SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The consolidated cases before this Court in the above-captioned matters present the question of the scope and constitutionality of R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-8- 13(e), better known as Mario’s Law for Mario Monteiro, one of the appellees in this matter, which was passed as an amendment to the parole statute by the Rhode Island legislature in 2021. Under well-established law, Rhode Island courts may not impose life-determinant sentences such as mandatory Life Without Parole (LWOP) on adolescents who committed any offense before the age of twenty-two (22). The law also enforces the eligibility for parole review and the issuance of a parole permit after the adolescent has served at least 20 years in prison. Neuroscientific evidence shows clearly that reliable determinations about future dangerousness cannot be made with respect to violent offenders under twenty-one (21) years of age.

Under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, States are prohibited from executing individuals based on unreliable or arbitrary determinations. Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 584 (1988). Since science has firmly established that it is not possible to reliably predict an eighteen (18) year old’s lifetime propensity for violence or inability to be rehabilitated, no sentence of death consistent with the Constitution may be imposed based upon an eighteen (18) year old. Any such sentence would fundamentally be predicated on an inherently unreliable prognostication and consequently cannot pass constitutional muster.

Over the last nineteen (19) years, the United States Supreme Court has issued three landmark decisions that significantly altered the treatment of young people in the criminal justice system. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). In all three decisions, the Court looked to an established scientific consensus regarding adolescent development and required consideration of the unique attributes of youth when applying constitutional protections to juvenile offenders. As a result, the Court’s “decisions rested not only on common sense—on what ‘any parent knows’—but on science and social science as well.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 471. Over that same nineteen (19) year period, advancements in neuroscience and brain imaging research have revealed that the unique characteristics of youth the court identified in Roper, Graham, and Miller—immaturity and susceptibility to impulsivity, recklessness, peer influence, and emotionally driven decision-making, as well as capacities for change —persist beyond age eighteen (18). It is now wellestablished that a human brain continues to undergo profound changes throughout adolescence and young adulthood—a period sometimes referred to as “emerging adulthood”—in the areas and systems that are regarded as most involved in impulse control, planning, and self-regulation.1 Brain imaging and other developments in neuroscience have made visible the differences between the developing brain and the adult brain as never before, effecting a paradigm shift in the way the behavior of emerging adults is understood in the scientific community. Well-established, peerreviewed research, as well as our collective professional experience, demonstrate that it is scientifically impossible to reliably predict the future dangerousness of an offender who commits a crime while under the age of (twenty-one) 21.

In light of the recent neuroscientific developments on late adolescent brains and the application of the Eighth Amendment in Roper (2005) and its progeny, the interpretation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-8-13(e) should be construed to reflect the legislature’s intent in barring both actual and de facto life sentences to include the Petitioner’s second life sentence. The original legislative intent of the law was to align Rhode Island’s justice system with the national movement of moving away from extreme sentences for youth and emerging adults. It would be both deeply ironic and a troubling distortion of legislative intent if § 13-8-13(e) were not to include the person referred to in referring to it as “Mario’s Law.”

This Brief addresses the current scientific consensus regarding brain development and behavior which shows meaningful, relevant changes throughout late adolescence. Because brain structure and function - as well as an individual’s behavior, personality, and propensity for risk-taking and danger - are all profoundly in flux through late adolescence and early adulthood, the eligibility for parole review for a person who commits a crime before twenty-two (22) and after serving twenty (20) years reflects both legislative intend and a constitutional right.

Summary

This document discusses the legal and scientific arguments surrounding Rhode Island's Mario's Law, specifically R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-8-13(e). The law addresses sentencing for adolescents who commit crimes before turning 22. It focuses on the idea that these individuals cannot receive life sentences without the possibility of parole. The law also ensures they are eligible for parole review after serving 20 years in prison.

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stops states from executing people based on unreliable information. Scientific evidence shows that it is not possible to reliably predict whether a person under 21 will be dangerous in the future or if they can be rehabilitated. This means a death sentence based on such a prediction for someone under 18 would be unconstitutional.

Over the last 19 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made important decisions that changed how young people are treated in the legal system. These decisions, like Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and Roper v. Simmons, considered scientific findings about how adolescents develop. The Court recognized that young people are still maturing and are more likely to act on impulse, be reckless, and be influenced by others. They also have a greater capacity for change.

New brain research shows that these unique characteristics of youth continue past age 18. The human brain keeps developing significantly through young adulthood, especially in areas related to impulse control, planning, and self-regulation. This new understanding has changed how scientists view the behavior of young adults. It is now widely accepted that it is scientifically impossible to reliably predict the future dangerousness of an offender who commits a crime before age 21.

Because of this new scientific information about adolescent brains and how the Eighth Amendment applies, R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-8-13(e) should be understood to prevent all life sentences for young people, even those that seem like life sentences without being explicitly called that. The original goal of the law was to match Rhode Island's legal system with the national trend of moving away from extreme sentences for young people and emerging adults. It would go against the law's original purpose if it did not include the person for whom it was named, Mario Monteiro.

This document explains that current scientific understanding shows important changes in brain development and behavior throughout late adolescence. Brain structure, function, personality, and tendencies for risk-taking are all changing during this period. Therefore, allowing parole review for someone who commits a crime before age 22 and has served 20 years in prison aligns with both the law's intent and constitutional rights.

