132 Years in Prison- Cruel and Unusual or Necessary and Just?

Angel Cabanillas's life is pretty much ruined. He was just sentenced to 132 years in jail and he's only 18 years old. In 2006, Cabanillas, 14 years old at the time, shot and killed Manuel Rayas in Modesto, CA. Cabanillas leaned out the window of a car with a rifle and shot Rayas, an innocent bystander.

"Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Timothy Salter said the circumstances of the shooting ruled out leniency" the article said. Cabanillas was fully aware of what he was doing and should be punished for being a fourteen year old kid with a gun, purposefully shooting and killing an innocent man. Martin Baker, the defense attorney, called the 132 year sentence "cruel and unusual punishment".

The issue of cruel and unusual punishment roots back to the Constitution. The eighth amendment states, "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." But what qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment? The issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without parole is currently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile death penalty is unconstitutional.

I think that what Cabanillas did is awful and inexcusable, but I do think that 132 years in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for a young teenager. I believe that since he was only 14 at the time he committed the crime, he was young enough to get psychological help while still serving some time in jail. Teenagers are still learning, growing, and changing, and I think it is unfair to give such a harsh punishment to a kid that has the potential to change. The court does not agree with me, so it looks like Cabanillas will be spending the rest of his life locked up.