CRIMINAL LAW MILLER v.

ALABAMA

Miller V Alabama is legal suit in which a juvenile was jailed for life for murder charges, without the likelihood of a parole. According to file number No. 10-9647, supplicant Jackson was in the company of two boys headed for a video store with the objective to commit a robbery. On their way, Jackson noticed that one of they boys was in possession of a shotgun. While the two boys executed robbery, Jackson stood outside. When he entered the move store, one of the boys shot dead the store clerk. The state judged Jackson as an adult with capital offense murder and violent burglary, and a jury condemned him of burglary and murder. The court imposed a constitutionally authorized capital punishment with the exception of parole Liptak and Bronner (2012). Criminal liability is required to demonstrate that a defendant is liable of a crime. For the court to be able to determine if someone is guilty, it requires to demonstrate two things. To begin with, judges should ensure that the person committed the criminal act in question. Subsequently, judges need to ascertain that they committed the mistake with the required criminal intention. Accomplice liability on the other hand permits the court to find an individual criminally culpable for acts committed by another person. In this case, if someone helps aids or supports in the accomplishment of a crime, they are termed as accomplices to the crime. The person that commits the felony is known as the principal. The felony for which an accomplice offers help is known as the target crime. Jackson in the Miller vs Alabama case falls under the accomplice liability. Having been in the company of the two conspirators, the law finds him to have committed what in known as target crime. So under law Jackson is not criminally liable but rather an accomplice in the whole criminal act. Essentially Jackson remains as guilty as the actual person who committed the offence. This is because his mindset was informed of what the other mind was driving at. 1

CRIMINAL LAW

Concurrence also known as simultaneity is the apparent need to confirm the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus or guilty action and mens rea which is also referred as the guilty mind, to encompass a crime, except in crimes of harsh legal responsibility. Theoretically, if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with mens rea then no crime has been committed, Mitchel (1999). In law, mens rea is an important constituent of intent in committing a crime. Mens rea has for constituents with different levels of criminal culpability. They are referred to as; deliberately, intentionally, carelessly and casually. Purposely; is treated as a serious element of criminal objective. It means that the culprit acted with the articulate reason of the commission of a crime, Mitchel (1999). Jackson filed a habeas appeal, contending that capital punishment without parole term for fourteen year old violates the 8th amendment. At odds, the court dismissed Jacksons appeal. According to file number 10-9646, supplicant Miller, along in the company of a friend hurt a neighbor and set ablaze his trailer after a drinking stupor. The neighbor died. Miller was previously judged as an under age, though his case was removed to adult court, where he was charged with assault in the course of arson. Miller was found culpable by the jury, and the trial court imposed a mandatory life sentence on him with the exception of parole. According to Alabama court, Millers sentence was rather fair in comparison to his crime and that its mandatory nature was permitted under 8th amendments Liptak and Bronner (2012).

CRIMINAL LAW References:

Liptak Adam and Bronner Ethan (2012). "Justices Bar Mandatory Life Terms for Juveniles". The New York Times. Issue 12; Vol 3, pg 45-47 Mitchel. (1999). "In Defence of a Principle of Correspondence". Criminal Law Review: Issue 195, Vol 21 pg 71-77.