Summary of Argument

Missouri gave effect to Miller by offering parole eligibility to youth sentenced to life without parole who have served twenty-five years. The key question for the parole board—whether the person before it has matured and been rehabilitated—is both required by Miller and aligns with amici’s interest in ensuring public trust and safety and fostering healthy communities. A mature and rehabilitated youth does not pose a substantial public safety risk, while arbitrarily denying such a youth his constitutional rights and the opportunity to reenter the community erodes public trust in the judicial system. And providing class members with fundamental due process guarantees will ensure that the parole board has before it a sound basis for assessing risk.

Class members have a vested liberty interest in the possibility of release upon a showing of maturity and rehabilitation. This is because their sentences are unconstitutional unless parole processes provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release upon such a showing. That is, under Missouri’s procedures, the only opportunity for an individualized assessment of whether class members are eligible for parole and not left to die in prison will be before a parole board. For that reason, the parole board must assess whether the person before it has matured and been rehabilitated. In reaching its decision, the parole board must afford these individuals fundamental aspects of due process of law.

Amici recognize that it is incumbent on prosecutors to correct the injustices the Court recognized in Miller and to do everything within their power to protect the integrity of the justice system. The mandate of the criminal justice system is not finality for its own sake, but the pursuit of justice. Here, where an individual is serving an illegal sentence, the failure to provide basic due process protections is inherently unjust and erodes public trust in our justice system.

Summary of Argument

Missouri has implemented the Miller decision by offering parole eligibility to individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as youth who have served 25 years. The critical question for the parole board, whether the individual before it has matured and been rehabilitated, is mandated by Miller and aligns with the interests of amici in ensuring public safety, fostering healthy communities, and maintaining public trust in the judicial system. Denying an individual the opportunity to reenter society based solely on their age at the time of the offense, without considering maturity and rehabilitation, erodes public trust and creates a substantial risk to public safety. The implementation of fundamental due process guarantees will allow the parole board to make informed decisions about risk assessment.

Class members have a vested liberty interest in the possibility of release upon demonstrating maturity and rehabilitation. This is because their sentences are unconstitutional unless parole processes offer a meaningful opportunity for release based on those factors. Under Missouri’s procedures, the parole board serves as the sole avenue for assessing whether class members are eligible for parole and avoid life imprisonment. Therefore, the parole board must assess an individual's maturity and rehabilitation before determining eligibility for parole. This assessment must include fundamental due process protections.

Amici acknowledge the responsibility of prosecutors to rectify the injustices identified in Miller and to uphold the integrity of the justice system. The primary aim of the criminal justice system is not finality for its own sake, but the pursuit of justice. Denying fundamental due process protections to individuals serving illegal sentences is inherently unjust and undermines public trust in the justice system.

Summary of Argument

Missouri, in compliance with Miller, has implemented parole eligibility for youth sentenced to life without parole who have served twenty-five years. This process necessitates the parole board's evaluation of the individual's maturity and rehabilitation, aligning with amicus briefs' emphasis on public safety and community well-being. A demonstrably mature and rehabilitated individual poses minimal risk to public safety. Conversely, arbitrarily denying such an individual their constitutional rights and the chance for reintegration undermines public trust in the judicial system. The provision of due process guarantees during these proceedings ensures a sound basis for the parole board's risk assessment.

Class members possess a substantial liberty interest in the potential for release based on their demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. This is due to the unconstitutionality of their sentences unless parole processes offer a meaningful avenue for release based on these factors. Consequently, the parole board serves as the sole opportunity for individualized assessment of these class members' eligibility for parole, ensuring they are not left to die in prison. Thus, the board must evaluate maturity and rehabilitation, adhering to fundamental due process principles.

Recognizing the injustices highlighted by Miller, amici urge prosecutors to actively correct these injustices and safeguard the integrity of the justice system. The primary objective of the criminal justice system is not rigid finality but the pursuit of justice. In cases where individuals are serving illegal sentences, the absence of basic due process protections inherently undermines justice and erodes public trust in the judicial system.

Summary of Argument

Missouri has followed the Miller decision by allowing young people sentenced to life without parole to be eligible for parole after 25 years. The parole board's main concern is whether the person has matured and changed their behavior – this is what Miller requires and what the friends of the court (amici) think is important for public safety and strong communities. A person who has matured and reformed is less likely to cause harm, while unfairly denying them their rights and a chance to rejoin society weakens public faith in the legal system. Giving everyone involved basic legal protections ensures the parole board has solid information to decide on risk.

These people have a right to the chance of being released if they can show they've matured and changed. This is because their sentences are unconstitutional without a fair process for them to be released if they've changed. Under Missouri's rules, the parole board is the only place where someone can prove they deserve parole and avoid spending the rest of their lives in prison. This means the board has to consider if the person has matured and changed. They also have to follow the basic principles of fairness in making their decision.

The friends of the court believe it's the responsibility of prosecutors to fix the problems Miller pointed out and to protect the fairness of the legal system. The goal of criminal justice shouldn't be to just keep things the same but to seek justice. When someone is serving an illegal sentence, failing to give them basic legal protections is unfair and hurts public trust in the courts.

Summary of Argument

Missouri has a new law that allows people who were sentenced to life in prison without parole when they were young to get a chance to be released after 25 years. This is because the Supreme Court said that those sentences are unfair for young people. The parole board must decide if these people have grown up and changed for the better. This is important to keep everyone safe and to make sure that the law works fairly for everyone.

If the parole board doesn't have a good way to decide if these people have changed, then it won't be fair to them, and people will lose trust in the court system. These people deserve a chance to be released if they have changed and are no longer a danger to others. The parole board needs to make sure it has the right information to make a good decision about whether to let someone out of prison.