Summary of Argument
The Sixth Circuit's overly expansive interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA" or the "Act") mandates disproportional and unconstitutional punishment of juvenile offenders in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ACCA's sentencing enhancement provision explicitly applies to children and includes certain juvenile delinquency adjudications as qualifying predicates for imposition of its mandatory minimum sentencing requirement. The Sixth Circuit's broad construction of the "different occasions" language of the Act sweeps even more juvenile conduct into ACCA's domain further compromising the ability of the sentencer to consider the infirmities of youth and impose a constitutionally proportional sentence. In expanding the reach of ACCA beyond the intent of Congress, the Sixth Circuit paves the way for excessive and potentially unconstitutional sentences for child offenders. This erroneous interpretation presents an unacceptable risk of inflicting permanent, debilitating sentencing consequences on children that lack any legitimate penological justification and is thus inconsistent with this Court's prior rulings that children are different from adults and these differences neccissitate heightened constituitonal protections.
This Court has examined the parameters of juvenile culpability on multiple occasions, consistently holding that kids cannot be held accountable according to adult standards because of their underdeveloped brains The Court has repeatedly reaffirmed, as recently as this year, that the circumstances leading to juvenile crime are transient, not permanent, and as such are inconsistent with designation of a child as an "irredeemable, career criminal." Constitutionally acceptable juvenile sentencing instead requires consideration of all the mitigating factors associated with youth in general, as well as the specific situation of the offender, with rehabilitation as the primary goal.
The Sixth Circuit's expansive interpretation of ACCA, however, contravenes this directive as it would result in even more children entering adulthood permanently branded as career criminals, solely as a result of conduct precipitated by their still developing brains. Tragically, the consequences of this fleeting state of neurophysiological development, over which they have no control and which they will outgrow, will persist, relegating them to an adult life of diminished opportunities at best, and incontestible felonious status, at worst.
Under the Sixth Circuit's reading of ACCA's "different occasions" language, circumstances this Court has previously described as transient will instead become a permanent albatross around a child's neck. A child who exercises poor judgement or succombs to peer pressure as a result of cognitive immaturity, or who has been subject to abuse and neglect, risks being deemed a career criminal in direct contradiction to what Congress intended. Adopting the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of the Act would greatly increase the likelihood of an individual qualifying for an enhancement under the Act even before reaching adulthood. This additional stripping of sentencers' discretion to consider the actual circumstances triggering offenses committed by kids undermines the rehabilitation goal of this Court's juvenile sentencing precedent.
By allowing sequential actions ocurring on a single night, at a single location, and in furtherance of a single criminal opportunity, to morph into "career criminal" status, the Sixth Circuit has directly contradicted the plain language and purpose of ACCA. The effects of this interpretation are magnified when children are involved. The statute was intended to protect the public against hardened, veteran criminals, not children, regardless of the severity of the crimes they have committed during one day or night of intemperate behavior. Equating an individual's poor decision-making on a single night with perpetual and irredeemable criminality is unjustified when applied to adults, and unconscionable when applied to children.