Summary of Argument

As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, youth matters in criminal sentencing. Individuals who commit crimes while under 18 years of age are less culpable than adult offenders and are presumed to have the capacity for rehabilitation. United States Supreme Court precedent thus requires courts to consider the hallmark characteristics of youth before sentencing children to the harshest sanctions normally imposed upon adults. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012) (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75 (2010)). As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, “children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 471; see also Graham, 560 U.S. at 68-69; Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569-70 (2005); see also Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 733 (2016) (holding Miller retroactive on collateral review.)

In place of mandatory sentences, the Court in Miller instructed sentencing courts to engage in individualized assessments of youth defendants’ “characteristics and circumstances.” 567 U.S. at 476. The Court set out factors for sentencing courts to consider as part of those factual assessments. Id. at 477-78. The Court explained that when the factors are correctly applied, very few juvenile defendants should receive sentences of life imprisonment without parole. Id. at 479.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged the crucial role that youth plays in criminal sentencing. Juvenile offenders, individuals under the age of 18, are considered less culpable than adults and possess a greater capacity for rehabilitation.

Supreme Court Precedent

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for courts to consider the distinctive characteristics of youth before imposing severe punishments typically reserved for adults. The Court recognized that "children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing" (Miller, 567 U.S. at 471). This principle has been reiterated in subsequent cases, including Graham v. Florida (2010), Roper v. Simmons (2005), and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016).

Individualized Assessments

Instead of mandatory sentences, the Court in Miller mandated individualized assessments of juvenile defendants' "characteristics and circumstances" (567 U.S. at 476). Sentencing courts are instructed to consider factors such as:

• The offender's age and maturity

• The nature and circumstances of the offense

• The offender's family and community environment

• The offender's potential for rehabilitation

Presumption Against Life Imprisonment Without Parole

The Court in Miller held that when these factors are appropriately considered, only a small number of juvenile offenders should receive sentences of life imprisonment without parole. This presumption reflects the understanding that youth are inherently capable of change and redemption.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court of the United States has acknowledged that young people who commit crimes should be treated differently from adults in sentencing. This is because they are less responsible for their actions and have a greater potential for rehabilitation.

Miller v. Alabama: A Landmark Case

In the case of Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that courts must consider the following factors when sentencing young offenders:

• Their age and immaturity

• Their family and home environment

• Their peer influences

• Their potential for rehabilitation

Individualized Assessments Required

Instead of automatically imposing harsh sentences, courts are now required to conduct individualized assessments of each young defendant. This means taking into account their unique circumstances and characteristics.

Life Imprisonment Without Parole Should Be Rare

The Supreme Court has stated that very few juvenile offenders should receive sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This is because such sentences are disproportionate and do not give young people a meaningful opportunity to turn their lives around.

Summary of Argument

Young people who commit crimes should be treated differently than adults when it comes to sentencing. They are less responsible for their actions and have a better chance of changing their behavior.

Why?

• Less Culpable: Young people are not as mature as adults and may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

• Can Change: Young people are still developing and have the potential to turn their lives around.

What the Court Says:

The Supreme Court has said that courts must consider the following things when sentencing young people:

• Their age and maturity

• Their family and home life

• Their past experiences

• Their potential for rehabilitation

Conclusion:

Very few young people should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Instead, they should be given a chance to learn from their mistakes and become productive members of society.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court says that kids and teens who commit crimes should be treated differently than adults. Kids are not as responsible for their actions and they can change and become better people.

So, when a kid does something really bad, the court has to look at all the things that make them different from adults. They have to think about:

• How old the kid is

• How they were raised

• What kind of problems they have

• If they can be helped

The court says that only a very few kids should get the worst punishment that adults can get. That's because kids are still growing and learning, and they deserve a chance to turn their lives around.