Summary of Argument

The sentence of life without the possibility of parole for youth under 18 convicted offelony murder under an aiding and abetting theory—meaning that these youth have not been proven to have killed or intended to kill—violates both the U.S. and the Michigan Constitutions.Three attributes of these defendants reduce their culpability: (1) their age at the time of the offense and age-related characteristics; (2) their conviction for felony murder, which does not require proof that the individual "intended to kill," and (3) their conviction under an aiding and abetting theory, which does not require proof that the individual personally caused the victim'sdeath, or even that the youth knew his or her co-defendant's intentions.

The limited requirements of the felony murder and aiding and abetting doctrines donothing to undermine the conviction of these youth, who remain convicted of first-degree murder. It does, however, affect the sentence to which they can be constitutionally subjected.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the confluence of the Court's cases on juvenile sentencing— Graham, Miller, and Roper and the Court's jurisprudence on the limits of the imposition of the death penalty on adults convicted of felony murder lead to the conclusion that the maximum sentence available for juveniles is not constitutional for this category of youths.

Under the unique language, history and interpretation of our Constitution, the sentence of life without parole for this category of youths also violates our ban on "cruel or unusual punishments." This most severe sentence is disproportionate to the thrice-reduced culpability ofthese offenders; a comparison of other jurisdictions and within Michigan shows that the sentence is cruel or unusual; and the punishment fails to meet the goals of rehabilitation, deterrence or retribution.

Finally, a categorical rule banning the punishment would be applied retroactively.

Summary of Argument

The imposition of life sentences without parole on juveniles under 18 convicted of felony murder under an aiding and abetting theory raises constitutional concerns under both the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions. This analysis argues that such sentences are unconstitutional due to the reduced culpability of these defendants, stemming from their age, the nature of felony murder convictions, and the aiding and abetting theory.

Three factors mitigate the culpability of these juveniles:

• Age: Their youth and age-related characteristics diminish their responsibility.

• Felony Murder: This conviction does not necessitate proof of intent to kill.

• Aiding and Abetting: Conviction under this theory does not require proof of personal causation of the victim's death or knowledge of the co-defendant's intentions.

Supreme Court jurisprudence on juvenile sentencing (Graham, Miller, and Roper) and the limits of the death penalty for adults convicted of felony murder indicate that life without parole is an unconstitutional sentence for juveniles in this category.

The Michigan Constitution's prohibition on "cruel or unusual punishments" renders life without parole disproportionate to the reduced culpability of these offenders. Comparative analysis with other jurisdictions and within Michigan supports this conclusion. Additionally, the sentence fails to achieve the rehabilitative, deterrent, or retributive goals of punishment.

A categorical ban on life without parole for this category of juveniles would be applied retroactively.

Summary of Argument

Sentencing youth under 18 to life without parole for felony murder, where they did not directly cause or intend the victim's death, violates both the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.

Three factors reduce the culpability of these youth:

• Age and age-related immaturity

• Felony murder conviction, which does not require proof of intent to kill

• Aiding and abetting conviction, which does not require proof of direct involvement in the victim's death

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that juveniles have diminished culpability and should not be subject to the same harsh punishments as adults. This principle extends to felony murder cases, where the maximum sentence of life without parole is unconstitutional for youth.

Under the Michigan Constitution, life without parole for youth in these cases is considered "cruel or unusual punishment." This sentence is disproportionate to their reduced culpability and fails to serve the goals of rehabilitation, deterrence, or retribution.

A rule prohibiting life without parole for youth in felony murder cases would apply retroactively, providing relief to those already serving such sentences.

Summary of Argument

Can young people who didn't kill anyone get life in prison without parole? Yes, but some people think it's not fair. Here's why:

• They're young: Their brains aren't fully developed, so they may not understand the consequences of their actions.

• They didn't commit the murder: They may have been involved in a crime where someone died, but they didn't actually kill the person.

• They didn't intend to kill: Even if they were involved in the crime, they may not have known that someone would die.

Why is this a problem?

• It's against the Constitution: The Constitution says that punishments should be fair and not too harsh.

• It's cruel and unusual: Life in prison without parole is a very severe punishment, especially for young people who have a chance to change.

• It doesn't help anyone: It doesn't bring back the victim, and it doesn't help the young person become a better citizen.

What should be done?

Some people believe that young people who are involved in felony murder but didn't kill anyone should not be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They think there should be a different punishment that is more appropriate for their age and level of involvement in the crime.

Summary of Argument

Kids and teens who help with a crime but don't kill anyone shouldn't get the worst punishment. There are three reasons why these kids shouldn't get such a harsh punishment:

• They're still young. Kids' brains aren't fully developed, so they don't always make the best decisions.

• They didn't actually kill anyone. They might have helped with the crime, but they didn't do the killing.

• They didn't know what their friends were going to do. Sometimes, kids help with a crime without knowing that someone is going to get hurt.

Even though these kids are guilty of a serious crime, they don't deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison. It's not fair to give them the same punishment as adults who actually killed someone.

It's also important to remember that kids can change and become better people. If they're given a chance, they can learn from their mistakes and make a positive contribution to society.