Summary of Argument

Despite numerous advancements in the criminal justice system, crime victims remain second-class citizens. Today, this Court is being asked to engage in a callous bait-and-switch by improperly extending its decision in Roper v. Simmons to declare that life without parole for violent juveniles offends the Eighth Amendment. We urge this Court to remain faithful to the Constitution of the United States and its own jurisprudence, which clearly differentiates between the sentence of death and all others, including life without parole. An overwhelming national consensus exists that a life without parole sentence is appropriate and constitutional for juvenile offenders who show an exceptional disregard for human life. Courts, legislatures, and American people have strongly approved of these sentences as an effective and lawful device to deter juvenile crime and protect law-abiding citizens. These institutions understand that violent crimes are no less traumatizing to victims because the offenders are underage. A criminal justice system which categorically denies constitutional and proper sentences for juvenile offenders perpetuates no justice at all.

Summary of Argument

Notwithstanding advancements in the criminal justice system, victims of crime continue to experience marginalization.

The Court faces a request to extend its ruling in Roper v. Simmons, potentially declaring life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. However, it is imperative that the Court adheres to the Constitution and its established jurisprudence, which distinguishes between capital punishment and other sentences, including life without parole.

A substantial national consensus supports the appropriateness and constitutionality of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders exhibiting extreme disregard for human life. Judicial bodies, legislative assemblies, and the American public endorse these sentences as effective deterrents for juvenile crime and safeguards for law-abiding citizens. These institutions recognize that the impact of violent crimes on victims is not diminished by the age of the perpetrators.

A criminal justice system that categorically prohibits constitutional and appropriate sentencing for juvenile offenders fails to deliver justice.

Summary of Argument

Although the criminal justice system has made progress, victims of crime continue to be treated unfairly. The Supreme Court is now considering whether to extend its ruling in Roper v. Simmons, which prohibited the death penalty for juveniles, to also ban life sentences without parole for violent young offenders.

Arguments Against Banning Life Sentences for Juveniles

• The Constitution and Supreme Court rulings recognize a clear difference between the death penalty and other sentences, including life without parole.

• Most Americans believe that life without parole is an appropriate punishment for juveniles who commit serious crimes.

• Courts, lawmakers, and the public support these sentences as a way to deter crime and protect citizens.

• Victims of violent crimes deserve justice, regardless of the age of the offender.

Conclusion

A justice system that automatically rules out appropriate sentences for juvenile offenders does not serve the interests of justice. It is important to protect the rights of victims and ensure that those who commit violent crimes are held accountable for their actions.

Summary of Argument

Even though we've made progress in how we deal with crime, victims still don't get the same rights as criminals. Now, some people are asking the Supreme Court to make a big mistake by saying that it's against the Constitution to sentence young people who commit violent crimes to life in prison without the chance of getting out.

We don't think the Court should do this. The Constitution makes a clear difference between the death penalty and all other punishments, including life in prison. Most Americans agree that it's okay to give this sentence to young people who have shown that they don't care about human life.

Courts, lawmakers, and regular people have all said that these sentences are a good way to stop young people from committing crimes and protect people who follow the law. They know that crimes are just as bad for victims, even if the person who did them is young.

If we don't punish young criminals properly, we're not really doing justice for anyone.

Summary of Argument

Even though the United States has made a lot of progress in how we deal with crime, people who have been hurt by crime are still not treated fairly. Some people want the court to say that it's not okay to sentence kids who commit violent crimes to life in prison without the chance of getting out. But the people writing this brief believe that's wrong.

The Constitution says that the death penalty is different from all other punishments, like life in prison. Most people in the country agree that kids who do really bad things should be able to get life in prison without parole. This helps to stop other kids from doing bad things and keeps people safe.

It doesn't matter if the person who did the crime is a kid or an adult. The people who were hurt still feel the same pain. If we don't punish kids who commit violent crimes, we're not being fair to the people who were hurt.