Summary of Argument

Prosecutors and judges recognize that every homicide is tragic for the victims and survivors and that the punishment for those found guilty of such crimes should be substantial. But prosecutors and judges also have an interest in ensuring that those punishments are fair and proportionate, taking into account not only the circumstances of the crime and its impact on victims and survivors, but also the characteristics of the offender. This Court has recognized that juveniles are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing,” and that a sentencing scheme that imposes mandatory life without parole on juvenile homicide offenders “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471, 479 (2012). Indeed, the Court has required that sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole be reserved solely for “the rare juvenile offender who exhibits such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole is justified.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 733 (2016). Accordingly, the Court expects that sentencing juveniles “to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 479.

The trial court’s handling of Brett’s resentencing in this case, and its approval by the Mississippi Supreme Court over the vigorous dissent of four justices, fail to effectuate this Court’s mandate and undermine confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. The trial court resentenced Brett to life without parole without determining whether he falls within the category of irretrievably depraved offenders or even evaluating in any meaningful way his “youth and attendant characteristics” and his “possibility of rehabilitation.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 483, 478. If left undisturbed, the Mississippi Supreme Court’s approval of such an approach would allow courts in the state to sentence almost any juvenile homicide offender to life without parole—including those who possess the capacity for rehabilitation— without a meaningful opportunity for appellate review, so long as the trial court makes some acknowledgement of the Miller factors. This type of disproportionate and sub silentio sentencing does not satisfy the constitutional limitations imposed by this Court on juvenile punishment and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. Amici urge this Court to reverse the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision and require sentencing courts to find permanent incorrigibility before a juvenile homicide offender may be sentenced to life without parole.

Summary of Argument

Prosecutors and judges acknowledge the gravity of homicide and the need for substantial punishment. However, they also strive for fairness and proportionality, considering the crime's circumstances, its impact on victims and survivors, and the offender's characteristics.

Constitutional Protections for Juveniles

The Supreme Court recognizes that juveniles differ constitutionally from adults in terms of sentencing. Mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders poses a significant risk of disproportionate punishment (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). Life imprisonment without parole should be reserved for "the rare juvenile offender" who demonstrates "irretrievable depravity" and for whom rehabilitation is impossible (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016).

Brett's Resentencing and Appellate Review

In Brett's case, the trial court resentenced him to life without parole without adequately considering his youth, potential for rehabilitation, or whether he exhibited irretrievable depravity. The Mississippi Supreme Court's approval of this approach, despite dissent from four justices, undermines the Supreme Court's mandate and raises concerns about fairness in the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

Allowing courts to sentence juvenile homicide offenders to life without parole without meaningful consideration of their capacity for rehabilitation violates constitutional limitations on juvenile punishment. Appellate review is crucial to ensure proportionality and prevent disproportionate sentencing. To maintain public confidence in the justice system, courts must require a finding of permanent incorrigibility before imposing life without parole on juvenile offenders.

Summary of Argument

Prosecutors and judges understand the seriousness of homicide and believe that those responsible should face severe consequences. However, they also want to ensure that punishments are fair and consider both the crime and the offender's characteristics.

Juveniles Sentencing

The Supreme Court has recognized that juveniles are different from adults in terms of sentencing. Sentencing juveniles to life without parole should be rare and reserved for those who are so irredeemable that rehabilitation is impossible.

Brett's Case

In Brett's case, the trial court resentenced him to life without parole without properly considering his youth, potential for rehabilitation, or whether he was truly irredeemable. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld this decision, despite strong opposition from some justices.

Concerns

This approach allows courts to sentence almost any juvenile homicide offender to life without parole, even those who may be capable of rehabilitation. It also undermines confidence in the justice system because it does not ensure meaningful review of these sentences.

Conclusion

To ensure fairness and proportionality in juvenile sentencing, courts must determine that a juvenile offender is permanently incorrigible before imposing a life sentence without parole.

Summary of Argument

Every murder is a tragedy, and those who commit these crimes deserve serious punishment. However, it's also important to make sure that punishments are fair and take into account the age and potential for change of the offender.

Juveniles Are Different

The Supreme Court has said that young people are different from adults when it comes to sentencing. They're less mature and more likely to change for the better. That's why the Court has ruled that life sentences without the possibility of parole should be very rare for juveniles.

The Case of Brett

In Mississippi, a young man named Brett was sentenced to life without parole for a murder he committed as a teenager. The court didn't properly consider his age or his potential for rehabilitation. Four judges on the Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed with this decision, but the majority approved it.

The Problem

This approach allows courts to sentence almost any juvenile who commits murder to life without parole, even if they have the potential to change. This is unfair and goes against the Supreme Court's rulings. It also makes people lose faith in the justice system.

The Solution

Courts should be required to prove that a juvenile offender is permanently incapable of rehabilitation before sentencing them to life without parole. This would ensure that young people who have the potential to turn their lives around are not locked away forever.

Summary of Argument

When someone is killed, it's very sad for their family and friends. Judges and lawyers know that people who commit these crimes should be punished seriously. But they also want to make sure that the punishments are fair and right for the person who did it.

The highest court in the country has said that young people are different from adults when it comes to punishments. They have ruled that it's not fair to automatically give young people who commit murder life in prison without the chance to ever get out.

The court says that only the worst young criminals, who can never be helped and will always be dangerous, should get this punishment. It should be very rare for young people to get life in prison without parole.

In the case of a man named Brett, the court didn't think he was one of those rare criminals. They didn't think he was so bad that he could never be helped. But the Mississippi Supreme Court said it was okay to give Brett life in prison without parole anyway.

Some people think this is unfair. They believe that young people who commit crimes should have a chance to show that they can change and become better people. They think that giving all young people who commit murder life in prison without parole is too harsh and doesn't give them a fair chance.