Summary of Argument

The imposition of life without parole sentences on juveniles violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. As the Supreme Court has held, juvenile offenders are categorically different from adult offenders in constitutionally relevant ways. According to settled research, juveniles are immature in their judgment and decision-making capacities, they are especially susceptible to negative peer pressures, and they are uniquely capable of transformation and rehabilitation. As found in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, juveniles as a class are less culpable for their criminal conduct than adults.

Culpability is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, and it is central to ensuring that sentences are rational and proportional under the Eighth Amendment. Traditionally, the Court has looked primarily to the nature of the offense to assess proportionality. In the case of juveniles, this Court has modified its traditional Eighth Amendment analysis to focus specifically on the unique attributes and characteristics of the juvenile offender in reviewing the constitutionality of sentences. The reduced culpability of juveniles renders life without parole sentences inherently disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and thus categorically impermissible.

In the instant cases, the sentencing schemes in Alabama and Arkansas compound the constitutional infirmity of a life without parole sentence. In both cases, the sentences were mandatory. Following this Court's reasoning in striking mandatory death Sentences under the Eighth Amendment, mandatory juvenile life without parole sentence by its nature precludes considerations of the individual juvenile offender or the circumstances of his crime. Absent these considerations neither the sentencer nor the reviewing court have any ability to assess the proportionality of the sentence to a particular juvenile. A mandatory scheme thus precludes constitutionally relevant evidence of youth, lesser criminal involvement, and potential for maturity and therefore impermissibly taints the reliability of the sentence. Additionally, Jackson's lifewithout parole sentence following a conviction of felony murder is squarely at odds with this Court's holding in Graham that juveniles who neither kill, intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken are constitutionally ineligible for such sentences.

Finally, this Court has repeatedly acknowledged that the risk of wrongful convictions is of concern in evaluating the harshest sentences imposed on certain categories of offenders. Research demonstrates that juveniles are particularly at risk of giving false confessions because of their developmental characteristics, further supporting increased scrutiny of such sentences under the Constitution.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits disproportionate sentences. This article argues that life without parole (LWOP) sentences for juveniles violate this clause due to the unique characteristics of juvenile offenders.

The Supreme Court (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida) recognizes that juveniles differ from adults in their:

• Immature judgment and decision-making

• Susceptibility to peer pressure

• Capacity for rehabilitation

These factors reduce their culpability for criminal conduct.

Culpability is a fundamental principle in criminal justice. The Eighth Amendment requires sentences to be proportional to the offender's culpability. The reduced culpability of juveniles renders LWOP sentences inherently disproportionate.

Mandatory LWOP sentences in Alabama and Arkansas exacerbate the constitutional violation. They preclude individualized consideration of the juvenile's characteristics and circumstances, undermining the proportionality assessment.

LWOP sentences for juveniles convicted of felony murder, where they did not kill or intend to kill (Jackson's case), conflict with the Supreme Court's holding in Graham.

Juveniles are particularly vulnerable to false confessions due to their developmental characteristics. This heightened risk warrants increased scrutiny of LWOP sentences.

LWOP sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. The unique attributes of juvenile offenders, their reduced culpability, and the risks associated with such sentences render them categorically impermissible.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has recognized that juveniles are different from adults in ways that affect their criminal responsibility. They are less mature, more impulsive, and more likely to be influenced by peer pressure. They also have a greater capacity for rehabilitation.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Sentences must be proportional to the crime committed. Because juveniles are less culpable than adults, life without parole sentences are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional.

Mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are especially problematic because they do not allow courts to consider the individual circumstances of the offender or the crime. This violates the Eighth Amendment's requirement of individualized sentencing.

The Supreme Court has ruled that juveniles who do not kill or intend to kill cannot be sentenced to life without parole for felony murder.

Juveniles are more likely to give false confessions than adults. This increases the risk of wrongful convictions and makes life without parole sentences even more inappropriate for juveniles.

Summary of Argument

The Constitution says that punishments shouldn't be "cruel and unusual." And the Supreme Court has said that kids are different from adults in important ways:

• They're not as good at making decisions.

• They're more likely to give in to peer pressure.

• They have a better chance of changing and becoming better people.

Because of these differences, the Court says that kids are less responsible for their crimes than adults. So, it's not fair to give them the same punishments as adults.

Life in prison without parole is the harshest punishment you can give someone, other than the death penalty. The Court has said that this punishment is too harsh for kids, no matter what they've done. In some states, judges have to give kids life without parole for certain crimes, even if they don't think it's fair. This is like giving everyone the death penalty for murder, even if some people didn't mean to kill anyone. Kids are more likely to give false confessions than adults. This means that some kids who are sentenced to life without parole might be innocent.

Summary of Argument

Kids are not like adults. They don't think or act the same way. They make bad decisions sometimes because their brains aren't fully grown yet. They also listen to their friends more than adults do. And most importantly, kids can change and become better people.

When someone gets life in jail without parole, it means they will never get out. This is too harsh of a punishment for kids because they are not as responsible for their actions as adults. They also have a better chance of changing and becoming good citizens.

In some states, kids have to get life without parole if they commit certain crimes. This is unfair because it doesn't allow the judge to think about the individual kid or what happened in their case. It's like saying all kids who steal a candy bar should go to jail for life.

Sometimes, people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Kids are more likely to give false confessions because of the way their brains work. This means that it's even more important to be careful about giving kids such a harsh punishment.