Summary of Argument

Amici support the retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). Specifically, Amici seek the application of Miller’s prohibition of mandatory life sentences without parole to youth who were sentenced prior to the Court’s 2012 decision. Just as the mandatory life sentence imposed on Kuntrell Jackson for a 1999 murder and on Evan Miller for a 2003 murder were unconstitutional, so too was the mandatory life sentence imposed on child offender Henry Montgomery for a 1963 murder. See, e.g., id. at 2460.

Amici have experienced the indescribable pain of losing a loved one to murder – a pain that never goes away. While the lives of their loved ones cannot be restored, those lives can be honored by those who survive and remember them. Amici believe that failing to provide children sentenced to mandatory life without parole an opportunity for review dishonors, rather than honors, the memories of their loved ones. The mandatory life without parole sentences imposed on children before Miller do not provide "closure" to the victims, for there is no such thing as "closure" in these circumstances. Rather, such a sentence only prolongs the agony of their grief by adding to the number of lives tragically lost.

Life without the possibility of parole is permanent retribution – an "eye-for-an-eye" punishment that belies everything Amici's loved ones stood for: mercy, fairness, and redemption. Failing to apply Miller retroactively forecloses the possibility that these children can grow into mature adults who recognize the value of the lives they took, express true remorse for their actions, and prove themselves capable of returning to society and doing the good the murder victims can no longer do. Applying Miller retroactively provides an opportunity for the real justice Amici hope to receive – the justice that will honor their family members.

Summary of Argument

In this discourse, we argue for the retroactive application of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012), which prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. We contend that the principles enshrined in Miller should be extended to individuals who were sentenced prior to the ruling, including Henry Montgomery, who was convicted of murder in 1963.

The Pain of Loss and the Pursuit of Justice

As individuals who have endured the unimaginable agony of losing loved ones to murder, we acknowledge the enduring nature of this pain. However, we firmly believe that true justice lies not in the perpetuation of suffering but in honoring the memory of the victims by fostering redemption and rehabilitation. Mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders fail to provide closure or solace; instead, they compound the tragedy by extinguishing the potential for growth and atonement.

Retribution vs. Redemption

Life without parole represents a form of permanent retribution that contradicts the values of mercy, fairness, and redemption that our lost loved ones cherished. Denying juvenile offenders the opportunity for review and rehabilitation forecloses the possibility that they may mature into responsible adults who can contribute positively to society. By applying Miller retroactively, we create a pathway for justice that honors the victims by recognizing the inherent capacity for change and redemption in even those who have committed heinous crimes.

Conclusion

We implore the courts to extend the principles of Miller v. Alabama retroactively to provide juvenile offenders sentenced before 2012 with an opportunity for review and the possibility of redemption. This act of justice will not only honor the memory of our loved ones but also demonstrate our commitment to a society that values both accountability and the potential for human growth and transformation.

Summary of Argument

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences without parole for youth offenders are unconstitutional. This ruling has raised the question of whether it should be applied retroactively to those who were sentenced before 2012.

Arguments for Retroactive Application:

Individuals who have lost loved ones to murder argue that applying Miller retroactively would honor the memory of their loved ones. They believe that:

• Mandatory life without parole sentences do not provide closure for victims' families.

• Such sentences are overly punitive and do not reflect the values of mercy, fairness, and redemption.

• Youth offenders should have the opportunity to demonstrate their growth and rehabilitation.

Benefits of Retroactive Application:

Applying Miller retroactively would provide an opportunity for youth offenders to:

• Express remorse for their actions.

• Prove their ability to return to society as productive members.

• Bring a sense of justice to victims' families by acknowledging the possibility of redemption for the offenders.

Summary of Argument

Some people who were sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole when they were kids believe they should get a second chance. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to automatically give kids this harsh punishment. Now, these people want that rule to apply to them, even though they were sentenced before 2012.

Friends and family of people who were murdered say they're still in pain. They believe that keeping these young offenders in prison for life won't bring their loved ones back or make them feel better. Instead, they think it's important to give these offenders a chance to show that they've changed and can become valuable members of society.

These friends and family members say that life without parole is too harsh a punishment for kids. They believe that everyone deserves a chance at redemption, and that these young offenders should have the opportunity to prove that they're sorry for what they did and that they can make a positive contribution to the world. They say that honoring the memory of their loved ones means giving these offenders a chance to turn their lives around.

Summary of Argument

Some people believe that kids who were sentenced to life in prison without the chance of getting out should be given a second chance. They say that it's not fair to punish kids the same way as adults, because kids' brains are still growing and they can change.

These people say that kids who have spent their whole lives in prison should have a chance to show that they have grown up and learned from their mistakes. They believe that these kids could become good people and help society if they were given a second chance.

Other people say that these kids should not get a second chance because they took someone's life. They say that it's not right to let them out of prison because they might hurt someone else.