Brief of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Columbia Legal Services, Teamchild, and Washington Defender Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
Lorraine K. Bannai
Robert S. Chang
Melissa R. Lee
Jessica Levin
SimpleOriginal

Summary

Categorical bar analysis, rather than a Fain Proportionality Analysis, is the appropriate test for assessing constitutionality of juvenile life without parole (JLWOP). Gunwall Factors support adoption of categorical bar against JLWOP.

2018 | State Juristiction

Brief of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Columbia Legal Services, Teamchild, and Washington Defender Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent

Keywords Fain analysis; Proportionality analysis; JLWOP; juvenile life without parole; Gunwall analysis; juvenile sentencing; categorial analysis; Eighth Amendment; cruel and unusual punishment
Screenshot 2024-05-18 at 8.50.59 PM

Summary of Argument

Our state constitution robustly protects against cruel punishment, State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875, 887, 329 P.3d 888 (2014), and implicit in that protection is the continuing duty of Washington courts to develop article I, section 14 jurisprudence to ensure that it remains more protective than the Eighth Amendment. Under the Eighth Amendment, life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile offender is constitutional only in the “rarest” of cases. Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 718, 726, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016), as revised (Jan. 27, 2016). As the Court of Appeals rightly recognized, the identification of those “rare” cases is not only next to impossible, but creates an unconstitutional risk of cruel punishment: “[i]n light of the speculative and uncertain nature of the Miller analysis, the Miller-fix statute creates a risk of misidentifying juveniles with hope of rehabilitation for those who are irretrievably corrupt. That is unacceptable under our State’s cruel punishment proscription.” State v. Bassett, 198 Wn. App. 714, ¶ 61, 349 P.3d 430 (2017), review granted, 402 P.3d 827 (2017). The Court of Appeals’ adoption of a categorical bar against juvenile life without parole is both a necessary and logical progression of Washington’s robust protection against cruel punishment.

This Court should affirm the adoption of the categorical bar against juvenile life without parole for two reasons, each of which is sufficient on its own to uphold the Court of Appeals. First, the Court of Appeals explicitly acknowledged that Washington’s cruel punishment jurisprudence needs to evolve beyond the proportionality analysis under State v. Fain, 94 Wn.2d 387, 617 P.2d 720 (1980), which is ill-suited to the inquiry of whether juvenile life without parole is ever constitutional. Rather than continue to rely on the Fain proportionality analysis, which is a test designed to examine idiosyncratic facts on a case-by-case basis rather than consider the constitutionality of an entire category of punishment as it relates to juveniles, the Court of Appeals adopted the categorical bar to establish that juvenile life without parole is never constitutional.

Second, employing a Gunwall analysis as an interpretive tool to aid development of state constitutional jurisprudence, amici demonstrate that the Court of Appeals’ adoption of the categorical bar represents a principled development of Washington’s cruel punishment jurisprudence.2 A formal Gunwall analysis, although unnecessary, demonstrates that the categorical bar is the only meaningful way to ensure heightened protection against cruel punishment to juvenile offenders charged with homicide, and that this Court’s extension of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence beyond its formal holdings supports the explicit adoption of the categorical bar under article I, section 14. These, as well as other factors, compel this Court to uphold the categorical bar against juvenile life without parole.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Washington State Constitution provides robust protection against cruel punishment (State v. Witherspoon, 2014). This protection necessitates the ongoing development of Article I, Section 14 jurisprudence to ensure its superiority to the Eighth Amendment. The categorical bar against juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) is a logical and necessary extension of this jurisprudence.

The Court of Appeals recognized the inadequacy of the Fain proportionality analysis for assessing the constitutionality of JLWOP. The Fain test focuses on case-specific factors, while the categorical bar establishes that JLWOP is inherently unconstitutional for juveniles.

Employing the Gunwall analysis as an interpretive tool, the Court of Appeals' adoption of the categorical bar emerges as a principled development of Washington's cruel punishment jurisprudence. The analysis demonstrates that the categorical bar is essential to provide heightened protection to juvenile offenders.

This Court's extension of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence beyond its formal holdings supports the adoption of the categorical bar under Article I, Section 14. The Supreme Court has recognized that JLWOP for juveniles is constitutional only in the rarest of cases (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016). The speculative nature of identifying such cases creates an unacceptable risk of cruel punishment.

The categorical bar against JLWOP is a necessary and logical progression of Washington's robust protection against cruel punishment. It ensures that juveniles are not subjected to a punishment that is inherently disproportionate and violates their constitutional rights.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Washington State's constitution strongly protects against cruel punishment. This protection requires courts to continually develop legal principles to ensure that punishments are not excessive. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that life sentences without parole for juveniles are only allowed in the rarest of cases. However, it is difficult to identify these rare cases, creating a risk of cruel punishment.

The Court of Appeals' Decision

The Court of Appeals recognized this risk and ruled that life sentences without parole for juveniles are never constitutional in Washington State. This decision is based on two main reasons:

1. The Need for a New Approach

The traditional proportionality test used to determine cruel punishment is not suitable for evaluating the constitutionality of juvenile life sentences. Instead, a categorical bar is necessary to ensure that this punishment is never imposed on juveniles.

2. Protecting Juvenile Offenders

A formal analysis of Washington's cruel punishment jurisprudence shows that the categorical bar is the only way to provide meaningful protection to juvenile offenders. The Supreme Court's own rulings support the adoption of this bar under the state constitution.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals' decision to prohibit juvenile life sentences without parole is a necessary and logical step in protecting against cruel punishment in Washington State. It ensures that juveniles are not subjected to excessive and irreversible punishments, recognizing their potential for rehabilitation.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

What the Law Says

Our state has strong laws against cruel punishment. These laws protect juveniles (young people under 18) from being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This means they would never be able to leave prison, even if they change and become better people.

Why This Matters

The Supreme Court has said that life sentences for juveniles should only be given in the rarest of cases. It's hard to know who those "rare" cases are, and there's a risk that some juveniles who could be rehabilitated (helped to become better people) might be wrongly sentenced to life in prison.

What the Court Decided

The Court of Appeals decided that it's never right to sentence a juvenile to life without parole. They said that this is the only way to make sure that our state's laws against cruel punishment are being followed.

Why This Decision is Important

  • It shows that our state is serious about protecting juveniles from cruel punishment.

  • It helps to ensure that juveniles who commit serious crimes have a chance to turn their lives around.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Washington has a law that protects people from cruel punishments.

Sometimes, kids do really bad things, like murder. But even if they do, our state believes it's wrong to sentence them to life in prison without the chance of ever getting out.

Why?

Because it's hard to know which kids will never be able to change and become better people. If we lock them up forever, we might be punishing kids who could have turned their lives around.

Our state courts have decided that it's always wrong to sentence kids to life without parole.

This is because our state wants to make sure that kids are never given cruel punishments. Even if they do something terrible, they deserve a chance to show that they can change and become good citizens.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Brief of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Columbia Legal Services, TeamChild, and Washington Defender Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, State of Washington v. Brian Bassett, No. 94556-0 (Wash.).

    Highlights