How Should National and International Opinions Affect the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision?
Graham, Sullivan, and their supporters argue that there is a consensus among states and among nations of the world that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is an inappropriate sentence for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses. See Brief for Graham at 61, 64-65. Both Graham and Sullivan contend that only a handful of states even allow juveniles to receive a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the offenses they committed. See Brief for Graham at 61. Furthermore, according to amici in support of Graham and Sullivan, only thirteen nations legally allow a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for juveniles, and the United States is the only nation to impose the sentence to a significant degree. See Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association in Support of Petitioners at 20. Amnesty International argues that sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates clearly establi
Related Questions
- Will the California Supreme Court decision issued on May 15, 2008, regarding same-sex marriages in California affect my registered domestic partnership?
- How Should National and International Opinions Affect the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision?
- Did the Amistad decision in the Supreme Court affect government policy on the issue?
