I believe that you may have been swayed by the hype as was I. When I first heard of the case I thought it was an injustice. I thought it was just a couple of teenagers and hormones. There is a very powerful media campaign like that of mumia abu jamal. If a sentence is applied to one person and one person only before the law imposing that sentence is repealed, that would tend to suggest that the imposition of that sentence is "unusual". IMHO, for such a sentence to stand without being deemed "cruel and unusual", the state should have to show:
- The type of crime of which the defendant was convicted was worse than other types of crime which would have resulted in far lesser sentences (e.g. if he'd had vaginal sex with the 15-year-old, he would have gotten off with a misdemeanor).
- Something in the world changed since the time of the defendant's crime, such that that the effect of the defendant's crime was much worse than would be the effect of a similar crime on a similar victim today.
In short, the state should have to show a reason for its willingness to treat the defendant more harshly than others who commit similar crimes.