Summary of Argument

Miller requires an individualized consideration of age and its hallmark features to ensure that discretionary life without parole sentences are imposed only in the rarest circumstances. Miller and Montgomery establish a presumption against sentencing juveniles to life without parole. A pro forma checklist assessment of the characteristics of youth is insufficient. Miller requires consideration of whether the defendant’s family and home environment diminished his culpability. Miller requires consideration of whether peer pressure and/or duress were mitigating factors and whether the defendant demonstrated sophisticated criminal behavior. Miller requires a determination that a juvenile has no potential for rehabilitation before imposing a life without parole sentence.

State supreme courts have interpreted Miller to require consideration of youth as mitigating. Children are categorically less deserving of the harshest punishments. Juvenile life without parole sentences are developmentally inappropriate and constitutionally disproportionate. State legislative reforms reflect emerging national consensus that juvenile life without parole is constitutionally impermissible.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court's decisions in Miller and Montgomery have established a presumption against imposing life without parole sentences on juvenile offenders. This presumption requires courts to consider the unique characteristics of youth when making sentencing decisions, moving beyond a mere checklist assessment.

Miller mandates an individualized consideration of factors such as the defendant's family and home environment, the potential influence of peer pressure or duress, and the presence of sophisticated criminal behavior. The court must assess the defendant's potential for rehabilitation before imposing a sentence of life without parole.

State courts have consistently interpreted Miller to require the consideration of youth as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The recognition that children are categorically less culpable than adults underscores the inappropriateness and disproportionality of life without parole sentences for juveniles. This interpretation is supported by emerging national consensus and legislative reforms across states, signaling a rejection of the constitutional permissibility of such sentences.

Summary of Argument

The landmark case Miller v. Alabama mandates a nuanced approach to sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). This approach necessitates a careful consideration of the unique characteristics of youth and their developmental stage.

Miller and the subsequent Montgomery v. Louisiana case establish a presumption against sentencing juveniles to LWOP. A simple checklist evaluation of youthful characteristics is insufficient. Instead, a comprehensive assessment is required, taking into account:

• The defendant's family and home environment and its potential impact on culpability.

• The role of peer pressure and/or duress as potential mitigating factors.

• The defendant's level of criminal sophistication.

• The juvenile's potential for rehabilitation.

The court must determine that the juvenile lacks any possibility of rehabilitation before imposing an LWOP sentence.

State supreme courts have interpreted Miller as requiring the consideration of youth as a mitigating factor. This interpretation reflects the understanding that children are inherently less culpable and therefore less deserving of the harshest punishments.

Sentencing juveniles to LWOP is seen as both developmentally inappropriate and constitutionally disproportionate. This sentiment is echoed in legislative reforms across states, reflecting a growing national consensus that juvenile LWOP is unconstitutional.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has ruled that judges must consider a juvenile's age and life experiences before giving them a life sentence without the possibility of parole. This means that a simple checklist of youth characteristics isn't enough. The judge must consider things like whether the young person's home life made them more likely to commit the crime, whether they were pressured by friends or threatened to do it, and whether they acted like a sophisticated criminal.

The judge also needs to determine if the young person can be rehabilitated. Judges should only impose life without parole on juveniles in very rare situations.

States are recognizing that juvenile life without parole is not fair or appropriate. They are changing their laws to reflect this and to make sure these sentences are only used in the most extreme cases.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has said that when a young person is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, judges must carefully consider their age and the things that make them different from adults.

This means judges need to look at things like if the young person's family and home were bad, if they were pressured by friends, and if they acted like a mature criminal. It's also important to see if the young person can change and be a good person again.

The Court has also said that young people are different from adults and shouldn't be punished as harshly. Sending a young person to life in prison without parole isn't fair because they're still growing and learning. Many states are changing their laws to reflect this.