Summary of Argument

Amici embrace the rule set forth in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016): life without the possibility of parole (“life without parole”) is an unconstitutional penalty for youth offenders whose crimes reflect transient immaturity; only those incapable of positive change—those who are irreparably corrupt—may be sentenced to life without parole.4 Amici are of the view that the sentencer must make a determination of irreparable corruption prior to sentencing a child to life in prison without parole. Amici also believe the determination of irreparable corruption should be transparent. A finding, without an articulated basis, that a child is permanently incorrigible and beyond rehabilitation can lead some victims to feel confused about the judgment and unable to find closure.

As victims of homicide crimes committed by youth, Amici implore the sentencing authority to consider the evidence and make a transparent determination that a child is irreparably corrupt before sentencing a child to die in prison.

Summary of Argument

In the wake of the landmark rulings in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), the constitutionality of life without parole (LWOP) sentences for juvenile offenders has been called into question. These decisions recognize that the transient immaturity of youth offenders warrants special consideration, and that LWOP should be reserved only for those who are deemed irreparably corrupt and incapable of rehabilitation.

Amici, as victims of homicide crimes perpetrated by juveniles, emphasize the paramount importance of a transparent determination of irreparable corruption before imposing an LWOP sentence. Sentencing authorities must meticulously examine the evidence and articulate a clear rationale for concluding that a juvenile offender is beyond redemption.

Failure to provide a well-reasoned basis for such a determination can leave victims perplexed and hinder their ability to achieve closure. It is therefore imperative that the process of determining irreparable corruption be transparent and subject to scrutiny. By ensuring that the rationale for an LWOP sentence is clearly articulated, the justice system can foster a sense of understanding and accountability for all parties involved.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing young offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional unless they are found to be "irreparably corrupt," meaning they cannot be rehabilitated.

Before sentencing a young offender to life without parole, the judge must clearly state why they believe the offender is irreparably corrupt. This transparency is important for victims and their families, who may otherwise struggle to understand and accept the decision.

Summary of Argument

What the Law Says:

• It's against the law to sentence young offenders to life in prison without the chance of getting out (parole) if their crimes were caused by their immaturity.

• Only those who are truly beyond help and can never change for the better can be given this punishment.

A Plea from Victims:

As victims of crimes committed by young people, we ask judges to carefully consider the evidence before sentencing a child to life in prison without parole.

It's important to make sure that the child is truly beyond rehabilitation before making this decision. If there's no clear reason why the child can't change, it can be confusing and hurtful for victims.

We believe that judges should clearly explain their reasons for sentencing a child to life without parole so that everyone can understand the decision.

Summary of Argument

A group of friends and family of people who were killed by kids think that kids who commit serious crimes shouldn't be sentenced to life in prison without the chance of getting out. They believe that only kids who are really bad and can't change should get this punishment.

These friends think that before a judge sentences a kid to life in prison, they should have to prove that the kid is so bad that they'll never be able to become a good person. They also think that the judge should explain why they think the kid is bad so that the people who were hurt by the crime can understand.

If a judge doesn't have a good reason for sentencing a kid to life in prison, it can make it hard for the people who were hurt to feel like justice was done.