Summary of Argument

Under well-established California law, anyone sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for any offenses committed before their 18th birthday must eventually receive a parole hearing. That constitutional and statutory directive arose due to scientific findings that prompted courts to conclude that, irrespective of offense or issued sentence, the still-developing brains and personalities of adolescents under the age of 18 render them less culpable and more capable of reform. In recent years, a wealth of scientific research has confirmed that persons in “late adolescence”—ages 18-25—share these same mitigating traits. However, for late adolescents sentenced to LWOP, current state law overlooks their reduced culpability and enhanced prospects for reform by depriving them of any parole hearing at all.

As the Court of Appeal recognized, California’s current approach—depriving certain late adolescents of the chance to demonstrate reduced culpability and strong capacity for change— runs counter to the currently established yet continuously growing body of neuroscientific and psychological studies. Collectively, these studies conclusively prove that late adolescents, like persons in earlier phases of adolescence, and irrespective of offense or issued sentence, possess still-developing brains and personalities that render them less culpable and more capable of reform.

Pursuant to these findings, the Legislature expanded the definition of “youthful offender” to include all late adolescents. (Pen. Code, § 3051.)2 Section 3051 currently instructs the Board of Parole Hearings (the “Board”) to offer parole hearings for “youthful offenders” during which time the Board “shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity.” (§ 4801, subd. (c).) At the same time, however, even as the Legislature redefined “youthful offender” to encompass all late adolescents, section 3051(h) excludes late adolescents sentenced to LWOP from this ameliorative program.

In amending section 3051’s “youthful offender” definition, the Legislature sought “to account for neuroscience research that the human brain—especially those portions responsible for judgment and decision-making—continues to develop” through late adolescence. (People v. Edwards (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 183, 198.) “[R]elying on science,” the Legislature expressly “recognized that these mitigating attributes ‘are found in young adults up to age 25’ and ‘that the ordinary process of neurological and cognitive development continues for several years past age 18.’ ” (People v. Jackson (2021) 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 396, 406–07 (conc. stmt. of Liu, J.).) Thus, “the intent of the Legislature [was] to create a process by which growth and maturity of youthful offenders [including late adolescents] can be assessed and a meaningful opportunity for release established.” (§ 3051, as amended by Stats. 2013, ch. 312, § 1.)

As the Court of Appeal recognized, section 3051’s “intended purpose” is to “permit[] a determination whether a person who committed a serious or violent crime between the age of 18 and 25 has sufficiently matured and outgrown the youthful impulses that led to the commission of the offense.” (People v. Hardin (2002) 84 Cal.App.5th 273, 287.) In light of this intent, amici submit that the categorical exclusion of certain late adolescents from future parole hearings thwarts the Legislature’s express intent to align late adolescent parole eligibility with prevailing neuroscience and “to create a process by which [mitigating attributes] can be assessed and a meaningful opportunity for release established” for all “youthful offenders.” (§ 3051.)

Crucially, the Legislature’s failure to make parole hearings available to all late adolescents, regardless of offense or issued sentence, is irrational and unsupported by science. As detailed in this Brief, the developmental processes that make all late adolescents more vulnerable to risk-taking, negative peer influence, and criminality, as well as more receptive to lasting reform once mature, do not depend on their offense or sentence. (People v. Montelongo (2021), 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 267, 289 (conc. stmt. of Liu, J.) (Montelongo) [section 3051(h) stands in “tension” with “the high court’s clear statement that the mitigating attributes of youth are not ‘crime-specific’ [citation] and our Legislature’s recognition that those attributes are found in young adults up to age 25”].) From the perspective of brain science, then, late adolescents like Tony Hardin who received LWOP sentences are similarly situated to life term parole-eligible late adolescents and other late adolescents: none are beyond section 3051’s rehabilitative reach.

Given this, section 3051(h)’s line-drawing—allowing some late adolescents access to parole and denying others that same opportunity—relies on an unsound premise repudiated by science. The provision thwarts the Legislature’s overriding purpose in enacting and amending section 3051 to effectively codify the prevailing scientific consensus and guarantee parole eligibility for all “youthful offenders,” in light of the ongoing maturation and diminished culpability of late adolescents. Accordingly, amici submit that section 3051(h) is irrational.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed.

Summary of Argument

California law mandates parole hearings for individuals sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) for offenses committed before the age of 18, recognizing the diminished culpability and enhanced rehabilitative potential of adolescents due to their developing brains. However, current law overlooks these mitigating factors for late adolescents (ages 18-25) sentenced to LWOP, denying them parole hearings.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the inconsistency between California's approach and the growing body of neuroscientific and psychological research demonstrating that late adolescents exhibit similar developmental traits as younger adolescents. These studies indicate that the brains and personalities of late adolescents are still maturing, reducing their culpability and increasing their capacity for reform.

