By: Derek Hawkins//January 12, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Benard McKinley v. Kim Butler
Case No.: 14-1944
Officials: POSNER, RIPPLE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Practice Area: Pleas & Sentencing – Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Judge’s imposition of life sentence for 16 yr old defendant warrants further consideration.
“Murder is of course one of the most serious crimes, but murders vary in their gravity and in the information they reveal concerning the likelihood of recidivism by the murderer. In the case of a 16-year-old kid handed a gun by another kid and told to shoot a designated person with it, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of recidivism upon his release from prison or to assess the deterrent effect of imposing a long sentence on him, without additional information. A competent judicial analysis would require expert psychological analysis of the murderer and also of his milieu. Does he inhabit a community, a culture, in which murder is routine? Are other potential murderers likely to be warned off murder upon learning that a 16-year-old kid has been sentenced to life in prison, or are they more likely to think it a fluke? Is the length of a sentence a major factor in deterrence? Given that criminals tend to have high discount rates, meaning that they weight future events very lightly, does it matter greatly, so far as deterrence is concerned, whether a murderer such as McKinley is sentenced to 20 years in prison or 100 years? And here is where Miller plays a role. It does not forbid, but it expresses great skepticism concerning, life sentences for juvenile murderers. Its categorical ban is limited to life sentences made mandatory by legislatures, but its concern that courts should consider in sentencing that “children are different” extends to discretionary life sentences and de facto life sentences, as in this case. A straw in the wind is that the Supreme Court vacated, for further consideration in light of Miller, three decisions upholding as an exercise of sentencing discretion juveniles’ sentences to life in prison with no possibility of parole: Blackwell v. California, 133 S. Ct. 837 (2013); Mauricio v. California, 133 S. Ct. 524 (2013); Guillen v. California, 133 S. Ct. 69 (2012).”
Vacated and remanded