Summary of Argument

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court recognized that all youthshare certain key developmental attributes and characteristics which make them categorically less culpable than their adult counterparts. In the years since, the Court has relied upon these unique attributes to strike certain extreme punishments for youth under the Eighth Amendment. The Court has refi.ned its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence to refLect that young people are different for the purposes of applying the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The Court grounded its rationale in neuroscience and behavioral research on adolescent development that demonstrates that young adults are less culpable than their adult counterparts. This research-while applied in those cases to youth under l8-actually counsels against such an arbitrary cut-off. Those under the age of 2I should be held accountable for their criminal conduct, but like younger juveniles, they are not as culpable or blameworthy as adults. Under both Article I, $ 11 of the Illinois Constitution and the Eighth Amendment, young adults must be accorded the same sentencing protections as youth under 18. Accordingly, any sentence imposed on an individual under the age of 2I, without the opportunity for individualized consideration of that person's youth and attendantcharacteristics, is unconstitutional. For appropriate youth, a court must be

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged the distinct developmental characteristics of youth, recognizing their diminished culpability compared to adults. This recognition has influenced the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, leading to limitations on severe punishments for young offenders. Scientific advancements in neuroscience and behavioral research regarding adolescent development have provided substantial support for the Court's position. These findings demonstrate that young adults, particularly those under 21, exhibit reduced culpability compared to adults, challenging the arbitrary cutoff at 18. While acknowledging the need for accountability for criminal conduct, the unique characteristics of individuals under 21 should be considered in sentencing, mirroring the protections extended to younger juveniles. Therefore, both the Illinois Constitution (Article I, § 11) and the Eighth Amendment necessitate the application of sentencing protections to individuals under 21. Any sentence imposed on a person under 21, without considering their youth and developmental characteristics, is unconstitutional. For individuals exhibiting appropriate youth characteristics, courts must incorporate such factors into sentencing decisions.

Summary of Argument

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that young people share distinct developmental traits that distinguish them from adults, making them less culpable for criminal actions. Since then, the Court has used these traits to overturn harsh punishments for minors under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Court's reasoning relies on scientific research on adolescent brain development, revealing that young adults are less mature and less responsible than adults. Although this research has been used in cases involving youth under 18, it suggests that the arbitrary cutoff at age 18 is inappropriate. Individuals under 21, while accountable for their actions, are less culpable than adults due to their ongoing development. Both the Illinois Constitution and the Eighth Amendment mandate that young adults deserve the same sentencing considerations as minors. Therefore, imposing sentences on individuals under 21 without taking their age and developmental characteristics into account violates their constitutional rights. Courts must be equipped to consider the unique circumstances of young adults before imposing sentences.

Summary of Argument

In 2005, the Supreme Court recognized that teenagers share certain characteristics that make them less responsible for their actions than adults. Since then, the Court has used these differences to strike down harsh punishments for teenagers based on the Eighth Amendment. The Court's decisions reflect that young people are different and shouldn't be punished the same way as adults. This understanding is based on research that shows teens' brains are still developing and they make different choices compared to adults.

While this research is used for teenagers under 18, it actually argues against making a strict age limit. People under 21 should be held accountable for their actions, but just like younger teens, they are not as responsible as adults. Based on both the Illinois Constitution and the Eighth Amendment, young adults should have the same sentencing protections as teenagers. This means any sentence given to someone under 21 without considering their age and other factors is unconstitutional.

For young adults, a court must consider their age and unique characteristics to make a fair decision about their punishment.

Summary of Argument

In 2005, the Supreme Court said that young people are different from adults. The Court said that kids are not as responsible for their actions as adults. The Court said that this is because kids' brains are still developing and they don't always make good decisions. This means that kids should not get the same punishments as adults. The Court also said that we need to consider kids' ages when we decide how to punish them.

The Court said that kids under 18 are different, but we should also think about kids who are 18, 19, and 20 years old. These young adults are also still developing and not as responsible as grown-ups. This means we should think about their ages when we decide what punishment is fair.

We should make sure that all young people, even those who are 20 years old, get a chance to explain why they did something wrong and get a fair punishment.