Summary of Argument

The pain that surviving family members experience when their loved one is violently and horrifically murdered is indescribable. Life without the possibility of parole exists for good reason and legal finality for the family is one of them. Miller's core holding requires an individualized sentencing process in which a judge or jury has the opportunity to consider mitigating evidence of youth. Jones received a sentencing hearing in which a judge evaluated and considered the factors laid out in Miller and determined that life without parole was an appropriate sentence. A constitutionally mandated factual finding of permanent incorrigibility would disrupt legal finality and require many murder victims' families to relive much of the trauma they thought they had put to rest.

The possibility of parole for a murderer is a life sentence for many victims' families. An unrelenting series of parole hearings in which the victims' families must repeatedly oppose parole prolongs their suffering. The frequency and intensity of each re-engagement with the killer years after the murder can trigger devastating flashbacks and memories and reopen traumatic wounds.

Summary of Argument

The bereavement experienced by surviving family members following the violent and gruesome murder of a loved one defies description. The imposition of life sentences without the possibility of parole serves a crucial purpose, providing a sense of closure and legal finality for these families.

The landmark decision in Miller v. Alabama mandates individualized sentencing procedures that allow courts to consider mitigating factors related to the defendant's youth. In the case of Jones v. Mississippi, the court conducted a thorough sentencing hearing, weighing the factors outlined in Miller, and concluded that life without parole was the appropriate sentence.

A constitutional requirement for a factual finding of permanent incorrigibility would undermine legal finality and force victims' families to repeatedly confront the trauma associated with the crime. The prospect of parole hearings for the perpetrator serves as a perpetual life sentence for many victims' families. The relentless cycle of hearings, where families must confront the killer and argue against their release, exacerbates their suffering.

Each re-engagement with the perpetrator years after the murder can evoke harrowing flashbacks and reopen emotional wounds. The psychological toll of these hearings can be devastating, hindering the healing process and prolonging the agony endured by victims' families.

Summary of Argument

The grief experienced by families who lose loved ones to violent murder is profound. The legal provision of life without parole serves to provide some closure for these families. In the case of Miller v. Alabama, courts are required to consider the mitigating factor of youth in sentencing. However, in the case of Jones v. Mississippi, a judge determined that life without parole was appropriate after considering these factors.

The possibility of parole for murderers can have a devastating impact on victims' families. Parole hearings force families to repeatedly confront the trauma of the murder. These hearings can trigger flashbacks, reopen wounds, and prolong the suffering of those who have lost loved ones. The constant need to oppose parole keeps the pain of the loss fresh in the minds of family members, preventing them from moving forward with their lives.

The legal finality provided by life without parole sentences is essential for the well-being of murder victims' families. It allows them to begin the healing process without the constant fear and trauma associated with parole hearings.

Summary of Argument

When someone is murdered in a terrible way, their family goes through pain that's hard to imagine. That's why there's a punishment called "life without parole," which means the killer stays in prison forever. This gives the family a sense of closure.

But some people think that even young killers should have a chance at parole. In a court case called Miller, the judges said that young people should get a chance to show that they've changed. In another case called Jones, a judge looked at the facts and decided that life without parole was the right punishment.

If killers could get parole, it would be like a life sentence for the victim's family. They would have to go to hearings all the time to fight against the killer getting out. This would bring back all the horrible memories and make them feel terrible all over again.

Summary of Argument

When someone is murdered in a terrible way, their family feels a pain that is hard to describe. There is a good reason why some killers are never allowed to leave prison. It helps the family to know that the killer will be punished forever.

When a judge decides that a killer should stay in jail forever, they have to think about the killer's age and other things that might have made them do the crime. In this case, the judge thought about all of those things and decided that the killer should never get out of jail.

If killers could get out of jail, the families of the people they killed would have to go to court over and over again to say why the killer should stay in jail. This would make the family feel terrible all over again. It would be like having to live through the murder again and again.