Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner
Angela C. Vigil
SimpleOriginal

Summary

The experience of judges and lawyers involved with juveniles in Florida's criminal justice system confirms the scientific findings that juveniles are different from adults in ways that the court must consider.

Share Resource

2013 | State Juristiction

Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner

Keywords JLWOP; juvenile life without parole; child development; decision-making; long-term planning; emotional regulation; Graham; Miller; murder; penological justification; purpose of punishment; childhood deprivation; blameworthiness; developmental maturity; under age 18
Screenshot 2024-06-25 at 11.20.44 AM

Summary of Argument

Juveniles are different from adults. Simply, they are not adults yet. It is important to consider these differences when sentencing juveniles in Florida's criminal justice system, especially in considering the issue of the number of years that constitutes a "life" sentence for a teen. Therefore, Amici urge this Court to reject a 90-year sentence for a child and offer support for this from scientific conclusions and their own observations of teens. In the case before this Court, the defendant committed a crime just two months after his 17th birthday causing a conviction and sentence that makes his current prison release date just after his 107th birthday. This is a life sentence by anyone's standard. Amici do not believe courts should excuse the behavior of delinquent juveniles, but rather limit the magnitude of the consequences of their behavior so that it is commensurate with their culpability. While this does not eliminate accountability by a juvenile for his actions, it may appropriately limit it.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The legal system must acknowledge the developmental differences between juveniles and adults, particularly when considering the implications of lengthy sentences. This is particularly pertinent in the context of Florida's sentencing practices, where sentences exceeding 90 years for juveniles effectively constitute life imprisonment. The argument presented here challenges the imposition of such sentences, highlighting the incongruity of subjecting a juvenile, whose developmental trajectory is still in progress, to a sentence that virtually eliminates the possibility of reintegration into society. The advocates argue that while juvenile delinquency must be addressed, the severity of the consequences should be proportional to the culpability of the juvenile offender, considering their diminished capacity for mature judgment and future potential for rehabilitation. This approach recognizes the unique circumstances of juvenile offenders, allowing for accountability without sacrificing the opportunity for redemption.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The legal argument emphasizes the developmental differences between adolescents and adults, advocating for a more nuanced approach to sentencing juveniles in Florida. The case in question involves a 17-year-old who, after committing a crime, was sentenced to a term that effectively equates to life imprisonment. The argument posits that while juvenile offenders should be held accountable for their actions, the severity of their sentences should reflect their diminished culpability compared to adults. The authors draw upon scientific research and their own observations of adolescents to support their assertion that life sentences for juveniles are disproportionate and counterproductive.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Teens are not fully grown adults, and their brains are still developing. This is important to consider when sentencing young people in Florida's justice system. The case before the Court involves a teen who was sentenced to 90 years in prison, making his release date just after his 107th birthday. This is essentially a life sentence, even though the teen committed the crime just two months after turning 17. While the court should hold young people accountable for their actions, it is unfair to give them sentences that are too harsh. The consequences of their actions should be proportionate to their level of responsibility.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Kids and teens aren't adults yet, so it's important to think about that when deciding what happens to kids who break the law in Florida. This is especially true when figuring out how many years a "life" sentence should be for a teenager. The authors of this paper think the court should throw out the 90-year sentence for a teenager. They want the court to think about science and what they see in teens to understand why. The teen in this case committed a crime just two months after turning 17, and now he won't get out of prison until after his 107th birthday. The court should not let kids get away with bad behavior, but the punishment should fit the crime. So, even though the teen did something wrong, he shouldn't have to pay for it for his whole life.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Brief for Former Members of Judiciary, Former Prosecutors, and Bar Leaders as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Henry v. Florida, No. SC-12-578 (Fla. Mar. 12, 2013).

    Highlights

      Share your Highlights