Summary

The court is examining the scope and constitutionality of Rhode Island General Laws § 13-8-13(e), also known as Mario's Law. This law, passed in 2021, changed the state's parole rules. Rhode Island courts cannot give life sentences without parole to young people who commit crimes before age twenty-two. The law also states that these individuals can be considered for parole after serving at least 20 years in prison. Scientific evidence about the brain shows it is difficult to accurately predict future dangerousness in violent offenders under twenty-one years old.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents states from executing people based on unreliable or unfair decisions. Since science shows it is not possible to reliably predict if an eighteen-year-old will be violent for life or cannot change, a death sentence for an eighteen-year-old is unconstitutional. Such a sentence would be based on an unreliable prediction.

Over the last nineteen years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made three important decisions that changed how young people are treated in the justice system. These decisions, Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), and Miller v. Alabama (2012), all considered scientific findings about adolescent development. The Court said that when applying constitutional protections to young offenders, the unique qualities of youth must be considered. These decisions were based on both common sense and scientific research. During this same period, advances in brain research have shown that the unique characteristics of youth—such as being immature, impulsive, easily influenced by peers, and making emotional decisions, but also having the ability to change—continue beyond age eighteen. It is now clear that the human brain continues to develop significantly into young adulthood, especially in areas that control impulses, planning, and self-control. Brain imaging has shown clear differences between a developing brain and an adult brain. This has changed how the scientific community understands the behavior of young adults. Research and professional experience confirm that it is scientifically impossible to accurately predict the future dangerousness of an offender who commits a crime before the age of twenty-one.

Given the recent scientific findings about late adolescent brains and how the Eighth Amendment applies, Rhode Island General Laws § 13-8-13(e) should be understood to stop both actual and indirect life sentences, including the second life sentence of the Petitioner. The original goal of the law was to bring Rhode Island's justice system in line with a national trend of moving away from extreme sentences for young people and emerging adults. It would be a significant misunderstanding of the law's purpose if § 13-8-13(e) did not include the person for whom it is named, "Mario's Law."

This document discusses the current scientific understanding of brain development and behavior, which shows important changes throughout late adolescence. Because brain structure and function, as well as a person's behavior, personality, and tendency for risk-taking and danger, are all changing greatly through late adolescence and early adulthood, eligibility for parole review for a person who commits a crime before twenty-two and after serving twenty years reflects both the law's intent and a constitutional right.

Summary

This document discusses the legal and scientific arguments surrounding "Mario's Law" (R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-8-13(e)), a Rhode Island law about parole for young offenders. The main point is whether courts can give very long sentences, like life without parole, to young adults who commit crimes before age 22. The law states that these young people should be eligible for parole after serving at least 20 years in prison. Scientific evidence suggests it is difficult to reliably predict if a young person under 21 will be dangerous in the future.

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stops states from using unfair or unreliable reasons to execute people. Since science shows it is not possible to reliably predict a person's future violence or ability to change at age 18, any death sentence based on such a prediction would not be constitutional.

Over the past two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has made important rulings that changed how young people are treated in the criminal justice system. These decisions, including Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and Roper v. Simmons, considered scientific findings about adolescent brain development. The Court recognized that young people are unique because they can be impulsive, reckless, easily influenced, and have the ability to change. Recent brain research shows these characteristics continue beyond age 18, into what is called "emerging adulthood." The parts of the brain controlling impulse, planning, and self-control are still developing during this time. This scientific understanding has changed how experts view the behavior of young adults. Research consistently shows it is not possible to reliably predict the future dangerousness of an offender who commits a crime before age 21.

Considering these new scientific findings about the adolescent brain and how the Eighth Amendment applies, Mario's Law should be understood to prevent both actual and very long, "de facto" life sentences, including the second life sentence given to the person the law is named after. The original goal of the law was to bring Rhode Island's justice system in line with national efforts to avoid harsh sentences for young people and emerging adults. It would go against the law's true intention if it did not include the individual known as "Mario" in its protections.

This document highlights the current scientific understanding of brain development and behavior, which shows significant changes throughout late adolescence. Because brain structure, function, behavior, personality, and tendency for risk-taking are still changing during late adolescence and early adulthood, allowing parole review for a person who commits a crime before age 22 and after serving 20 years reflects both the law's intent and a constitutional right.

Summary

This paper talks about a law in Rhode Island called Mario's Law. This law is about how long young people stay in prison for serious crimes. The law says that young people cannot get a life sentence without a chance to get out of prison. This rule applies to people who were under 22 years old when they did the crime. The law also says they can ask to leave prison after serving 20 years.

Understanding Young Brains

Science now shows that the brains of young people are still growing and changing. This growth continues even past 18 years old, sometimes up to age 21. Because of this, it's hard to tell how a young person will act in the future. Their brains are still learning how to control actions and make good choices.

Court Decisions

The highest court in the United States has made some important decisions about young people in trouble with the law. These decisions say that courts must think about how young people are different from adults. They are more likely to act without thinking and be influenced by others. The court's decisions were based on what parents know and what science shows about young brains.

What the Law Means

Mario's Law was made to give young people a chance to change. The goal was to stop giving very long prison sentences to young adults. It would be wrong if this law didn't help the person it was named after.

Rights for Young People

Because young brains are still changing, people who commit crimes before age 22 should have the chance to be reviewed for parole after 20 years. This follows both what the law intended and what the Constitution protects.