Graham was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Thirteen jurisdictions do not allow life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide crimes. Thirty-seven jurisdictions permit sentences of life without parole for a juvenile non-homicide offender under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court held that sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment without parole for a non-homicide crime violates the Eighth Amendment.
Key words: actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, accomplice liability, criminal liability, Eight Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, jurisdiction,
Graham v. Florida
560 U. S. ____ (2010)
Terrence Graham, at age 16, was arrested for attempted armed robbery and armed burglary with assault and battery. The Florida trial court sentenced him to probation and withheld adjudication of guilt. Six months later, Graham committed other crimes in violation of his probation. Graham was subsequently adjudicated guilty of the earlier charges, had his probation revoked, and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Graham argued his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, but on appeal the court affirmed. The Supreme Court grated certiorari and held that sentencing a juvenile offender to life imprisonment without parole for a crime that did not involve a homicide violates the Clause [560 U.S. _____(2010)].
Crime and Punishment
Crime is an offence against a public law that is classified as a felony or misdemeanor.
Criminal liability is incurred by a person who commits an act (actus reus) that constitutes a crime, and also (1) the crime was committed with mens rea (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently); the actus reus and mens rea occurred at the same time (concurrence); (3) there was no lawful justification for the commission of the crime; and (4) there are no grounds to exclude criminal liability for the crime. In legal terms, criminal liability requires actus reus, mens rea, and concurrence (Perkins and Boyce, 1995).
Actus reus is the voluntary and wrongful act or omission to act that makes up the physical element of a crime. There is no criminal liability without the commission of a criminal act, or actus reus (Perkins and Boyce, 1995)
The actus reus in Graham consisted of (1) attempt to commit a robbery at gunpoint, (2) burglary, (3) assault, and (4) battery.
Mens rea, or "guilty mind" is the criminal intent that makes up the mental element of a crime.
According to the Model Penal Code (1985) there are four levels on mens rea. A crime can be committed purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently:
Purposely: The defendant committed a specific crime against a particular on purpose.
Knowingly: The defendant knew that one’s actions are certain to result in a crime against some unspecified victim, but the defendant has no specific intent to commit the crime against the victim that the defendant ended up injuring.
Recklessly: The defendant knew that one’s actions had a high risk of resulting in a certain crime, but the defendant ignored the risk ("reckless disregard"), and committed the act anyway
Negligently: The defendant did not intend to commit a crime, but did not exercise a reasonable duty of care to prevent the crime.
Graham was armed when he broke into the restaurant, an indication he broke with intent to commit a robbery; thus, his mens rea was “purposely.”
Concurrence: In theory, if the actus reus and the mens rea do not occur at the same time, then no crime has been committed.
Graham’s act of breaking into the restaurant while armed shows concurrence of the actus reus and the mens rea.
Accomplice liability is incurred by a person who intentionally helps another person commit a crime; that is, the accomplice “aids and abets” the commission of a crime. The accomplice will be held liable for the crimes committed by the other person, and may also be held liable for other crimes that may arise as a natural and probable consequence of the original crime (Perkins and Boyce, 1995).
There are four different types of accomplices under the Model Penal Code (1985):
Principal in the first degree, who commits the crime in person or by using another person.
Principal in the second degree, who helps another person commit the crime and is present while the crime is being committed.
Accessory before the fact, who is not present while the crime is being committed, but either solicits or commands the principal in the first degree to commit the crime.
Accessory after the fact, who helps a guilty person avoid arrest, trial, or conviction after the crime has been committed.
During the first offense, Graham was arrested for having committed the crimes himself, therefore he was principal in the first degree. During the second offense, Graham was arrested and convicted of armed home robbery; although Graham denied having been present when the crime was committed, he was found fleeing the scene. Therefore, the facts show that Graham, at the very least, was an accessory before the fact, as well as an accessory after the fact.
Liability is the same for the principals in the first or second degree and the accessory before the fact. Accessory after the fact is a less serious offense. Thus, Graham incurred full liability for his role as accessory before the fact.
My Interest in this Case
I find it unconscionable for a person to have to spend the rest of one’s life in prison for a non-homicide offense committed as a youth of less than 18 years of age. I was appalled when I learned that thirty-seven jurisdictions allowed it. Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that life imprisonment for a juvenile non-homicide offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
References
Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ____ (2010)
Model Penal Code and Commentaries. (1985). Philadelphia, PA: The American Law
Institute.
Perkins, R., & Boyce R. (1995). Criminal law. Third edition. Mineola, NY: The
Foundation Press, Inc.
