If the question is whether a life sentence for rape is "cruel and unusual" when imposed on a 13-year-old...

... why highlight the question of whether a particular convict may have been innocent? To answer the question correctly and establish a legal rule on the subject, you have to assume the litigant was guilty. Does the NYT think this is what must be done to interest readers in stories about constitutional law? Or does it really hope to push public opinion on legal issues by stimulating a clutter of emotions?

ADDED: Here's a contemporaneous news report of the sentencing:

Regardless of the boy's age, he deserved the maximum sentence because he has a long criminal history, including an assault on a mental health clinic counselor and a burglary during which he killed a dog, Assistant State Attorney Larry Kaden said.

[Judge Nicholas] Geeker agreed.

"He is beyond help," the judge said. "The juvenile system has been utterly incapable of doing anything with Mr. Sullivan."

Because of the youth's record and other factors, state sentencing guidelines called for the life terms with no provision for parole, Kaden said....

[Sullivan] was accused of breaking into the woman's Pensacola area home when she was away May 4 and stealing jewelry and cash, then returning later the same day to rape her twice at knifepoint.