Summary of Argument

The imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile who did not kill or intend to kill is barred by the United States Constitution. A sentence of life without parole for a juvenile under the age of eighteen who did not kill or intend to kill constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The developmental differences between juveniles and adults compel the conclusion that juvenile life without parole sentences are cruel and unusual punishment for defendants who do not kill or intend to kill. The Graham decision clarifies that juvenile life without parole sentences are unconstitutional because juveniles who do not kill or intend to kill must be treated differently than adults. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that adolescents deserve distinct treatment under the Constitution. Social science research confirms the transitory nature of adolescence and the capacity of youth for rehabilitation.

Because the sentence of juvenile life without the possibility of parole for felony-murder serves no legitimate penological interest, it is unconstitutional. The mandatory nature of Arkansas' life without parole sentencing scheme makes it unconstitutional. The national consensus against mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles convicted on felony murder charges further underscores that they are unconstitutional.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the imposition of life without parole sentences on juveniles who did not kill or intend to kill. This conclusion stems from the developmental differences between juveniles and adults, as well as the recognition that juveniles, particularly those who did not kill or intend to kill, deserve distinct treatment under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida established that juvenile life without parole sentences are unconstitutional because they fail to account for the unique developmental characteristics of youth. This decision recognizes the evolving nature of adolescent behavior and the high potential for rehabilitation.

The mandatory nature of Arkansas's life without parole sentencing scheme, particularly for felony murder convictions, fails to serve any legitimate penological interest and is therefore unconstitutional. This lack of individualized sentencing and the absence of consideration for rehabilitation directly violate the Eighth Amendment's requirement of proportionality. Additionally, the national consensus against mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles convicted on felony murder charges further supports the conclusion that such sentences are unconstitutional.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." This principle applies to juvenile offenders and necessitates a distinct approach to sentencing due to their developmental differences compared to adults.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida established that life without parole sentences for juveniles who did not commit murder or intend to kill are unconstitutional. This decision recognizes the unique characteristics of youth, including their capacity for rehabilitation and the evolving nature of their character during adolescence.

Sentencing a juvenile to life without parole for a felony-murder charge, particularly when they did not directly kill or intend to kill, fails to serve any legitimate penological purpose. Moreover, the mandatory nature of Arkansas' sentencing scheme, which automatically imposes life without parole for certain offenses, further violates the Eighth Amendment. The prevailing national consensus against mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles convicted of felony murder reinforces the unconstitutionality of such sentences.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” The Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing a juvenile (someone under 18) to life in prison without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional when the juvenile did not commit murder or intend to cause death. This is because juveniles are different from adults and have the potential to change and rehabilitate. The court has determined that such sentences do not serve any legitimate purpose and are therefore cruel and unusual.

Additionally, the Court has ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of felony murder (where a death occurred during the commission of another crime) are also unconstitutional. This is because these sentences do not consider the individual circumstances of the juvenile and do not allow for the possibility of rehabilitation. The Court recognizes that there is a national consensus against such sentences, suggesting that they are not consistent with evolving standards of decency.

Summary of Argument

The Constitution says that a person who is under 18 years old can't be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if they didn't kill someone or didn't mean to kill someone. This is because young people are different from adults. They are still growing and changing, and they can be rehabilitated. The Supreme Court has said that life without parole is too harsh a punishment for young people who didn't kill or didn't mean to kill. It also said that laws that automatically give young people life without parole are not allowed. So, giving a young person life without parole for felony murder is against the Constitution.