sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime while the we all acknowledge that the supreme court precedent on this topic is not of the clearest nature what we do know in terms of hey b s and twenty two fifty four d purposes is that the courts the reviewing court is required to compare the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence using objective factors in this particular instance and if the if upon that analysis of the gravity versus the clear bright line about what type of objective factors the court may consider but some that they have identified as appropriate factors are the primacy of the legislature indicating state interest in creating can a logical schemes harm caused t society the nature of the crime including the factual description of the crime as opposed to just the title of the crime recidivism if the client does have a prior criminal history or something that would indicate that this is an ongoing pattern even the mental state of the defendant at the time are all objective factors that the courts have considered and in this particular case a review of the objective factors indicates that mr taylor sentence was indeed grossly disproportionate to the crime the primacy of the legislature was one of the primary factors that justice kennedy identified and it's harmful and concurrence and in this instance the bill sponsors indicated that the mandatory sentencing scheme prior to mrs taylor being convicted in sentence in this m had allowed for a range of years of punishment rather than this mandatory tend to life for which the sentencing judge has no discretion and at the time when the legislature was passing the this change this mandatory minimum they indicated that it was really for the worst of the worst offenders and later when one of the bill's co sponsors was confronted with miss taylor's case he indicated that sometimes that you you aim for the high not really realizing you're going to entrap someone like mrs ta how do you respond to that your honor i think that and in turn out in terms of just in nevada that there are certain there are quite a few and the ones that we provided were ones that i often found that were at least as serious if not more so and yet they had additional benefits on penalty so in the same calculation the same es for sex assault on children and in this particular instance though i believe that the sentence for life in nevada is that is true on all of the sentences for sex assaults they are a life tale including for sentences with adult sex assault on adult is a ten to life as well it does not have a term of years but i think the comparison here that solemn and that harm would encourage just us to look at art we should look at those other crimes such as the homicide or the been convicted i counted three your honor i counted i home montana and oklahoma have have life and some did have an indeterminate sentence and it was really difficult to figure out what it would be i would posit that four states does not have you know fifty states is not something that across you know that tends to indicate that this is a sentence that is accepted but does that make you think the term is unusual and we're talking about cruel and unusual punishment i think reasonable people can disagree given the nature of this particular crime and what happened whether it's an appropriate penalty but under our system elected representatives make determinations you know i think it's  taylor or somebody somebody who is really strong on this issue in nevada made repeated attempts to change these laws because he says we have to protect our children whether you agree that this is the appropriate penalty or not we can strike this down unless it is cruel and unusual under the supreme court's case law and on top of that you have the overlay which of course colors all of our analysis so why empathize with you what's your best argument that we should overturn this this conviction well if i can answer i think there were two questions there your honor i think the first in terms of that there are other we know that across the country there have been receipt of a statute since that time and in psalms case the supreme court did strike down his sentence yes the legislature is entitled to make these determinations but in that particular instance the nature of the crime the actual facts of what occurred were unusual and they were cruel in his case and i posit that's what happened here as well as to the nevada supreme court's decision i don't believe they're entitled to deference here i do believe and i mean the additional research that i did in preparation for this argument about a supreme court imposes an subjective standard on miss taylor to demonstrate that this case was not just disproportionate the supreme court precedent although muddy it's clear that they have to be based on objective standards and the shock the conscience standard is subjective it is one in which it has been roundly criticized in due process cases and in this instance not only do the nevada supreme court impose a subjective shocks the conscience standard they also failed to can conduct any kind of analysis they merely say that miss you know the facts in this taylor's case and said under the facts the statute says that's bad and that's why she gets life sentence there was no comparison about whether her actual peace and crime met to i think this case is a little easier and i understand your position judgement in that there are some aspects of this that some sense engender some sympathy but that's if you focus on the life sentence part and i want to i want to reset this a little bit because i think that that's a theme that's been throughout the briefs and it's a little bit misguided especially in light of u s supreme court case law and also this court's decisions michelle taylor aggressively fairly aggressively molested a thirteen year old boy and there was a thirteen a boy she didn't know the day before she died she didn't know meant until the day she knew his mother but she did not know him until he came over to her house that day it's very likely i would i think it's very likely that she's going to spend ten to fifteen years maybe maximum twenty years in prison for that crime and then she's going to be on lifetime parole for the rest of her life if that were to analyze it she has a lifetime sentence with the should the possibility of parole play so the u s supreme court i think has been actually you know as as as any probably are better recognize the u s marine corps not been clear about much in this area of the law but the u s supreme court has been clear about that your honor so if you look at the r case which was the one nine hundred eighty case kind of set this all off and that was a twelve to life sentence with so like here ten to life but a twelve life sentence what the u s supreme court said is because parole is an established variation on the imprisonment of convicted criminals a proper assessment of texas's treatment of rommel could hardly ignore the possibility that he will not actually be in prison for the rest of his life and then three years later in one thousand nine hundred