Summary of Argument

Recognizing that this Court is examining whether criminal acts less severe than murder merit a sentence of life without parole where the offenders are juveniles, amici urge the Court to hold that this sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Victims differ in their views on proportionality of punishment for juvenile offenders and the importance of allowing juvenile offenders to be released from prison upon rehabilitation. In considering what is cruel and unusual, therefore, this Court should not assume all victims would support the continued imposition of life without parole sentences upon juveniles. Amici contend that proportionality, rehabilitation and forgiveness must be the governing principles of juvenile sentencing. These principles are ill-served by sentencing children to life without the possibility of parole.

Summary of Argument

In examining the constitutionality of life without parole (LWOP) sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide offenses, this study argues that such punishment contravenes the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

While acknowledging the diverse perspectives of victims regarding the proportionality of punishment for juvenile offenders, the study emphasizes that it is inappropriate to assume universal support for LWOP sentences. Instead, it advocates for the consideration of proportionality, rehabilitation, and forgiveness as guiding principles in juvenile sentencing.

The brief contends that LWOP sentences for juveniles are inherently disproportionate and fail to account for the potential for rehabilitation and redemption. It argues that sentencing children to life without the possibility of parole undermines these principles and is therefore incompatible with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary of Argument

The authors argue that sentencing juveniles to life without parole is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Supporting Points:

• Victims have varying views on the appropriate punishment for juvenile offenders, with some supporting rehabilitation and release.

• The Court should consider the principles of proportionality, rehabilitation, and forgiveness in juvenile sentencing.

• Sentencing children to life without parole does not align with these principles, as it denies them the opportunity for redemption and growth.

Conclusion:

The authors urge the Court to rule that life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional.

Summary of Argument

Some people believe that young people who commit serious crimes should be sentenced to life in prison without the chance of getting out. Others disagree, arguing that this punishment is too harsh.

Victims of crimes have different opinions on this issue. Some believe that juvenile offenders should be punished severely, while others think they should have a chance to turn their lives around.

When deciding what is considered "cruel and unusual" punishment, it's important to remember that not all victims agree on what is fair. Some believe that young people should have the opportunity to change and be released from prison. They argue that sentencing children to life without parole goes against the idea of giving them a chance to become better people.

Summary of Argument

Some people think that kids who commit serious crimes should be locked up for life, even if they don't kill anyone. But others believe that this is too harsh of a punishment.

Not everyone who has been hurt by a crime agrees on what the right punishment should be. Some people want the person who hurt them to be punished severely, while others believe that it's important to give young people a chance to change and become better people.

When deciding what is a fair punishment, it's important to think about three things:

• How serious the crime was

• Whether the person can be helped to change

• The importance of forgiveness

Some people believe that kids who commit serious crimes should never be allowed out of prison, while others think that they should have a chance to prove that they have changed and deserve a second chance.