by Jeremy Leaming
From time to time, perhaps once a decade, syndicated columnist George Will can say or write something that does more than trumpet right-wing talking points. A recent piece on the Supreme Court’s consideration of whether sentencing juveniles to prison with no chance of parole violates the Constitution is an example.
Writing about cases involving juveniles who were sentenced to life in prison for crimes they committed when they were 14, Will says the judges involved had “no discretion to impose any other” sentences, and that such mandatory sentencing bars courts from taking into consideration our “society’s sense of cruelty.” This kind of thinking, howe
ver, as Will notes can undercut so-called originalism, a method of interpreting the Constitution favored by conservative judges. Toward the end of his column, Will writes that “even the ‘originalist’ Scalia, although disposed to construe the Constitution’s terms as they were understood when ratified, would today proscribe some late-18th-century punishments, such as public lashing and branding.”
Instead of obsessively trying to figure out what the Constitution’s framers thought when they crafted the document, competent judges today consider societal developments, which are informed by science. In fact, Will writes that the high court “has accommodated what science teaches.” He cites high court opinions from 2005 and 2010 that took into account studies on the differences between youngsters and adults in limiting the use of the death penalty in cases involving juveniles.
In 2005’s Roper v. Simmons, the justices relied in part on the differences between children and adults in concluding that the death penalty would not be imposed for crimes committed by those under 18, and later in Graham v. Florida that life sentences without parole would not be dealt to juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes.
Will argues that the social science should be relied on by the high court in finding that teenagers committed of violent crimes, including homicide, should not be imprisoned forever. “Denying juveniles even a chance for parole defeats the penal objective of rehabilitation,” Will writes.
In a March 13 guest post for ACSblog law professor Kristin Henning also notes that scientific research “on adolescent development bolsters the commonsense understanding that teenagers lack self-control, are vulnerable to environmental pressures, and have fewer life experiences on which to draw in evaluating the consequences of their actions.”
nd shared" I refer to a jurisprudential innovation Justice Stevens joined Justice Stewart in developing to interpret the Eighth Amendment. The work of dozens of cases over decades, I can only briefly summarize it here.
The Supreme Court on Monday 
"His silent presence on the bench has evolved into a weirdly compelling example of performance art," 
largest jurisdiction in the nation to use the appointment method of indigent defense - meaning the judge assigns a private defense attorney to the case. Critics have argued that the appointment method is plagued by five problems: (1) flat fee compensation (defense counsel receives a standard fee regardless of the number of hours worked, so each hour of work reduces the rate of compensation and detracts from private clients); (2) the potential for insufficient support services (defense counsel must receive approval from the judge to hire support services such as investigators and experts); (3) a potential conflict of interest for the defense attorney (defense counsel's personal income depends on remaining in the good graces of the judge to secure future appointments); (4) a potential conflict of interest for the judge (the judge must balance the defense counsel's requests for support services with the county commissioner's requests to control the costs of indigent defense; the judge must also consider the possibility that generous spending on indigent defense could hurt his/her chances of re-election); and (5) questionable appointment practices (some evidence suggests that judges occasionally make appointments for inappropriate reasons, such as whether the potential appointee is a friend or campaign contributor).