Sentencing and Punishment: Recent years have seen significant developments in case law related to sentencing and punishment, reflecting evolving attitudes towards criminal justice and rehabilitation.
- Jones v. Mississippi (2021): This case addressed the sentencing of juvenile offenders to life without parole. The Court held that a sentencer is not required to make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole. However, the sentencer must have discretion to consider the defendant’s youth and attendant characteristics[10].
- Borden v. United States (2021): The Court narrowed the definition of a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). It ruled that a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness cannot qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause. This decision has significant implications for sentencing enhancements under federal law[11].
- United States v. Davis (2019): Although slightly outside our four-year window, this case continues to impact sentencing. The Court struck down a provision of federal law that required longer sentences for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” finding the definition of “crime of violence” unconstitutionally vague. This decision has led to numerous resentencing proceedings and appeals[12].
- Shinn v. Kayer (2020): This case addressed the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in capital sentencing proceedings. The Court emphasized the high bar for federal courts to grant habeas relief based on ineffective assistance claims, particularly when state courts have already rejected such claims[13].
- Terry v. United States (2021): The Court unanimously held that low-level crack cocaine offenders are not eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act of 2018. This decision highlighted the ongoing disparities in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses, despite efforts at reform[14].
These cases reflect a complex landscape in sentencing jurisprudence. While some decisions have expanded protections for certain defendants (particularly juveniles), others have maintained or even strengthened existing punitive frameworks. They underscore the ongoing debate about the purposes of punishment and the appropriate balance between retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation in the criminal justice system.