changing standard in Illinois

2026We may determine whether a sentence shocks the moral sense of the community by considering both objective evidence and “the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2024To determine whether a sentence shocks the moral sense of our community, a court considers the objective facts of the case in light of “the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2023A defendant’s sentence violates the proportionate penalties clause if it is “ ‘cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Miller, 202 Ill. 2d 328, 338 (2002)). “ ‘To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s changing standard of moral decency.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2023A defendant’s sentence violates the proportionate penalties clause if it is “ ‘cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Miller, 202 Ill. 2d 328, 338 (2002)). “ ‘To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s changing standard of moral decency.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2015A violation may be shown where the penalty imposed is “ ‘cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Moss, 206 Ill. 2d 503, 522 (2003)). ¶ 141 “To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2015A violation may be shown where the penalty imposed is “ ‘cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Moss, 206 Ill. 2d 503, 522 (2003)). ¶ 141 “To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2023Id.; see People v. Moore, 2020 IL App (4th) 190528, ¶ 31 , 170 N.E.3d 204 (“We may determine whether a sentence shocks the moral sense of the community by considering both objective evidence and the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). ¶ 22 B.

2022The question of whether a sentence shocks the community’s moral sense may be made upon considering objective evidence and “the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” People v. Moore, 2020 IL App (4th) 190528, ¶ 31 , 170 N.E.3d 204 (quoting People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2016So we must consider objective evidence and “the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aikens, 2016 IL App (1st) 133578, ¶ 33 . ¶ 42 We will first consider the constitutionality of the individual statutes affecting Harris’s sentence before turning to the overall effect of the statutory scheme. ¶ 43 Firearm Enhancements ¶ 44 When a firearm is involved in the commission of certain felonies, the Illinois legislature has “add[ed] a mandatory additional term of years to whatever sentence would otherwise be imposed.” People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 48

2015A violation may be shown where the penalty imposed is “ ‘cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Moss, 206 Ill. 2d 503, 522 (2003)). ¶ 141 “To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s changing standard of moral decency.” People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2026App. 3d 726, 727 (2008). ¶ 26 In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that the eighth amendment (applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, see Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)) prohibits imposing on juvenile offenders mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole.

2024App. 3d 726, 727 (2008). ¶ 45 In sentencing young adult offenders, our community’s standard of moral decency is derived from the now well-established legal developments governing the sentencing of juveniles that began with the seminal decision in Miller, 567 U.S. 460 .

2024“To comply with this provision, the court must balance the goals of retribution and rehabilitation, carefully considering all factors in aggravation and mitigation.” People v. Robinson, 2021 IL App (1st) 192289, ¶ 46 . “ ‘To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s changing standard of moral decency.’ ” Robinson, 2021 IL App (1st) 192289, ¶ 46 (quoting People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2024“To comply with this provision, the court must balance the goals of retribution and rehabilitation, carefully considering all factors in aggravation and mitigation.” People v. Robinson, 2021 IL App (1st) 192289, ¶ 46 . “ ‘To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s changing standard of moral decency.’ ” Robinson, 2021 IL App (1st) 192289, ¶ 46 (quoting People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.

2022“To determine whether a sentence shocks the moral sense of the community, a reviewing court considers the objective facts of the case in light of ‘the community’s changing standard of moral decency.’ ” People v. Gomez, 2020 IL App (1st) 173016, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill.