This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Uncategorized

GRAHAM v. FLORIDA

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAHAM v. FLORIDA

STUDENT NAME

INSTITUTION AFFILIATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Legal and Procedural History

The petitioner, Terrance Graham, was arrested at 16 years of age for armed robbery. According to Florida law, the prosecuting attorney has the right to prosecute minors that have committed felony crimes as either adults or juveniles, and the prosecutor, in this case, charged Graham as an adult. Graham was therefore sentenced three years probation after pleading guilty, of which the first year was spent in jail. However, Graham violated his probationary terms a few months after his release from prison by possessing a firearm and getting involved in a home invasion robbery (Liptak, 2010). When taken to court, the trial court repealed Graham’s probation and adjudged him for the earlier charges. Graham was then sentenced him to life imprisonment with no possibility of release except getting an official pardon from the state, considering Florida did not have a parole system, having earlier on gotten rid of it. He challenged his sentencing by filing a motion with the trial court under the Eighth Amendment, which was denied. The State First District Court of Appeal sustained the denial, and the Florida state Supreme Court denied review. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari.

  • Facts

Graham was prosecuted as an adult, which was in line with Florida law where the prosecutor had the right to charge minors who had committed a crime as minors or adults. He was 16 years old when he was charged with armed robbery after pleading guilty under a plea agreement, reciting, “This is my first and last time getting into trouble,” and the court accepted his plea agreement. He, however, later committed another crime, a home invasion robbery, days before his 18th birthday and violated his probation. The court deemed this behaviour ‘a growing pattern of criminal conduct,’ thereby he was given the maximum sentence the law allowed. The seriousness and violent nature of the crimes committed by Graham caused the First District Court of Appeal of Florida to affirm the motion the trial court denied after Graham disputed his sentencing in the trial court under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. With no parole system in Florida, there was no possibility of his release, which violated the Eighth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court; therefore, they granted certiorari.

  • Issue

The issue in question before the Supreme Court was; does the constitution allows for a minor who has carried out a non-homicidal crime be sentenced to a life sentence with no parole?

  • Holding

In the case of a juvenile, life without parole is considered an extremely strict penalty. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to meter out life-without-parole on minors. Under the Eighth Amendment is a guideline under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Ban that stipulates that castigation of a crime should be proportionate to the committed crime.

  • Court Rationale

Proportionality in regards to the Eighth Amendment is the benchmark for a criminal sentence’s validity. Considering a particular offender or crime, the punishment decided must serve legitimate penological goals. First, the culpability of offenders must be taken into account. A sentence of life with no parole adequately fails to produce the desired deterrent effect due to their immaturity. Also, considering the society, the juveniles are not irredeemable; therefore, the life sentence fails to achieve incapacitation. A minor served with a life sentence with no parole will not be rehabilitated as there is no incentive to help them reform if they are not accepted back into society.

In Graham v. Florida, while incapacitation, deterrence and retribution are legitimate reasons warranting a punishment, they are not worthy of the harsh sentence that Graham receives. Separating him for a while to help him reform and mature up is acceptable and therefore assuming that he will be a threat to society all his life was considered by the Court cruel and unusual. In particular, the life sentence without parole that the trial court ruled was recognised by the Supreme Court to be disproportionate to the crime, considering it was a non-homicidal one and also because a life sentence without parole had been rejected the world over(Liptak,  2010).

  • Analysis

After pleading guilty to the first charges that were brought against him, Graham could have been true to his word and reformed. However, he failed to, and as punishment, the trial court sentenced him harshly. The decision to consider this unconstitutional by the Supreme Court shows that minors in the criminal sentencing process have greater constitutional protections compared to adults. For example, in Roper v. Simmons, the Court decided to ban extreme penalties for minors. In contrast, the case Miller v. Alabama led to the ban of life sentencing without parole for juveniles who have committed homicide crimes. Therefore, this case is contemplated as a mid-point in the evolution of the Eighth Amendment in regards to juvenile offenders. The case has helped the courts to take a patient approach with juvenile offenders and aim at achieving the penological goals as stipulated in the Eighth Amendment.

 

 

 

References

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825, (2010).

Liptak, A. (2010). Justices limit life sentences for juveniles. New York Times17.

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407, (2012).

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1, (2005).

STUDENT NAME

INSTITUTION AFFILIATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Legal and Procedural History

The petitioner, Terrance Graham, was arrested at 16 years of age for armed robbery. According to Florida law, the prosecuting attorney has the right to prosecute minors that have committed felony crimes as either adults or juveniles, and the prosecutor, in this case, charged Graham as an adult. Graham was therefore sentenced three years probation after pleading guilty, of which the first year was spent in jail. However, Graham violated his probationary terms a few months after his release from prison by possessing a firearm and getting involved in a home invasion robbery (Liptak, 2010). When taken to court, the trial court repealed Graham’s probation and adjudged him for the earlier charges. Graham was then sentenced him to life imprisonment with no possibility of release except getting an official pardon from the state, considering Florida did not have a parole system, having earlier on gotten rid of it. He challenged his sentencing by filing a motion with the trial court under the Eighth Amendment, which was denied. The State First District Court of Appeal sustained the denial, and the Florida state Supreme Court denied review. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari.

  • Facts

Graham was prosecuted as an adult, which was in line with Florida law where the prosecutor had the right to charge minors who had committed a crime as minors or adults. He was 16 years old when he was charged with armed robbery after pleading guilty under a plea agreement, reciting, “This is my first and last time getting into trouble,” and the court accepted his plea agreement. He, however, later committed another crime, a home invasion robbery, days before his 18th birthday and violated his probation. The court deemed this behaviour ‘a growing pattern of criminal conduct,’ thereby he was given the maximum sentence the law allowed. The seriousness and violent nature of the crimes committed by Graham caused the First District Court of Appeal of Florida to affirm the motion the trial court denied after Graham disputed his sentencing in the trial court under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. With no parole system in Florida, there was no possibility of his release, which violated the Eighth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court; therefore, they granted certiorari.

  • Issue

The issue in question before the Supreme Court was; does the constitution allows for a minor who has carried out a non-homicidal crime be sentenced to a life sentence with no parole?

  • Holding

In the case of a juvenile, life without parole is considered an extremely strict penalty. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to meter out life-without-parole on minors. Under the Eighth Amendment is a guideline under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Ban that stipulates that castigation of a crime should be proportionate to the committed crime.

  • Court Rationale

Proportionality in regards to the Eighth Amendment is the benchmark for a criminal sentence’s validity. Considering a particular offender or crime, the punishment decided must serve legitimate penological goals. First, the culpability of offenders must be taken into account. A sentence of life with no parole adequately fails to produce the desired deterrent effect due to their immaturity. Also, considering the society, the juveniles are not irredeemable; therefore, the life sentence fails to achieve incapacitation. A minor served with a life sentence with no parole will not be rehabilitated as there is no incentive to help them reform if they are not accepted back into society.

In Graham v. Florida, while incapacitation, deterrence and retribution are legitimate reasons warranting a punishment, they are not worthy of the harsh sentence that Graham receives. Separating him for a while to help him reform and mature up is acceptable and therefore assuming that he will be a threat to society all his life was considered by the Court cruel and unusual. In particular, the life sentence without parole that the trial court ruled was recognised by the Supreme Court to be disproportionate to the crime, considering it was a non-homicidal one and also because a life sentence without parole had been rejected the world over(Liptak,  2010).

  • Analysis

After pleading guilty to the first charges that were brought against him, Graham could have been true to his word and reformed. However, he failed to, and as punishment, the trial court sentenced him harshly. The decision to consider this unconstitutional by the Supreme Court shows that minors in the criminal sentencing process have greater constitutional protections compared to adults. For example, in Roper v. Simmons, the Court decided to ban extreme penalties for minors. In contrast, the case Miller v. Alabama led to the ban of life sentencing without parole for juveniles who have committed homicide crimes. Therefore, this case is contemplated as a mid-point in the evolution of the Eighth Amendment in regards to juvenile offenders. The case has helped the courts to take a patient approach with juvenile offenders and aim at achieving the penological goals as stipulated in the Eighth Amendment.

 

 

 

References

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825, (2010).

Liptak, A. (2010). Justices limit life sentences for juveniles. New York Times17.

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407, (2012).

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1, (2005).

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask