Sotomayor gives blistering dissent to Trump SCOTUS appointees who find juvenile not worthy of parole
Justice calls ruling ‘an abrupt break from precedent’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave a blistering dissent to Donald Trump‘s SCOTUS appointees who found a juvenile not worthy of parole, calling the ruling “an abrupt break from precedent”.
On Thursday, the highest court in the US ruled 6-3 along liberal-conservative lines against Mississippi inmate Brett Jones who was sentenced to life in prison when he was 15 years old.
Jones was sentenced to prison without the possibility of parole in 2005, for fatally stabbing his grandfather Bertis in 2004 during a fight about his girlfriend.
He eventually took the case to the Supreme Court to challenge his sentence, claiming that he is not “permanently incorrigible”, with the oral hearings held in November 2020.
The Supreme Court voted on Thursday that Jones’s sentence stands, which marks a break with the court’s previous rulings starting in 2005 that said juveniles should be treated differently from adults because of their lack of maturity.
Those previous rulings resulted in the death penalty being eliminated for juveniles and the court stating in 2016 that life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences should be reserved “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility”.
Since those previous rulings were made, the court has lost two liberal-leaning judges crucial in such decisions. They have been replaced by Mr Trump’s nominees, who skew more conservative.
In a blistering dissent to the judges who voted against Mr Jones in the case, Justice Sotomayor, who was nominated to the position by former President Barack Obama, highlighted the implication of the decision.
Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the dissenting opinion with Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, wrote that the majority opinion is “an abrupt break from precedent”.
“Jones should know that, despite the Court’s decision today, what he does in life matters. So, too, do the efforts of the almost 1,500 other juvenile offenders like Jones who are serving LWOP sentences. Of course, nothing can repair the damage their crimes caused,” Ms Sotomayor continued.
“The question is whether the state, at some point, must consider whether a juvenile offender has demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation sufficient to merit a chance at life beyond the prison in which he has grown up.
“For most, the answer is yes.”
Additional reporting by the Associated Press.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments