Miller V. Alabama

1421 Words6 Pages
Miller v. Alabama CJA/354 Miller v. Alabama The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were…show more content…
The second component of a crime, mens reus, or criminal intent, was demonstrated by the following example. At one point Miller covered Cannon with a sheet and stated, “Cole, I am God, I’ve come to take your life” (2012, p.1) The third element of a crime, concurrence, was chronologically sequenced with Miller’s intent to commit the act followed by his commission of the criminal act. Kuntrell Jackson Kuntrell Jackson was also 14-years old in November 1999 when he and two other youths attempted to rob a video store and in the process shot and killed Laurie Troup (De Vogue, 2012). Jackson did not do the shooting but was an accomplice to the act; therefore, he received a sentence of life without parole (2012). As for mens reus and actus reus in Jackson’s case, Arkansas court conceded Jackson did not commit the homicidal act nor did he intend for the death of the store clerk occur; however, the State argued Jackson’s culpability rested with his reckless indifference to the value of human life (Supreme Court Rejects Mandatory Life Sentences Without Possibility of Parole for Juveniles, 2012). Lippman (2010) explains the requirement for actus reus of accomplice liability is satisfied by even a relatively small amount of material or psychological assistance to the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability only requires intent to assist in the commission
Open Document