Court Opinion

ID: 9615483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:37:33.319533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:54.460383
License: Public Domain

Sears, Presiding Justice,
concurring.
My research also leads me to conclude that the applicable mandatory minimum sentencing scheme at issue in this case does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s limited prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, I must concur in the majority opinion.
However, I urge our General Assembly to bear in mind that, when developing Georgia’s juvenile justice system, we sought to treat children differently from adults because we recognized: (1) that children have not developed the problem-solving skills of adults;7 (2) that children, unlike adults, do not readily foresee the long-term consequences of their actions; and (3) that children are much more amenable to rehabilitation, redemption and reintegration into society than are adults. Criminal sanctions must always be swift and sure, as well as humane and proportional to the gravity of the offense. But in our understandable zeal to tackle the tough social problem of juvenile crime, we must not forget these fundamental distinctions between childhood and adulthood.

 See Miller v. State, 275 Ga. 730 (571 SE2d 788) (2002) (Benham, J., concurring).