'Elite' Supreme Court sides with science and juveniles
Justice Alito chided the Supreme Court majority for its 'elite vision' in striking down mandatory life sentences for juveniles convicted of murder. But the court based its decision on science – the science of adolescent brain development. Science is a kind of elitism that we need more of.
Did the Supreme Court embrace an “elite vision” on Monday when it struck down state laws mandating life imprisonment for juvenile murderers?
That’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in an angry dissent from the bench. By invalidating such laws, Mr. Alito fumed, the court’s 5-4 majority assumed that it knew better than the 28 state legislatures that have authorized mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for killers younger than 18.
But the court’s majority really does know better. And there’s a simple reason for that: It relied on science – in particular, the science of adolescent brain development.
Science seems to have taken quite a beating as of late. Consider this year’s GOP presidential sweepstakes, in which exactly one candidate – Jon Huntsman – was willing to acknowledge man-made climate change. The rest of the field insisted that the phenomenon still lacked sufficient scientific evidence.
But at least the candidates admitted that science matters. By disputing the science of climate change, indeed, they implicitly acknowledged that public policy should be based on accurate scientific research and knowledge.
Not so Justice Alito or Chief Justice John Roberts, who also dissented in the mandatory-sentencing decision. Both judges simply ignored the mounting scientific evidence that adolescents lack the same reasoning power and impulse control as adults. They didn’t say the science was ambiguous, or wrong; instead, they said it was irrelevant. And that’s worse.