Summary of Argument

As explained in the Statement of Interest, the ABA for many years has devoted considerable time and resources to the study and improvement of the juvenile justice system, including the formulation of policy which directly bears on the issue here. It is precisely because of these extensive efforts that the ABA submits this amicus brief in support of the Petitioner’s position.

The ABA respectfully submits that Miller fundamentally altered Eighth Amendment jurisprudence as to when a sentence of life without parole is permissible for a juvenile. Miller not only barred states from imposing mandatory life without parole sentences on juveniles, but also made clear that this harshest of juvenile sentences is constitutionally permissible only for “the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” 132 S. Ct. at 2469. Under the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, Miller announced a substantive rule severely restricting the circumstances under which a juvenile can be sentenced to life without parole. Under the rule in Miller, the great majority of juveniles serving life without parole are serving a sentence that the law cannot constitutionally impose on them. That is the epitome of a substantive rule that should be applied retroactively.

As demonstrated below, retroactive treatment of Miller is necessary to avoid unjust and unconstitutional treatment of juvenile offenders, will not unduly burden the states, and does not implicate the same concerns of finality and deterrence that this Court has considered in other cases addressing the possible retroactive application of a new constitutional rule. Indeed, several states have recognized this fact and either through court decision or legislative action have applied Miller retroactively and commenced resentencing hearings. Miller and the Court’s decisions in Roper and Graham are all premised on juveniles’ lesser culpability and greater capacity to change. Because nearly all juvenile offenders sentenced to mandatory life without parole before Miller are serving a sentence that the law cannot impose on them, it is only just that they be given the opportunity to demonstrate, at some point before dying in prison, that they too are capable of change.

Summary of Argument

The American Bar Association (ABA) has a longstanding commitment to improving the juvenile justice system. In its amicus brief, the ABA argues for the retroactive application of the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama.

Miller's Impact on Juvenile Sentencing

Miller held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles. The Court recognized that juveniles are less culpable and have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults. Therefore, life without parole should be reserved only for the most "irreparably corrupt" juvenile offenders.

Retroactivity of Miller

The ABA contends that Miller announced a substantive rule that severely limits the circumstances under which juveniles can be sentenced to life without parole. As most juveniles serving such sentences were sentenced before Miller, they are serving unconstitutional sentences. Retroactive application of Miller is necessary to rectify this injustice.

Benefits of Retroactivity

Retroactive application of Miller would:

• Ensure fair and constitutional treatment of juvenile offenders.

• Avoid undue burden on states, as many have already recognized the need for retroactivity.

• Not undermine finality or deterrence, as the focus is on juveniles' unique characteristics and potential for rehabilitation.

The ABA urges the Court to apply Miller retroactively to give juvenile offenders sentenced to mandatory life without parole the opportunity to demonstrate their capacity for change and avoid the injustice of dying in prison for sentences that are no longer constitutional.

Summary of Argument

The American Bar Association (ABA) believes that a landmark Supreme Court decision, Miller, should be applied retroactively. This means that it should apply to people who were sentenced before the decision was made.

Miller Decision and Juvenile Sentencing

The Miller decision ruled that it is unconstitutional to automatically sentence juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The court also said that this extreme punishment should only be used for the most serious juvenile offenders who are beyond rehabilitation.

Retroactivity of Miller

The ABA argues that Miller should be applied retroactively because:

• Most juveniles serving life without parole were sentenced under laws that are now unconstitutional.

• It is unfair to keep these individuals in prison for sentences that are no longer legal.

• Juveniles have a greater capacity for change than adults, and they should have the opportunity to prove that they can be rehabilitated.

Benefits of Retroactive Application

Applying Miller retroactively would:

• Ensure justice for juvenile offenders.

• Reduce the burden on states by releasing some prisoners.

• Not overly burden the justice system, as many states have already begun resentencing hearings for these individuals.

The ABA believes that it is essential to apply Miller retroactively to ensure that juvenile offenders are treated fairly and in accordance with the Constitution.

Summary of Argument

The American Bar Association (ABA) believes that a court decision called Miller should be applied retroactively. This means that it would affect people who were sentenced before the decision was made.

What is Miller?

Miller is a decision that says it's unconstitutional to sentence juveniles (people under 18) to life in prison without the possibility of parole unless they are the "worst of the worst" offenders.

Why Does the ABA Support Retroactivity?

The ABA believes that most juveniles who are currently serving life without parole sentences would not have received that sentence under Miller. They argue that it's unfair to keep these people in prison for sentences that are now considered unconstitutional.

Benefits of Retroactivity

The ABA says that applying Miller retroactively would:

• Make sure that juvenile offenders are treated fairly

• Give them a chance to show that they have changed and deserve a second chance

Concerns About Retroactivity

Some people are concerned that applying Miller retroactively would:

• Put a burden on the states

• Undermine the finality of sentences

The ABA's Response

The ABA believes that the benefits of retroactivity outweigh the concerns. They also point out that several states have already applied Miller retroactively and are holding hearings to resentence juvenile offenders.

Summary of Argument

The ABA, a group of lawyers, has been working for a long time to make the justice system for kids better. They believe that the Supreme Court case called Miller is very important.

Miller says that kids should not be sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole unless they have done something so bad that they can never be trusted again. This means that most kids who are currently serving life without parole should not have received that sentence.

The ABA believes that Miller should be applied retroactively, which means that it should apply to kids who were sentenced before the rule was made. This is because it is not fair to keep kids in prison for life when the law says they should not be.

The ABA also says that giving these kids a second chance will not be too hard for the states and that it is important to remember that kids are different from adults. They are not as responsible for their actions and they have a better chance of changing.

So, the ABA wants the courts to apply Miller retroactively so that kids who were sentenced to life without parole can have a chance to show that they have changed and deserve a second chance.