Summary of Argument

The spike in violent crime by juveniles in the late 1980s and early 1990s triggered widespread fears about the causes and extent of juvenile violence. Many states changed their laws regarding the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal system in response to this increase in juvenile crime, subjecting juvenile offenders to sentencing regimes that were originally conceived for adults, including sentences of life without parole.

The fears of a juvenile crime wave that prompted these changes became embodied in the notion of a “juvenile superpredator,” which was reflected in academic and political discourse. Juvenile superpredators were characterized as ruthless sociopaths who lacked a moral conscience and were unconcerned about the consequences of their actions and undeterred by punishment.

However, the fear of an impending generation of superpredators proved to be unfounded. Empirical research that has analyzed the increase in violent crime during the early- to mid-1990s and its subsequent decline demonstrates that the juvenile superpredator was a myth and the predictions of future youth violence were baseless. Amici have been unable to identify any scholarly research published in the last decade that provides support for the notion of the juvenile superpredator, and the scholar credited with originating that term has acknowledged that his characterizations and predictions were wrong; he is one of the amici who submit this brief.

In addition, prison sentences of life without parole, whether discretionary or mandatory, have not been shown to have a deterrent effect on juvenile crime, and the incarceration rates of juveniles pursuant to such sentencing policies demonstrate no causal relationship to the significant reduction in juvenile violent crime since the mid-1990s. There is no empirical basis for any concern that declaring unconstitutional sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders would result in an increase in violent juvenile crime.

Summary of Argument

The surge in violent crime perpetrated by juveniles in the late 1980s and early 1990s engendered widespread apprehension regarding the underlying causes and extent of juvenile violence. In response to this perceived escalation of juvenile crime, numerous states amended their legal frameworks governing the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system. This shift resulted in the imposition of sentencing regimes originally designed for adult offenders upon juvenile perpetrators, including life sentences without the possibility of parole.

The anxieties surrounding a perceived wave of juvenile crime materialized in the concept of the “juvenile superpredator,” a notion prevalent in both academic and political discourse. Juvenile superpredators were characterized as callous sociopaths devoid of a moral compass, indifferent to the consequences of their actions, and impervious to the deterrent effect of punishment.

However, the apprehension of an impending generation of superpredators proved to be unfounded. Empirical research analyzing the rise and subsequent decline of violent crime during the early to mid-1990s has demonstrated that the juvenile superpredator was a myth and predictions of future youth violence were baseless. No scholarly research within the last decade supports the notion of the juvenile superpredator, and the scholar credited with originating the term has acknowledged the inaccuracy of his characterizations and predictions.

Moreover, prison sentences of life without parole, whether discretionary or mandatory, have not been shown to deter juvenile crime. The incarceration rates of juveniles subjected to such sentencing policies do not demonstrate a causal relationship with the significant reduction in juvenile violent crime since the mid-1990s. There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that invalidating sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders would lead to an increase in violent juvenile crime.

Summary of Argument

The rise in juvenile violent crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s fueled anxieties about the causes and scope of youth violence. In response, many states amended their laws regarding the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system, subjecting juvenile offenders to sentencing regimes designed for adults, including sentences of life without parole.

This fear of a juvenile crime wave manifested in the concept of the “juvenile superpredator,” a term that permeated academic and political discourse. Juvenile superpredators were portrayed as ruthless sociopaths devoid of a moral conscience, indifferent to the consequences of their actions, and impervious to punishment.

However, the fear of a looming generation of superpredators proved unfounded. Empirical research examining the surge in violent crime during the early to mid-1990s and its subsequent decline has demonstrated that the juvenile superpredator was a myth and the predictions of future youth violence were baseless. Scholars have been unable to identify any scholarly research published in the last decade supporting the notion of the juvenile superpredator, and the scholar credited with originating that term has acknowledged that his characterizations and predictions were incorrect.

Furthermore, prison sentences of life without parole, regardless of whether they are discretionary or mandatory, have not been shown to deter juvenile crime. Juvenile incarceration rates under such sentencing policies reveal no causal connection to the significant decrease in juvenile violent crime since the mid-1990s. There is no empirical evidence to support the concern that declaring unconstitutional sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders would lead to an increase in violent juvenile crime.

Summary of Argument

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a rise in violent crimes committed by young people sparked a wave of concern about the reasons behind this trend and the extent of juvenile violence. In response to this, many states altered their laws regarding the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system. This meant that young offenders were subject to sentencing practices designed for adults, including life sentences without the possibility of parole.

The anxieties surrounding this perceived surge in youth crime led to the popularization of the term "juvenile superpredator," a concept that became ingrained in both academic and political discussions. Superpredators were portrayed as remorseless individuals lacking a sense of morality, unfazed by the consequences of their actions and impervious to punishment.

However, the fears of a coming generation of superpredators proved baseless. Research examining the rise and subsequent decline in violent crime during the early to mid-1990s revealed the "juvenile superpredator" to be a myth, and predictions of future youth violence were unfounded. Experts in the field have been unable to find any recent research supporting the concept of the juvenile superpredator, and the scholar credited with initially introducing this idea has admitted his characterizations and predictions were inaccurate.

Furthermore, sentences of life without parole, whether imposed through discretion or mandatory rules, have not been shown to deter juvenile crime. The incarceration rates of young people under these sentencing policies show no link to the significant drop in juvenile violent crime observed since the mid-1990s. There is no evidence to support the claim that declaring unconstitutional life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders would lead to an increase in violent youth crime.

Summary of Argument

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a lot of kids and teens were committing violent crimes. This made people really worried about why kids were acting so violently. A lot of states changed their laws about how kids who broke the law were treated. They decided to punish kids like adults, even giving them sentences that meant they would stay in prison for the rest of their lives.

People were scared that there was a new kind of bad kid out there, called a "superpredator." These superpredators were said to be mean, not care about right and wrong, and not be afraid of getting caught.

But it turned out that this idea of superpredators was wrong. When scientists studied what was happening, they found that the idea of a generation of really bad kids was just a myth. There was no real proof that this was happening.

Also, the idea of putting kids in prison for the rest of their lives didn't actually stop kids from doing bad things. In fact, the number of kids breaking the law went down a lot after the mid-1990s, and that wasn't because of putting kids in prison forever.

So, there's no reason to worry that getting rid of these really long prison sentences for kids would mean more kids doing bad things.