427-28, 832 A.2d 396, 399 (2003) (excessive fines); Jackson v. Hendrick, 509 Pa. 456, 465 n. 10, 503 A.2d 400, 404 n. 10 (1986) (prison conditions). However, none of those cases involved juvenile offenders, who the Supreme Court has indicated are to be treated differently with respect to criminal punishment. See, e.g., Miller,-U.S. at-, 132 S.Ct. at 2470. 6 . Certainly, "[d]etermining the appropriate sentence for a teenager convicted of murder presents grave and challenging questions of morality and social policy.” Miller, - U.S. at -, 132 S.Ct. at 2477 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting, joined by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ.). Our role in establishing the direction of social policy is a limited one, however. See, e.g., Naylor v. Twp. of Hellam, 565 Pa. 397, 408, 773 A.2d 770, 777 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Justice BAER, concurring. I join in full the
recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and to establish appropriate substantive legal standards recognizing general rule recognizing the legislatures superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing considerations