FREE JENNIFER

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. When individuals believe their punishment violates this protection, especially in cases where they receive extremely harsh sentences, such as life without parole for first-degree murder under felony murder laws, they may have grounds to argue a constitutional breach. Jennifer Mee’s case from Florida provides an instructive example of how someone might raise such a complaint. Here, we’ll outline the process and principles behind complaining about an Eighth Amendment breach, focusing on challenging severe punishments. Understanding the Eighth Amendment and the Felony Murder Rule The Eighth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, safeguards individuals against punishments that are disproportionately harsh in relation to the crime committed. The Supreme Court has interpreted “cruel and unusual punishment” as a punishment that is excessive given the nature of the offense and the circumstances surroundi...

Written by R. A. Stewart A criminal justice system needs to be fair to everyone; those affected by the offender’s action and the offender. Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime taking into account the various aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Justice can mean different things to different people.  I can tell you what justice is not. It is not a means of taking revenge on people who have wronged you. A sound justice system should not be an “Eye for an eye” system where whatever the offender did to someone then he or she faces the same punishment. The “Get tough on crime” rhetoric spouted by politicians in the US and other countries around the world is only peddling to the vigilant brigade who are baying for blood. It may win some votes, and it may make some voters feel good for a while, but at the end of the day nothing changes. Voters must be getting fed up with politicians who jump on the prevailing bandwagon. America already has the toughest sentences in the...

Written by R. A. Stewart Jennifer Mee was convicted of first degree murder but it was a murder she did not carry out herself or one which there was no intent or premeditation involved. How is this so you may be wondering. In Florida if someone dies as a result of another crime such as robbery then all participants are equally guilty of the death irrespective of the part they played. Here is a summary of the case: In 2010 Jennifer, then aged 19, agreed to go out on a date with a young man she had contacted on Facebook. Jennifer’s motive was robbery, not romance, and with the help of two male friends she tried to rob her date, however, in the struggle he was fatally shot. Under Florida law, all participants in a fatal robbery are equally guilty of first degree murder. This is known as the “Felony rule.” There is no room for discretion in the application of this rule. One is either guilty of it or not.  Intent or lack of it is not taken into consideration as it should be which means s...

Why the Florida Felony rule is unjust Florida and other states of America have what is called, “The Felony Rule.” It is when someone who wasn’t directly involved in the death of someone else was involved in the felony which led to that individual’s death. A perfect example of this is the case of Jennifer Mee from Florida. As a nineteen year old Jennifer was involved in a mugging which led to the death of the victim. Her two male accomplices carried out the mugging and during this process the victim was shot. There was no intent involved in the death. It was simply a matter of unintended consequences as far as Jennifer was concerned. The trio were convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole.  Thinking about this case it is difficult to see how anyone can justify such a harsh sentence when there is no intent involved because Jennifer received the same sentence as some of the worst murderers in the US. While the rule’s intention is to deter crime, it’s broad ...

Life without parole unjust for under 21 Year olds... According to the Supreme Court in Massachusetts sending under 21 year olds to prison for life without the possibility of parole is unjust. The State's highest court ruled that anyone under the age of 21 cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, raising it from under 18.  There was a 4-3 ruling in favour of the ban, describing life without parole sentences for those under 21 as cruel and unusual under the Massachusetts Constitution. At the centre of this case was the finding which confirms that the brains of emerging adults are similar to that of juveniles. In 2013 the court ruled that defendants under 18 could not be sentenced to life without parole based on the fact that "it is not possible to prove that a juvenile is irretrievably depraved," thus under these circumstances such a severe sentence is unjustified." This ruling took place in the Commonwealth V. Sheldon Mattis case, whi...