three and that case where the u s supreme court i think it may be the only case for the supreme court has found it disproportionate a grossly disproportionate sentence what the u s supreme court did and so on is it did not overturn roe i mean if the courts probably aware this is one of those areas a lower  has just been very closely divided it's been for either four five four decisions or deeply fractured decisions as we saw in the hamlet case in a solid case it went from four five four one way to five four the other way and what the court and solemn said it distinguished romel it didn't overturn roe on the courts in the courts always in later cases been clear to point that out and what it said was the sentence is far more severe in the solemn cases talking about its case in a solemn case then the life sentence that we considered in rommel rommel was likely to have been eligible for parole within twelve years of his of this initial confinement a fact on which the court relied heavily and the court did this if you look at the u n case which is another deeply fractured case the u s supreme court if you look at the dissent there justice briar's ascent for four members of the court it very seriously emphasizes the fact that the what they looked at was quote the difference in length of the real prison term that is the first and critical factor from solomon rama the term addition romal which amounted in real terms to at least ten or twelve years and then if you look at what this court this court did in norris and which was judge was on decision from two thousand  prison for instance in the morris case talked about this at a life sentence is obviously more severe without parole than with it so consistent with recourse actually that's really important because what's going to happen here is we don't know just like the court didn't how much time exactly the petitioner was going to spend in prison but we do know that she's eligible for parole in ten years we know that the parole board is very likely to see this i think the same way that your honor sees it the same way that this is  that true let's take it this is not the same offense but in california for example we have almost eight hundred people in jail his parole and in almost every instance regardless of political party the governor nobody wants to let these people out because they don't want to be blamed politically for living  gets out and ten years later but we don't know that it's to some degree a political decision and neither did the supreme court in rome i want to emphasize that your honor because i mean again the with the language because proles an established variation on the person in a convicted criminals a proper assessment of texas is treatment romel could hardly ignore the possibility that he will not actually be in prison for the rest of his life and the same thing i think has to be taken into account here just like the supreme court i that's why i just want to emphasize because taylor's entire argument turns on her focus on the life sentence aspect of that and that's the thing that's engender in your sympathy your honor but it is important to recognize that this is a ten to life just like rama was a twelve to life just like s cited the justice kennedy harm one concurrence and it cited solemne and then it goes on and applies and talks about the facts of this case and then it does talk about the shocks the conscience from that from the nevada supreme court's old case law which cited two other older  supreme court cases if you look at the cases that those nevada supreme court cases cite those are old u s supreme court very old u s supreme court cases before rommel but it is they are cases that were cited by the u s supreme court in  requote which is you only you only find disproportionate sentences in the quote extremely rare that's the u s supreme court's new language extremely rare cases shocks the conscience extremely rare i think that most people would probably say those are probably fairly similar standards here in the fact that the supreme court didn't really discuss the facts that led it to say the sentence wasn't disproportionate was that an improper or  no no they don't your honor but this court this court hasn't done i see what you're saying i said i'm sorry though they don't they only have to reach that as justice kennedy said in the extremely rare instance of justice kennedy didn't reach that in the in his harmala concurrence this court didn't reach it in in either the north or the morse case so all in the past record is doing was following the u s supreme court's case law and what this court has done and not getting to that and the reason i didn't get to that your honor is because it's just it's just simply not this is not if you if you look at it as only as essential to life without parole case which under the u s supreme court's precedents you should not because ramos very clear on that and so it's all if you recognize this is a ten the life case it's not this is not even close to the line is that you would never do that for the court and i'll close by giving one example the norse case from this court from two thousand and ten involve a very very momentary touching of of a minor on top of her clothing by your honor i don't think this case does either thank your own argument so just very briefly your honor i think i tend to disagree somewhat on the on what rummel says on focus on life sentences and in rummel the court noted that we agree with rummel that his inability to enforce any right to probe precludes us from treating his life sentence as if for equivalent to a twelve year sentence it does discuss however also the diff one of the differences and one of the reasons they ended up upholding rummel sentence was that in texas they had a relatively liberal policy of granting good time credits to its prisoners now in nevada does not for someone with a life sentence if they have a life sentence on the tail and we call on the back end they are not entitled to good time credits so she's not getting out early she's not getting out with special treatment she really does have to go through all of the jumps and hoops that nevada requires for parole and in addition to that she has to go through a sexual act i can't remember the name of it but it's essentially a sexual dent dangerousness assessment and if she doesn't pass that she's in interpretation was an unreasonable application of u s supreme court law and by doing it in that i mean that they did identify the appropriate procedures which is part of the reason supreme court cases that i think for all of them i mean they certainly in about a supreme court identified harlan i think they identified saul i'm i'm not i don't have any kind of a quip with that i'm not i'm not opposed to that i think the difference here is that they did not actually meet those standards they didn't answer the question posed in those cases that they have to do the appropriate assessment and on the shock the conscience analysis they oppose impose a standard that does not exist in eighth amendment jurisprudence and in fact determining category you know society's standards as against the