Summary of Argument

This case raises a question of exceptional importance regarding the application of Graham v. Florida in determining what constitutes an illegal sentence under the United States Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence as it relates to children. In Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010), the Supreme Court held that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole for a non-homicide offense violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because of the unique characteristics of youth that make children less culpable, in addition to the developmental differences between children and adults that make it more likely that a child can reform.

The heart of the Court’s holding was that, as a result of these qualities, any sentence for a non-homicide offense that provides no “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” before the end of the child’s life is unconstitutional. Id. at 2033. Just last year, the Court reiterated the importance of scientific and social science research that demonstrates fundamental differences between juveniles and adults and lessens a child’s “‘moral culpability.’” Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2464-65 (2012) (quoting Graham, 130 S. Ct. at 2027).

Petitioners Gridine and Henry were sentenced to 70 and 90 years in prison, respectively, for non-homicide offenses they committed as children. Pursuant to Graham, sentences of 70 and 90 years without the possibility of parole are not constitutional sentencing options for children—a group of offenders who are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. The sentences imposed provide Petitioners no opportunity for release within their normal life expectancies.

Under Graham, youth convicted of non-homicide offenses must be guaranteed a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release”—even if that opportunity does not actually result in release. 130 S. Ct. at 2030. Petitioners were denied that opportunity when they were sentenced to terms of years that are functionally equivalent to life sentences. Because these sentences deny each Petitioner any opportunity for release within their life expectancies, this Court should find their sentences unconstitutional under Graham.

Summary of Argument

This case explores the application of Graham v. Florida in determining the constitutionality of sentences under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, specifically as applied to juveniles. Graham v. Florida established that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole for a non-homicide offense violates the Eighth Amendment due to the inherent developmental differences between children and adults. These differences, including diminished culpability and greater potential for reform, make such sentences disproportionate and cruel.

The Court in Graham emphasized the necessity of providing a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release" for juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide offenses, acknowledging that the lack of such opportunity renders a sentence effectively equivalent to life without parole. This "meaningful opportunity" requirement is further reinforced by the scientific and social science research cited in Miller v. Alabama, which underscores the distinct characteristics of youth and their diminished culpability compared to adults.

The petitioners in this case, Gridine and Henry, were sentenced to 70 and 90 years, respectively, for non-homicide offenses committed as juveniles. These sentences, functionally equivalent to life without parole, fail to provide the "meaningful opportunity to obtain release" mandated by Graham. The petitioners' sentences are therefore unconstitutional under Graham as they effectively deny them any chance of release within their natural life expectancies.

Summary of Argument

This case examines the application of Graham v. Florida in determining the constitutionality of sentencing juveniles to lengthy prison terms for non-homicide offenses. Graham v. Florida established that life sentences without parole for non-homicidal crimes violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court’s reasoning was based on the inherent differences between juveniles and adults, including their developmental characteristics and lower culpability.

The Court in Graham recognized that youth, due to their unique characteristics, require a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release" from their sentences. Miller v. Alabama further emphasized the importance of scientific and social science evidence demonstrating the distinct features of juvenile development, which influence their culpability and potential for rehabilitation.

This case involves two petitioners who received lengthy sentences for non-homicide crimes they committed as juveniles. Their sentences, effectively life sentences, are argued to be unconstitutional under Graham. The petitioners argue that their sentences deny them a meaningful opportunity for release, contradicting the Graham precedent, and therefore warrant judicial review.

Summary of Argument

This case focuses on the Eighth Amendment, which protects people from cruel and unusual punishment, and how it applies to children.

In 2010, the Supreme Court decided in Graham v. Florida that giving a life sentence without parole to a child for a crime that wasn't murder was against the Eighth Amendment. The court said children are different from adults, so they are less responsible for their crimes, and they have a better chance of changing their behavior.

The Court argued that any sentence for a non-homicide offense that doesn't offer a realistic chance of release before the child's death is unfair.

The Petitioners, Gridine and Henry, are two people who were sentenced to many years in prison as children for crimes that weren't murder. The Supreme Court's ruling in Graham says that these sentences are unconstitutional because they don't allow the Petitioners a chance to be released during their lives.

The Court decided that children who are convicted of crimes that aren't murder should have a realistic chance of release. Since the Petitioners were given sentences that are basically the same as life sentences, their sentences should be considered unconstitutional under Graham.

Summary of Argument

This case is about how the law treats young people who break the law. The Supreme Court has said that it's wrong to give kids who haven't committed murder a life sentence without the chance to get out of prison.

The Court said this because kids are different from adults. Kids are still learning and growing, and they might change their behavior. They also haven't had the same chances as adults, so they might not be as responsible.

In this case, two kids were given very long prison sentences that mean they probably won't ever get out. The Court should say that these sentences are wrong because they don't give the kids a chance to show they can change.