Juveniles can commit horrendous crimes, but when does the Constitution require that the law take into account the age of the defendant when it comes to life sentences? The answer will come this term based on two cases argued before the United State Supreme Court.  There are about 80 prisoners nationwide serving life without the possibility of parole sentences for murders committed at age 14 or younger. Estimates are that there are as many as 2,300 prisoners nationwide serving sentences of life in prison without parole for murder committed under the age of 18.

The Court is wary of life without parole for juveniles: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report. Sherman says, “The precise contours of an eventual ruling were not apparent after arguments Tuesday, but several justices said they were troubled by the way some states try and sentence young people accused of crimes. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed concern that the Court would be substituting its judgment for that of state legislators. “I’m supposed to impose my judgment on what seems to be a consensus of the American people?” he asked.

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court weighs if teen murderers must get chance of parole.” Vincini’s observation of the argument included this assessment of three of the justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate conservative who cast the decisive vote in the earlier rulings, expressed concern that trial judges have no discretion in states with mandatory sentences, “What’s a judge supposed to do?” he asked.  Justice Elena Kagan asked whether individual factors, such as an offender’s age, should be taken into account in sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole, a scheme that would be similar to what has been used for adults in death penalty cases.

For a look at the briefs as well as a recap of the argument visit the scotusblog.com. There, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Compromise on youth sentences?“