Summary of Argument

Contrary to the suggestion of some, the prisoners who seek the retroactive application of Miller are not all hapless aiders and abettors who played a secondary role and whose cases reached finality a year or two before the Miller decision. Rather, the cases span more than fifty years. And they include some of the most vicious criminals anywhere.

In Michigan, for example, James Porter systematically executed a woman and her four children. He committed this brutal crime in 1982, when he was 16. The idea of having a resentencing hearing more than 30 years later to examine Porter’s “immaturity [and] impetuosity,” 132 S. Ct. 2468, when he is now almost 50 years old is dubious. Such examples are legion throughout the states.

In fact, the experience of the states with some of the largest number of murderers committed by juveniles (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Louisiana, Illinois, and Missouri) underscore the deep problems of finality raised by this case. Of the more than 2,000 offenders nationwide, as many as half were sentenced more than 20 years ago.

Even aside from the practical limitations on retroactivity, the determination whether a rule is substantive and therefore should be applied retroactively should depend on whether the conduct for which the defendant is currently incarcerated is not criminal or carries a sentence that the law cannot impose. By this definition, Miller did not announce a substantive rule and does not apply.

This rule makes sense because while it offends basic fairness to force a criminal to serve a sentence that could never have been imposed, that is not the case here. Miller does not require that the juvenile receive a different sentence, but a different process. Montgomery could again receive the same sentence— life without parole—even if Miller applied. The mandatory nature of the sentence is not a part of the punishment, but only a description of the mechanism for the decision. Miller did not exclude a category of punishment.

The courts below that have applied Miller retroactively and the United States in its argument that Miller should apply retroactively both make two primary errors.

First, the fact that Miller changes the range of sentences, requiring the option of a more lenient sentence, does not indicate that it is a substantive change. The key point is that the same sentence may still be imposed. In this way, not a single criminal defendant is currently held for a sentence that could not have been imposed after Miller.

Second, the fact Miller requires a sentencer to consider additional factors, namely the offender’s youth and related characteristics, does not mean that it changes the sentencing elements. Miller does not require any specific finding. It only requires individual sentencing.

Summary of Argument

Contrary to certain assertions, the incarcerated individuals seeking retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama are not merely secondary accomplices whose cases concluded shortly before the Miller ruling. Instead, these cases encompass over half a century and involve some of the most heinous offenders.

Dubious Claims of Immaturity

In Michigan, James Porter's systematic execution of a woman and her four children in 1982, when he was 16, raises questions about the validity of a resentencing hearing over 30 years later to assess his "immaturity [and] impetuosity" (132 S. Ct. 2468) at the age of nearly 50. Similar cases abound across the nation.

Finality Concerns

Data from states with high numbers of juvenile murderers (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Louisiana, Illinois, and Missouri) highlight the significant finality issues raised by retroactive application. Over half of the 2,000+ offenders nationwide were sentenced over two decades ago.

Substantive vs. Procedural Rules

Retroactivity of a rule hinges on whether it prohibits conduct that is no longer criminal or imposes an unlawful sentence. Miller does not meet this criterion, as it mandates a different sentencing process rather than a different sentence.

Fairness and Sentencing

While it is unjust to impose a sentence that could not have been given, this is not applicable in Miller cases. The mandatory life without parole sentence remains an option under Miller, emphasizing that the mandatory aspect is merely a procedural mechanism, not a punishment.

Errors in Retroactive Application

Courts and the United States' argument for retroactive Miller application commit two fundamental errors:

1. Range of Sentences: The availability of more lenient sentencing options does not equate to a substantive change, as the same sentence can still be imposed.

2. Sentencing Factors: Miller's requirement to consider youth-related factors does not alter the sentencing elements but merely mandates individualized sentencing.

Summary of Argument

Some argue that all juvenile offenders who committed crimes before the Miller decision should have their cases reviewed. However, this article suggests that not all of these cases deserve retroactive application.

The cases in question involve serious crimes, including murder. For example, in Michigan, James Porter killed a woman and her four children in 1982 when he was 16. The idea of reviewing his case now, over 30 years later, seems questionable.

Many of these cases were finalized decades ago. Reopening them would create problems with the finality of sentences. In states with large numbers of juvenile murderers, over half of the offenders were sentenced more than 20 years ago.

Retroactive application of a rule depends on whether it changes the criminality of the conduct or the sentence that can be imposed. Miller does not change the criminality of the conduct, but rather the process by which the sentence is determined.

Even if Miller were applied retroactively, the same sentence (life without parole) could still be imposed. The mandatory nature of the sentence is not the punishment itself, but rather how the decision is made.

Those who support retroactive application of Miller argue that:

• Changing the range of sentences makes it a substantive change.

• Requiring consideration of youth-related factors changes the sentencing elements.

However, the article argues that these are errors because:

• The same sentence can still be imposed, so no one is being held for a sentence that is no longer allowed.

• Miller only requires individualized sentencing, not specific findings.

Summary of Argument

Some people believe that prisoners who were sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed as teenagers should have their cases reviewed. However, others argue that these criminals are too dangerous and should not be given a second chance.

The Case for Second Chances

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miller v. Alabama that it is unconstitutional to automatically sentence juveniles to life without parole. The Court said that judges must consider the age and maturity of the offender before making such a severe decision.

The Case Against Second Chances

Many of the criminals who are seeking a second chance committed terrible crimes. For example, James Porter killed a woman and her four children in 1982 when he was 16 years old. Now, over 30 years later, he is asking for a new hearing to argue that he was too young to understand the consequences of his actions.

Some states have already reviewed the cases of hundreds of juvenile offenders. In many cases, these offenders were sentenced more than 20 years ago.

The Legal Argument

The legal question is whether the Miller decision should apply to cases that were already decided before the ruling. Some argue that it should, because the conduct that these prisoners were sentenced for is no longer considered criminal. Others argue that it should not, because the Miller decision only changed the sentencing process, not the punishment itself.

Conclusion

The question of whether juvenile killers should get a second chance is a difficult one. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue.

Summary of Argument

Some people think that criminals who were under 18 when they committed crimes should get a second chance, even if their cases were already decided a long time ago. But not everyone agrees.

Some of these criminals did really bad things. For example, in Michigan, a 16-year-old named James Porter killed a woman and her four children in 1982. Now, over 30 years later, some people want him to have a new hearing to see if he should get a lighter sentence because he was young when he committed the crime. But many people think that's not fair.

In many states, there are hundreds of criminals who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. Some of these cases are over 20 years old. It's hard to go back and look at these cases again after so much time has passed.

Even though the law has changed to say that young criminals should be treated differently, that doesn't mean that the crimes they committed are no longer crimes. They still broke the law, and they should still be punished.

The new law doesn't say that young criminals have to get a lighter sentence. It just says that they should have a chance to explain why they deserve a lighter sentence. But even with the new law, some criminals could still get the same sentence they got before, like life in prison without the chance to get out.

Some people who want the new law to apply to old cases are making two mistakes.

• They think that because the new law gives the option of a lighter sentence, it's a big change. But the same sentence can still be given.

• They think that because the new law says that judges have to think about the criminal's age, it's a new rule. But it's not. It's just a reminder that judges should treat each case individually.