Case No. 18-1259 | Miss.
November 3, 2020
Preview by Amy Orlov, Online Editor
Jones v. Mississippi concerns the issue of juvenile sentencing under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. The case follows a string of recent controversies over whether juveniles can be sentenced to life in prison without parole.
In this case, the petitioner, Brett Jones, stabbed his grandfather to death during a fight. At the time of the stabbing, Jones was fifteen years old. In 2004, the state of Mississippi sentenced Jones to life in prison without the possibility of parole—the mandatory sentence at that time for murder in the state. However, the case was reexamined over time due to changing Supreme Court precedent on the issue of juvenile sentencing.
Two specific Supreme Court cases precede this case and provide the relevant law governing this issue. In 2012, the Court held in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences for juveniles without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. 567 U.S. 460, 465 (2012). In holding this conclusion, Justice Kagan explained that mandatory life without parole for juveniles fails to consider a minor’s immaturity, impulsiveness, and family and home circumstances. Id. at 477. A few years later, in 2016, the Court held in Montgomery v. Louisiana that its previous ruling in Miller should be applied retroactively to juveniles who received mandatory life sentences without parole. 136 S. Ct. 718, 736–737 (2016).
However, Montgomery further clarified the holding in Miller by explaining that life without parole was barred “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.” Id. at 734. Thus, this language created an exception to the bar against life without parole for juveniles for those minors who are permanently incorrigible.
Following the Court’s decision in Miller, Jones was re-sentenced in Mississippi under the new law for juvenile offenders. Despite hearing testimony about Jones’ abusive father and his struggle with depression, the Mississippi judge sentenced Jones once again to a life sentence without parole. Both the Mississippi Court of Appeals and the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Jones’ sentence on appeal.
At issue for the Supreme Court to decide is whether a sentencing authority must specifically find that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before it may impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole under the Eighth Amendment. On appeal to the Court, Jones argues that his sentence is unconstitutional since the sentencing judge did not specifically find him permanently incorrigible under the Miller and Montgomery standards. See Brief for Petitioner at 19–20, Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259 (U.S. filed June 5, 2020). Jones further argues that requiring a specific finding of permanent incorrigibility is the only way to give effect to Miller’s substantive holding that life without parole for a juvenile is an excessive circumstance that should only be used in the rarest of cases. See id. at 24. Mississippi contends that it adopted and implemented Miller’s factors for consideration in imposing life-without-parole sentences, which do not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility to impose a life sentence without parole. See Brief for Respondent at 21–23, Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259 (U.S. filed Aug. 14, 2020). Furthermore, Mississippi relies on narrower interpretations of Miller and Montgomery, arguing that neither case invalidated discretionary life-without-parole sentences. See id. at 32.
If the Court rules in Jones’ favor, this case will follow with the Court’s pattern of protecting juveniles and recognizing their lack of emotional development. However, even if the Court sides with Jones, it will ultimately be up to that same Mississippi trial level court to decide whether he is permanently incorrigible. The unfortunate reality is that a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court provides offenders like Jones with no guarantee that their sentence will be overturned and no promise as to what a meaningful opportunity for release will look like.