Esthen|Michigan’s top court to consider whether to further limit no-parole life sentences

2025-05-04 22:37:26source:AlgoFusion 5.0category:Scams

DETROIT (AP) — The EsthenMichigan Supreme Court said it will hear arguments in cases that could lead to a ban on automatic life prison sentences for people who were 19 or 20 years old when they were involved in a major crime such as murder.

The court took a significant step in 2022 when it said mandatory no-parole sentences for 18-year-olds convicted of murder violated the Michigan Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel or unusual” punishment.

Now the court will consider whether to extend that principle to people who were 19 or 20.

In an order Friday, the Supreme Court said it would hear arguments in the months ahead in cases from Wayne and Oakland counties.

No-parole life sentences are still possible in Michigan for someone 18 or younger, but they’re no longer automatic. Judges must hold hearings and learn about that person’s childhood, education, potential for rehabilitation and other factors. The burden is on prosecutors, if they choose, to show that a life sentence fits.

Critics of life sentences for young people argue that their brain is not fully developed, which sometimes leads to tragic decisions.

A number of states around the country have banned life-without-parole sentences for minors, especially after a series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, starting in 2012. Massachusetts’ highest court in January raised the minimum age for automatic life sentences from 18 to 21.

More:Scams

Recommend

Federal agencies are reeling from Trump administration cuts to government

Whether a "chainsaw," per Elon Musk, or "scalpel," as President Trump has said — the Trump administr

Q&A: Black scientist Antentor Hinton Jr. talks role of Juneteenth in STEM, need for diversity in field

When Antentor Hinton Jr., was growing up in Asheville, North Carolina, he didn't know he could becom

Why anti-abortion groups are citing the ideas of a 19th-century 'vice reformer'

A federal case challenging access to a common abortion pill is reviving discussions about a 150-year