Nation Usa

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government Supreme Court has ruled that adolescent may not be locked up in prison house house for life with no chance of word if they have not killed anyone.

By a 5-4 ballot Monday, the court says the U.S. constitution requires that young people helping life sentence must at least be considered for release

The court ruled in the case of Terrance Graham who was implicated in armed robbery when he was 16 and seventeen Graham, now 22, is in prison house in Florida, which grip more than seventy percentage of juvenile suspect locked up for life for law-breaking other than homicide

“The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law,” justness Antonius President John F. JFK wrote in his majority persuasion “This the eighth amendment does not permit.”

top dog justness John Richard J. Roberts agreed with President John F. Kennedy and the court’s four progressive justness about Graham. But Roberts said he does not believe the ruling should extend to all young wrongdoer who are locked up for law-breaking other than murder



• The court has granted a four month extension in the proceedings. This extends the period of time during which class members (i.e., authors and publishers) can file objections until September 4, and sets the fairness hearing for October 7. This extension came after several parties asked the court for more time -- Google and the copyright owners asked for 2 months, a group of authors including the John Steinbeck estate asked for 4 months, and a group of scholarly authors led by UC Berkeley Law Prof. Pam Samuelson asked for 6 months.
• The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has reportedly opened an inquiry into the competitive impact of the settlement agreement. For a very readable introduction to the antitrust and competition issues raised, we recommend a paper by U. of Chicago Law School Prof. Randy Picker.
• EFF has been working with a group of authors and publishers who are concerned about the failure of the settlement to contain any privacy protections for readers. The lack of privacy protections could scare readers away from controversial and noncontroversial subjects alike, hurting authors as well as readers. Reader privacy has strong protection offline; our goal is to ensure that these protections continue as books move online.
• The court rejected a request from the Internet Archive to intervene in the case to raise the concerns of others who have undertaken book digitization efforts.
• New York Law School Prof. James Grimmelmann has filed a letter with the court declaring an intention to file an amicus curiae brief that will address some of the public interest issues raised by the settlement (presumably along the lines described in his highly influential paper on the subject).