Jones v. Mississippi Unit 6: Multiple Choice Quiz

Why did Jones argue that his sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment?

Because he was not guilty.
Because a sentence of life-without-parole for a crime he committed as a juvenile was cruel and unusual punishment.
Because juveniles should not be held liable for criminal acts.
Because a sentence of life-without-parole for any criminal is cruel and unusual punishment.

2. Why was Jones able to demand that he be resentenced after he was originally sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole?

Because the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that it was unconstitutional to impose a life-without-parole sentence on juveniles.
Because the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that juveniles may never be sentenced to life-without-parole.
Because the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory sentences of life-without-parole were unconstitutional if applied to crimes committed by juveniles.
Because Jones did not receive a trial.

3. Why did Jones argue that his new sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional?

Because the judge did not hold a hearing as to whether Jones was incorrigible or not.
Because the sentence was not supported by evidence of guilt.
Because Jones demonstrated that he committed the killing in self-defense.
Because Jones had reformed and was no longer a danger to society.

4. Why did the United States Supreme Court grant certiorari to hear Jones’s appeal?

Because Jones's case was internationally famous.
Because the Mississippi Supreme Court asked the United States Supreme Court to decide the case.
Because otherwise case would never end.
Because federal and state courts were divided over whether courts must hold a hearing to determine whether a juvenile defendant is incorrigible before imposing a life-without-parole sentence.

5. Why did the Supreme Court hold that Jones’s resentencing to life in prison without parole was Constitutional?

Because Jones was guilty.
Because in Montgomery v Louisiana the Court expressly stated that judges do not need to hold a fact-finding hearing as to whether a juvenile criminal is incorrigible before sentencing the juvenile.
Because mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles is Constitutional.
Because the judge held a hearing as to whether Jones was incorrigible before sentencing to Jones to life-wihtout-parole in prison.