conform our sentencing practices that they applied that same new holding to juveniles and five years later in graham the court ruled that the eighth amendment prohibits juveniles committed non homicide offenses to serve a life without parole sentence the graham decision is the first time that the court ruled an entire category of punishment outside of the death penalty to be unconstitutional in illinois lifetime incarceration is the most severe punishment that's available like execution a life sentence imposes a terminal unchangeable once and for all judgment on the whole life of human being and revolution you know you know what's really interesting is i don't recall the amendments to the right to provide for all this i guess you have to read it carefully to figure those things out but that's a violation of the eighth of them i think that what graham holds and really at the end of the day what we're discussing here is the notion of the sentence that does not allow for a meeting you always are going to have to take into account the nature of the offense and i think that when your you are having these conversations this is this isn't simply a you know i think it's it's important to remember that amendment i think unlike many other portions of our constitution that is the area in which our court has fully embraced the notion of this being a breeding dogs if you read that that certainly allows the evolving stance these days and so does that allow for new arguments to be raised yes it does and does that allow for courts to reconsider its previous determinations that something did not run afoul of the for you to succeed we have to reverse the position taken i think what was wrong in that and in the previous decision is this question of of second stage factual analysis and it was it was not doing the simple question of whether or not a substantial showing of a constitutional violation which is not there by by the court and so with this specifically in getting back to i think one russians and you know is this sort of the flavor we've i don't think so i think what this is is the idea that that we are looking to the question forgetting about the various criminal convictions those would be just the race we're not looking to raise convictions we're not looking to alter at this point again this is again i think belies the very reason why should  there symptomatic of a mental illness we would of course notions of security everything like that still has to be respected and still has man so is the head of the street he's not immediately going down the street but we are we are responsible for not guaranteeing the offender eventual release but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term and so i think at this point what are we so maybe we are saying at some point once he's been provided the proper therapeutic treatment which is possible and that's the remarkable thing about this record is when you look at those evaluations of because he was being provided the care they needed and still within the correctional setting in which we're still you know we're treating these treating this as serious we're treating these things this is not something where you're simply letting someone else out of the street but you are addressing the underlying mental illness which we simply can't do under you know it's not happening alitalia so what caused him to be removed from dixon he should charges is here but there is still the ongoing question of our response to this individual action so that's what's you know i hope that i'm getting so much introduced where factual questions can be answered the over nine decision before ten zero zero night session there's an entire paragraph which is just questions such as you're asking of you know what to do when it's you be released we can't be answering that right now his records show us that there are there needs to be further evidence introduced where we can answer the questions posed by graham and we can move but temps and move th for forward and introduce the notion that that individuals with severe mental illness whose symptomatic behavior is then simply being charged criminally and not being charged or not being cared for also therapeutic who hearing as also was discussed this court basically decided in people be gave back in november of two thousand and eleven this issue on the exact facts so i don't want to i don't want to say too much i believe that the state's the state's case here is is well settled in this court's prior decision but there's a few things i want to point out i believe the defendant is attempting to do here is he's trying to take great and i do not believe that the u s supreme court ever intended for bring him to open up this box of new categorical limitations i believe they saw unique opportunity there with juveniles a unique situation with what they found to be less or less culpable part of society and i think there's some key distinctions when we look at character you know a limitation of juveniles and a limitation in general of mental ill defendants and he gave  a more specific definition of what what it looks like to have a categorization of mentally ill but i still think that's the first argument that is really easy to find a juvenile is the defendant fourteen ok he's a juvenile is the defendant twenty five all right he's not a juvenile but i think what if we add a new categorical limitation of mentally ill people it is really to be difficult for this court in any court in the future to decide ok what is mentally ill enough what does that look like i was point are they mentally ill and i think if you look at the specific defendant in this case the reason why the talks were did not find that it was required needed to go into an evidentiary hearing is because the facts before it  even the facts written in defendant's post conviction the titian show that he was culpable he knew exactly what he was doing if you look at his post conviction petition defendant specifically says the petitioner was depressed obsessed and in love with  psychologist and tams the petitioner wanted to transfer back to tampa to be with the psychologist the petitioner had no intentions of injuring anybody right there he talks about his intentions and then he ends with the petitioner started throwing liquid substance with a conscious reckless disregard on correctional officers in attempts to force a transfer of ta'am supermax so even if somewhere in the future this quarter and those court did find that there was this categorical limitation based on mentally ill people i do not believe that facts before this court would even put this specific defendant in that court in that category i believe that the facts in front of the truck or the facts in front of this court show that this specific defended was mentally cope all of his actions and i think that's further one of the one of the things defense counsel said to his while defendant was defense it teach me why this defendant was a mix and he improved and that's why he was sent back to pontiac and the defense counsel said well the first day he was back at pontiac he started to self mutilation and he started assaulting officers well to me that doesn't indicate that this defendant had improved that much if the first day he goes back to pontiac you start assaultive behavior he does it also doesn't show me that his a manipulative behavior was a result of this time it on and it shows me as i believe the record does and i believe that this is another reason why the trial court did not seem to think that they need to do the evidence cherry hearing because the record in the evidence clearly shows that this defend so in summary i believe that even if there was this categorical limitation the specific defendant would probably not find himself in that categorical limitation the second problem that i see with this is that juveniles at some point will age out of this categor limitation when they get even the federal law says when they hit eighteen ok they're no longer juveniles the power to have with mentally ill people is if is there any fine line with ok they're no longer mentally ill so we can start charging them again for four offenses in prison or once they hit the defacto life sentence may a mentally ill person in prison just have free reign to do whatever they want without any fear without any fear conviction sentence charges or  point does it become a life sentence i'm kind of nonsmoker be sentenced to to a longer sentence because is his life i maybe longer and those are questions that they can just be remanded back to the trial court there's going to be evidence that provided them and those are going to be difficult questions that i believe speak to the idea that we just cannot make a categorical limitation for mentally ill i think it's too much of a mess and and even before this word this specific defend it does not fall  in that category and like i said i believe it and i don't know if there's i don't want to speak to much about believe that this case has been decidedly the facts of this case are no different than this court's previous decision are very easy but but courts are always making determinations of mental illness they're always making determinations of how an individual's memory illness may impact you know is this bizarre to sort of sit back and just throw up her hands and what can we do that back can't happen that can't happen when we are criminalizing this conduct which is is horrible but know the idea of maximum security facilities this happens it's unfortunate is it is true but we're dealing with individuals who have no access they have no agency they have no ability to to see another human being and this and it also probably explains why over one quarter of of mr gates life is now and spent it tans and so on the state of severe so what social isolation but this court does not have to simply stand by except th