Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), that children are different from adults in constitutionally significant ways and are categorically less culpable than adults. In spite of these differences, Missouri’s Armed Criminal Action statute mandates that any person committing a felony with the use or aid of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon, including juveniles tried as adults, “shall be punished by imprisonment . . . for a term of not less than three years.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.015.1 (2014). This statute, adopted to sanction adult offenders, gives the sentencer no opportunity to determine whether three years in prison is proportionate for a juvenile offender, in light of their decreased culpability and increased potential for rehabilitation. Indeed, the sentencer is precluded from considering any factors related to the youth’s age and related characteristics, including their immaturity and impulsivity, family and home environment, the circumstances of the offense (including their participation and the role of peer pressure), their incompetencies in dealing with the adult criminal justice system, and, importantly, their potential for rehabilitation. Because incarcerating juvenile offenders actually increases recidivism and elevates the risk of harm to the youth, a sentencer’s inability to craft an appropriate, individualized and constitutionally proportionate sentence is particularly problematic.

Striking the mandatory incarceration provision of the Armed Criminal Action statute would not preclude a sentencer from imposing a three-year prison sentence on a juvenile; it would merely require that the sentencer consider the youth’s age and reduced culpability in determining a proportionate sentence.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has recognized that juveniles are distinct from adults in ways relevant to culpability and sentencing. Despite this, Missouri's Armed Criminal Action statute imposes a mandatory minimum three-year prison term for anyone convicted of a felony involving a dangerous instrument, including juveniles tried as adults. This mandatory minimum fails to account for the developmental differences between juveniles and adults, including their heightened impulsivity, immaturity, and susceptibility to peer pressure. Furthermore, it ignores the unique challenges juveniles face within the adult criminal justice system and the potential for rehabilitation. The statute's failure to allow for individualized sentencing based on these factors undermines the principles of proportionality and individualized justice that are central to the Eighth Amendment. While striking the mandatory minimum provision would not prevent a judge from imposing a three-year sentence, it would require the judge to consider the juvenile's age and developmental characteristics in determining a just and proportionate sentence.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that children and adults are fundamentally different and that children bear less culpability for their actions. Despite this, Missouri's Armed Criminal Action statute mandates a minimum three-year prison sentence for anyone convicted of a felony involving a dangerous weapon, including juveniles tried as adults. This statute fails to account for the unique characteristics of juveniles, such as their immaturity, impulsivity, and susceptibility to peer pressure, and their potential for rehabilitation. By prohibiting judges from considering these factors in sentencing, the statute creates a system that disproportionately punishes juveniles and undermines their chances of successful rehabilitation.

Removing the mandatory minimum sentence would not prevent judges from imposing a three-year sentence on a juvenile offender, but it would allow them to consider the juvenile's unique circumstances and ensure that the sentence is proportionate to their level of culpability.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has ruled that kids are different from adults and less responsible for their actions. However, Missouri law says that anyone who commits a felony with a weapon, even kids, must go to jail for at least three years. This law doesn't let judges decide if three years is fair for a young person, considering their age and potential for change. It also doesn't let judges look at factors like a kid's family life, the details of the crime, or how well they understand the legal system. Since putting young people in jail can actually make them more likely to commit crimes again, it's important that judges have the ability to decide what's fair for each individual case.

Removing the part of the law that says kids must go to jail for at least three years would not stop judges from sending them to jail. It would just let them make a more thoughtful decision based on the specific situation and the young person's age.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has said that kids are different from adults and should be treated differently when they break the law. The court said that kids are less responsible for their actions and have more potential to change.

Missouri has a law that says anyone who uses a dangerous weapon to commit a crime, even kids, must go to prison for at least three years. This law doesn't let judges think about how young the person is or if a shorter sentence would be better. It doesn't let the judge look at things like how impulsive the kid was, what kind of home life they had, or if they were influenced by their friends.

The law needs to be changed so that judges can decide on the best sentence for each kid, taking into account how young they are. It's important to remember that putting a kid in jail for a long time actually makes them more likely to commit crimes later on.