges, handwritten notes and other evidence allegedly detailing the plot. Defense attorneys have argued that no coup went forward and that Bolsonaro allowed the presidential transition to Lula to take place, undermining any allegations that he tried to thwart that process. There are two five-justice panels at Brazil's top court, and Justice de Moraes brought the case to the one he sits on. Bolsonaro, who governed from 2019 to 2022, appointed two members of the court, but both sit on the other panel. There are five counts against Bolsonaro issued by the country's prosecutor-general: attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law and two counts involving destruction of state property. The prosecution finished presenting its case in July and the defense wrapped up its arguments this week. Bolsonaro's trial has gripped a sharply divided Brazilian public. It received even more attention after Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on imported Brazilian goods to his ally's judicial situation. Trump has called the proceedings a 'witch hunt' against a political opponent, triggering nationalist reactions from many Brazilian politicians. Savarese writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Canadians' legal rights should not depend on lineage — Indigenous or otherwise
A judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court recently found that the Cowichan First Nation holds Aboriginal title over 800 acres of government land in Richmond, B.C. But that's not all. Wherever Aboriginal title is found to exist, said the court, it is a 'prior and senior right' to fee simple title, whether public or private. That means it trumps the property you have in your house, farm or factory. If the Cowichan decision holds up on appeal, it would mean private property is not secure anywhere a claim for Aboriginal title is made in Canada. In November, a judge of the New Brunswick King's Bench suggested that where such a claim succeeds, the court may instruct the government to expropriate the private property and hand it over to the Aboriginal group. Don't dismiss these decisions as isolated or not having national implications. They are the logical extension of the Supreme Court of Canada's extensive Aboriginal jurisprudence. They are also consistent with what in recent decades have become core Canadian beliefs. Special status for Aboriginal people is deeply ingrained in Canadian culture and since 1982 enshrined in the Constitution. Aboriginal rights are widely regarded as the natural and proper order of things. In fact, they are the opposite. In a free country governed by the rule of law, Aboriginal rights should not exist. Invasion, migration and mixing is the history of humanity. The Romans invaded the British Isles in 55 B.C. and conquered the place about 100 years later, on their second try. By 500 A.D., Saxons had established themselves as the dominant power. In 1066, the Normans overthrew the Saxon kingdom. Today, British law does not have different rights for descendants of Romans, Saxons and Normans. The people are British. It wouldn't have seemed that way in 1066. When aliens force their way into a territory, the inhabitants understandably resist. They try to preserve the memory that the place belongs to them. But over centuries, things change. People mix, culturally and genetically. Descendants of inhabitants and invaders marry and procreate. Their offspring do the same. More people from other different places arrive and mix, too. Everyone born there is native to the place. The culture is neither what existed before the invasion nor what the invaders brought with them. No one alive remembers either. The culture in which they live is a distinctive derivative. Once upon a time, legal rights did depend on who your parents were. The ruler was the son of the ruler before him. If your parents were serfs, you were a serf, too. Lineage was destiny. But, like the culture, the law evolved. Eventually, everyone got the vote and the right to run for office. Everyone could own property and was free to buy and sell it. Everyone could marry whom they chose, and divorce as they saw fit. But in progressive Canada, lineage has become a constitutional imperative. Under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, the legally privileged group is Aboriginal, not European. Indigenous people have the same legal rights as any other Canadian citizen. But they also have rights no one else may claim. Depending on their group affiliations, they may have treaty rights. They may be entitled to tax exemptions. They may receive exclusive benefits. They may claim positions on governing bodies and in institutions reserved only for them. They may be entitled to procedures and considerations in criminal sentencing that no one else receives. Their group may be granted Aboriginal title on land from which other Canadians are excluded. This special status has not benefited most Aboriginal people. But it has enriched their elites who administer the substantial largesse that flows from government coffers. Aboriginal property is a group right controlled by Aboriginal leaders. Individual Indigenous people do not own plots of land on reserves or on lands subject to Aboriginal title. Dependency endures because governments and many Indigenous leaders are content with what has become the legal and constitutional status quo. Former Mount Royal University professor Frances Widdowson, among others, has argued that we can trace persistently poor social conditions experienced by many Indigenous people to a thriving 'Aboriginal industry.' Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions and individuals — chiefs, leaders, consultants, managers, bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers and others — have a vested interest in the existing system of Aboriginal rights and status as special groups. Section 35, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, constitutionally entrenches this system. The recent Cowichan decision is just one of its consequences. Let's say the truth out loud. The British and the French conquered the territory now known as Canada. They weren't invited, and they couldn't have been persuaded to leave. They came with numbers and technology that overwhelmed the cultures that were there at the time, many of which were in chronic conflict with their neighbours. Many people on the continent were not the first inhabitants of their territories. Treaties made with the Crown made the best of a bad situation. Lands not surrendered by treaty were no less subsumed by the new people, culture and country. Terence Corcoran: We may never recover from the lockdowns Jack Mintz: Mamdani's socialist agenda will take a bite out of the Big Apple What is most important is that none of this matters now. Generations have passed. We are all Canadian citizens mixed together. Some people have Aboriginal lineage, some have British or French, some have both, and many have none of the above. It's time to repudiate the idea that legal rights depend on lineage. Purging it from the Constitution, of course, would be no easy task, and may prove to be impossible. But the crucial first step is to reject the legitimacy of different legal status. In a free country, laws apply not to distinctive peoples, but to people, period. Bruce Pardy is senior fellow with the Fraser Institute, executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen's University.