Pursuant to these findings, the Legislature expanded the definition of "youthful offender" to include late adolescents (Pen. Code, § 3051). Section 3051 instructs the Board of Parole Hearings to consider the diminished culpability and growth potential of youthful offenders during parole hearings. However, section 3051(h) excludes late adolescents sentenced to LWOP from this program.

The Legislature's intent in amending section 3051 was to align parole eligibility with prevailing neuroscience and provide an avenue for assessing the maturity and rehabilitation of all youthful offenders. The categorical exclusion of certain late adolescents from parole hearings contravenes this intent.

Furthermore, the exclusion is irrational and unsupported by science. The developmental processes that influence risk-taking, peer influence, and rehabilitative potential in late adolescents are not contingent upon their offense or sentence. Thus, from a neuroscientific perspective, late adolescents sentenced to LWOP are similarly situated to other late adolescents and should be afforded the same opportunities for parole consideration.

In conclusion, section 3051(h) is an anomaly that violates the constitutional and scientific principles underlying California's parole laws for youthful offenders. The judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed to rectify this inconsistency and ensure that all late adolescents have an opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and deserve a chance at parole.

Summary of Argument

Under California law, people who commit crimes before they turn 18 must be given a chance at parole, regardless of their sentence. This is because science has shown that the brains and personalities of adolescents are still developing, making them less responsible for their actions and more likely to change.

Recently, research has confirmed that people in their late teens and early twenties also have these same traits. However, California law currently prevents those in this age group who are sentenced to life without parole from ever having a parole hearing.

This is problematic because the science shows that late adolescents, like younger adolescents, have brains and personalities that are still developing. This means they are less culpable for their crimes and more capable of rehabilitation.

The California Legislature has recognized this by expanding the definition of "youthful offender" to include late adolescents. The law now requires parole hearings for youthful offenders, where their reduced culpability and potential for growth will be considered. However, the law still excludes late adolescents sentenced to life without parole from this opportunity.

This exclusion is not supported by science. The developmental processes that make late adolescents more susceptible to poor decision-making and more responsive to positive change are not affected by the crimes they commit or the sentences they receive.

Therefore, it is irrational to deny parole hearings to late adolescents sentenced to life without parole. The law should be changed to give all youthful offenders, regardless of their sentence, the opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and earn a chance at parole.

Summary of Argument

If someone gets sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for something they did before they turned 18, they'll never get a hearing to show that they've changed. That's the law in California. But science tells us that even young adults aged 18-25 have brains that are still developing, making them less responsible for their actions and more likely to change for the better.

Recently, California changed its laws to include young adults up to age 25 as "youthful offenders." This means that most young adults who commit crimes can get a hearing to show they've grown and matured. But there's a catch: if you're sentenced to life without parole, you don't get that chance, even if you were a young adult when you committed the crime.

This doesn't make sense because science shows that the same traits that make younger teens less responsible and more likely to reform also apply to young adults. The parts of our brains that control decision-making and judgment keep growing until we're about 25. So, young adults are more likely to take risks, be influenced by their friends, and act impulsively. But they're also more capable of learning from their mistakes and becoming better people.

When California expanded the definition of "youthful offenders," the goal was to recognize the science and give all young adults a chance to prove they've changed. But by excluding those sentenced to life without parole, the law is ignoring the science and denying these young adults a fair shot at redemption.

In conclusion, the law that denies parole hearings to young adults sentenced to life without parole is unfair and goes against what science tells us about brain development and the potential for change. All young offenders deserve a chance to show that they've matured and deserve a second chance.

Summary of Argument

When people under 18 do something wrong and get sentenced to jail for the rest of their lives, they must get a chance to show they can change. This is because their brains are still growing and they might be able to become better people.

But did you know that there are young adults, ages 18 to 25, who don't get this chance? Even though their brains are still developing like teenagers, the law says they can't ever get out of jail.

Scientists have found that young adults' brains are still changing, just like teenagers'. This means they might not always make the best decisions and can be easily influenced by others. But it also means they have a better chance of changing and becoming responsible adults.

The government knows this, so they changed the rules to say that all young adults up to age 25 should have a chance to prove they've changed. But for some reason, they left out those who were sentenced to jail for the rest of their lives.

This doesn't make sense because science shows that all young adults, even those with long sentences, have the potential to grow and change. So, it's not fair to keep them locked up forever without giving them a chance to prove themselves.

We believe that everyone deserves a chance at redemption, and that includes young adults who made mistakes in the past. They should have the opportunity to show that they've learned from their mistakes and can become valuable members of society.