Summary of Argument

Sending children to prison for life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment because the practice is both cruel and unusual. It is grossly disproportionate to juvenile culpability, especially for nonhomicidal crimes like those at issue here. It is exceptionally unusual in modern society. And it is unusually cruel in light of the offender’s extreme youth, which more often than not is accompanied by a developmental disability.

A juvenile sentence of life without parole is as final and irrevocable as a juvenile death sentence. It condemns the juvenile to die in prison as surely as a death sentence; under both sentences the juvenile enters prison as a shackled teenager and decades later leaves in a pine box. The sole difference is that in life without parole the State awaits the death, rather than inflicts it. But a sentence of life without parole, just as certainly as a death sentence, forecloses any prospect of personal rehabilitation or societal reentry, and accordingly should be reserved for the very worst of offenders, those whose prior culpability is unquestionable and whose future rehabilitation inconceivable. The same considerations that led this Court to find juvenile executions unconstitutional in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), and Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), render the sentence here beyond the scope permitted by the Eighth Amendment.

Although children should be held accountable for their crimes, it does not follow that they should be punished identically to adults. Society has long distinguished among the rights, privileges, and burdens of adults and children. See Br. for Pet. in No. 08- 7621, App. A. Children are not miniature adults but rather are fundamentally different. They are more impulsive and less able to assess the risks and consequences of their actions. Moreover, because children are not neurologically complete, they are far less likely to be truly hardened criminals. Thus, children have a greater potential for rehabilitation. The constitutional limits on their punishment should reflect those inherent differences.

This brief explains how juveniles’ special susceptibility to emotional, psychological, and learning related disabilities affects the constitutional limits on their sentencing. Juveniles with serious emotional, psychiatric, and learning-related brain disabilities are significantly overrepresented in the incarcerated population. Juveniles suffering from serious disabilities, moreover, are likely to be particularly disadvantaged at every stage of their dealings with the criminal justice system. When their disabilities are unrecognized, as is often the case, these problems intensify. The cases before this Court are illustrative—both Graham (in No. 08-7412) and Sullivan (in No. 08-7621) have substantial disabilities, yet there is no evidence that their disabilities received any consideration at sentencing. And the disproportionality of a sentence of life without parole is especially pronounced for juveniles with disabilities, given the realities of long-term incarceration in facilities where harsh and austere conditions purposely tax the most hardened adult inmate; those same conditions aggravate existing juvenile deficits.

The high frequency of disabilities in juveniles involved in the criminal justice system further impedes the reliable assessment of juvenile culpability. Consequently, any irrevocable assessment of culpability is necessarily unsound and a lifelong sentence unconstitutionally excessive. The discredited notion that juveniles are merely adults in training and thus should be subject to the same punishment should be laid to rest. As this Court has recognized, juveniles, and especially juveniles with diminished capacities, present different issues of culpability entirely. Because the nature and the assessment of juvenile culpability make final and irrevocable judgments irrational, a sentence to a juvenile of life without parole for a non-homicidal offense exceeds constitutional limits in the same way as a death sentence for a juvenile who commits a homicide.

Summary of Argument

Sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without parole contravenes the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This practice is disproportionate to juvenile culpability, particularly for non-homicidal offenses, and is both exceptionally rare and cruel.

Juvenile Culpability and Sentencing

Juveniles are inherently different from adults in their cognitive and emotional development. They exhibit greater impulsivity and have a diminished capacity to evaluate risks and consequences. Due to their incomplete neurological development, they are less likely to be irredeemable criminals and possess a greater potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, constitutional limits on juvenile sentencing should account for these distinctions.

Disabilities and Juvenile Sentencing

Juveniles with emotional, psychiatric, and learning disabilities are overrepresented in the incarcerated population. These disabilities can hinder their ability to navigate the criminal justice system effectively. When disabilities go unrecognized, as is often the case, these challenges are exacerbated. Life sentences without parole are particularly disproportionate for juveniles with disabilities, given the harsh conditions of long-term incarceration that can aggravate existing deficits.

Reliability of Culpability Assessment

The prevalence of disabilities among juvenile offenders impedes reliable assessments of culpability. Irrevocable judgments of culpability are therefore unsound, rendering life sentences without parole unconstitutionally excessive. The outdated notion of juveniles as "adults in training" should be abandoned, as they present distinct culpability issues, especially those with diminished capacities.

Conclusion

Sentencing juveniles to life without parole for non-homicidal offenses violates the Eighth Amendment, just as juvenile death sentences for homicide do. The unique nature and challenges of juvenile culpability render such irreversible punishments irrational and excessive.

Summary of Argument

Sentencing children to life in prison without the possibility of parole is a cruel and unusual punishment. It is extremely harsh, especially for non-homicide crimes. This practice is rare in modern society and is particularly cruel for young offenders who often have developmental disabilities.

A life sentence without parole for a juvenile is just as final as a death sentence. Both sentences condemn the individual to die in prison. The only difference is that in the former, the state waits for death to occur naturally, while in the latter, it is inflicted. Such a sentence eliminates any chance of rehabilitation or reintegration into society.

Children should be held responsible for their actions, but they should not be punished the same as adults. Children are impulsive, less able to understand consequences, and have a greater potential for rehabilitation due to their incomplete neurological development.

Juveniles with emotional, psychological, and learning disabilities are overrepresented in the prison population. These disabilities can make it difficult for them to navigate the criminal justice system and can exacerbate the harshness of a life sentence without parole.

The unique characteristics of juveniles, including their diminished culpability and potential for rehabilitation, make life sentences without parole for non-homicide offenses unconstitutional. Such sentences are cruel, unusual, and fail to account for the inherent differences between children and adults.

Summary of Argument

Sending kids to prison for life without parole is wrong because it's too harsh and unusual. It's like giving them a death sentence, but instead of dying right away, they have to spend the rest of their lives behind bars. This is especially unfair for kids who didn't commit murder.

Kids aren't just small adults. They're still developing and learning. They make more mistakes and don't always think about the consequences of their actions. They also have a better chance of changing and becoming better people.

Many kids in prison have mental health problems or learning disabilities. These problems can make it hard for them to understand what they're doing wrong and to change their behavior. When kids with disabilities get life without parole, it's even more unfair because they're going to have a really hard time in prison.

Even though kids should be held responsible for their crimes, they shouldn't be punished the same way as adults. We need to give them a chance to learn from their mistakes and become productive members of society. Sending them to prison for life without parole is too extreme and doesn't give them that chance.

Summary of Argument

Sending kids to jail for life without the chance to get out is wrong because it's too harsh and not used very often. It's especially unfair for kids who didn't kill anyone. Kids who get life in prison will die in jail, just like if they were sentenced to death. But instead of being killed right away, they have to wait for it to happen.

Kids should be punished for their crimes, but not in the same way as adults. Kids are still growing and changing. They don't think as clearly as adults and can't always control their actions. They also have a better chance of changing and becoming good people again.

Many kids who end up in jail have problems with their brains or emotions. They might have trouble learning, controlling their feelings, or making good decisions. When these kids don't get help, their problems get worse. Life in prison is really hard, even for adults. For kids with disabilities, it's even harder. They might not be able to handle the tough conditions and could get sicker or more upset.

It's not fair to lock kids up for life without giving them a chance to change. They're not the same as adults and shouldn't be treated the same way. Especially kids with disabilities, they need our help and support, not punishment that's too harsh.