Summary of Argument

The ABA respectfully submits that sentencing a juvenile offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole (“JLWOP”) is not reconcilable with the lesser culpability of juvenile offenders. On that basis, settled doctrine establishes that such a sentence is not permissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

First, JLWOP should be considered a “grossly disproportionate” sentence because the “real time” of the juvenile offender’s prison term, barring executive commutation, is the rest of the juvenile’s life.

Second, “the evolving standards of decency,” Roper, 543 U.S. at 561, citing Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-101 (1958) (plurality opinion), have established that none of the standard justifications for criminal justice sentencing – retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation – are served by JLWOP.

Third, because the parole system provides sufficient safeguards to protect the public from those juvenile offenders who, as adults, are deemed to require continued imprisonment, JLWOP should not be permitted.

Finally, consideration of international authorities demonstrates an overwhelming opposition to JLWOP.

Summary of Argument

The American Bar Association (ABA) contends that the imposition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (JLWOP) on juvenile offenders violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution due to the diminished culpability of minors.

Gross Disproportionality

JLWOP constitutes a grossly disproportionate sentence as it effectively condemns juvenile offenders to spend the entirety of their lives behind bars, regardless of potential for rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances.

Evolving Standards of Decency

Contemporary societal norms, as reflected in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, recognize that the penological objectives of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are not adequately served by JLWOP for juvenile offenders.

Parole as a Safeguard

The parole system provides a mechanism for evaluating the risk posed by juvenile offenders upon their release into society. Therefore, JLWOP is unnecessary to protect the public from those who may still require incarceration as adults.

International Consensus

International legal standards overwhelmingly condemn the practice of JLWOP for juvenile offenders, highlighting the global recognition of the need for individualized sentencing that considers the unique circumstances of minors.

Summary of Argument

Argument:

Sentencing young offenders to life in prison without the chance of parole (JLWOP) is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

Reasons:

• Excessive Punishment: JLWOP sentences effectively condemn juveniles to spend their entire lives behind bars, which is disproportionate to their crimes.

• Diminished Culpability: Juveniles are less mature and have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults. Therefore, they should not be held to the same standards of accountability.

• Ineffectiveness of JLWOP: Studies have shown that JLWOP does not deter crime, incapacitate offenders, or promote rehabilitation.

• Parole System as a Safeguard: The parole system allows for the release of juvenile offenders who have demonstrated rehabilitation and no longer pose a threat to society.

• International Consensus: Most countries around the world have banned JLWOP sentences for juveniles, recognizing their inherent cruelty.

Conclusion:

JLWOP sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional and should be abolished. The parole system provides a more just and effective way to hold young offenders accountable while protecting society.

Summary of Argument

The American Bar Association (ABA) believes that it's wrong to sentence kids to life in prison without the chance of getting out. Here's why:

1. It's Too Harsh

Imagine being locked up for the rest of your life, no matter what. That's what JLWOP means for kids.

2. Kids Are Different

The law recognizes that kids are less responsible for their actions than adults. So, giving them the same punishment as adults is unfair.

3. It Doesn't Help

Locking kids up for life doesn't make them better or keep us safer. In fact, it can make things worse.

4. Parole Works

Parole lets people who have served time in prison show that they've changed and deserve a second chance. It also helps protect the public.

5. The World Agrees

Most countries around the world don't allow life sentences for kids.

Summary of Argument

Some kids who commit crimes are sentenced to life in prison without the chance of ever getting out. This is called JLWOP.

Why It's Not Fair:

• Kids are not as responsible for their actions as adults.

• Spending their whole life in prison is too harsh a punishment.

• There are other ways to punish kids and keep the public safe, like rehabilitation programs and parole.

What Should Happen:

• Kids should not be sentenced to JLWOP.

• If a kid is still dangerous as an adult, they can be kept in prison through the parole system.

• Other countries around the world agree that JLWOP is wrong.