Summary of Argument

Roper, Graham, and Miller establish that juvenile offenders are entitled to specific constitutional protections in sentencing that adult offenders are denied. In making “demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” the standard for release, the U.S. Supreme Court intended for juvenile offenders to have an opportunity to be released back into society to lead productive lives. “Lengthy term-of-years sentences” deny juvenile offenders a “meaningful opportunity” to contribute to society upon their release. “Lengthy” has not been defined in Florida, but Iowa’s approach is instructive, and this Court should adopt Iowa’s definition.

Graham and Miller, as well as this Court’s precedent, require that juvenile offenders with lengthy term-of-years sentences receive new sentences under chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. In addition, social science shows that life expectancy is difficult to calculate and recidivism rates decrease significantly as juveniles mature.

Summary of Argument

The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Miller v. Alabama established constitutional protections for juvenile offenders in sentencing that are not afforded to adults. These decisions emphasized the unique characteristics of youth, including their capacity for change and rehabilitation. The Court intended to provide juvenile offenders with a "meaningful opportunity" to reintegrate into society and contribute productively, recognizing that "lengthy term-of-years sentences" hinder this possibility. Although the definition of "lengthy" remains undefined in Florida, the Iowa approach provides a useful framework for this Court to adopt.

The principles outlined in Roper and Miller, along with Florida precedent, necessitate a re-sentencing process for juvenile offenders subjected to lengthy term-of-years sentences under Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. Furthermore, emerging social science research suggests that life expectancy calculations are imprecise, and recidivism rates among juveniles demonstrably decrease as they mature. This evidence reinforces the need for individualized sentencing considerations that account for the developmental potential of young offenders.

Summary of Argument

The cases of Roper, Graham, and Miller establish that juvenile offenders have constitutional rights to specific sentencing protections not afforded to adults. The Supreme Court aimed to give juvenile offenders a path to rehabilitation and reintegration into society through the standard of "demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation" for release. However, “lengthy term-of-years sentences” hinder juvenile offenders' ability to have a “meaningful opportunity” to contribute to society upon release. While “lengthy” has no defined meaning in Florida, this Court should adopt Iowa's definition.

Graham and Miller, alongside this Court's precedent, mandate that juvenile offenders with lengthy term-of-years sentences receive resentencing under Florida's Chapter 2014-220. Additionally, social science research indicates that predicting life expectancy is unreliable and recidivism rates significantly decrease with juvenile maturation.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has ruled that young people who commit crimes should have special protections when they are sentenced. These protections are different from what adults get. The goal is to give young people a chance to change their behavior and become productive members of society after they are released from prison.

When a young person is sentenced to a very long prison term, they might not have a real opportunity to be a productive member of society after they are released. This is because they would have spent so much time in prison.

The court in Florida should follow the example of Iowa and set a specific definition of what a "long" prison sentence is. This way, young people who are sentenced to very long terms can have their sentences reviewed to make sure they are fair.

The Supreme Court has already decided that young people who get very long prison sentences should have their sentences reviewed. In addition, studies show that it’s hard to predict how long people will live and that young people are less likely to commit crimes again as they get older.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has said that kids who break the law have special rights that adults don’t. The Court wants kids to have a chance to get better and live good lives when they’re released from prison. They said that long prison sentences make it hard for kids to do this. Florida hasn’t said how long a sentence is too long, but another state, Iowa, has a good idea. Florida’s courts should follow Iowa’s rules.

The Supreme Court and Florida courts have already said that kids who get long prison sentences need to get new sentences. Also, scientists have learned that it’s hard to know how long someone will live, and that kids who grow up in prison are less likely to get into trouble again when they get older.