Summary of Argument

Relying on both common-sense perceptions and a growing body of scientific evidence, this Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that age and its attendant characteristics are constitutionally relevant and must be taken into account when sentencing juvenile defendants. See Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 726 (2016); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471 (2012); J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 271-72 (2011);Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 76 (2010); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); see also Commonwealth v. Perez, 480 Mass. 562, 628-29 (2018); Diatchenko v. Dist. Att’y, 466 Mass. 655, 669-70 (2013). Under this line of precedent, mandatory sentences that impose harsh adult penalties on juveniles without individualized consideration of age and other mitigating factors violate the Eighth Amendment. In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court broadly condemned mandatory sentencing schemes that “prevent the sentencer from taking account of these central considerations.” 567 U.S. at 474; see also infra Section I.A. Four years later, the Court underscored the need for individualized sentencing in Montgomery v. Louisiana, highlighting that children differ not just from adults, but also from each other. 136 S. Ct. at 734-35; see also infra Section I.B. In response to these decisions, states are moving away from mandatory sentencing schemes for juveniles, recognizing that these schemes risk disproportionality in their enforcement because they fail to account for individual mitigating circumstances. See infra Section I.C.

Harsh, mandatory sentences are particularly inappropriate when, as in this case, they are imposed for homicide offenses that include felony murder theories of liability. The rationale for felony murder— that a person who engages in a dangerous felony should reasonably foresee the risk of death—is at odds with scientific research on adolescent development. See infra Section II.A. As this Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized, adolescents process information differently than adults, are prone to sensation-seeking or risky behaviors, and may act impulsively, particularly in emotionally charged situations. See infra Section II.B. Imputing an intent to kill from a juvenile’s mere participation in a felony therefore contradicts both the Supreme Court’s juvenile jurisprudence and psychological and neuroscientific research.

In this case, a 17-year-old was convicted under Massachusetts’ second-degree murder statute and thus automatically faced life in prison with a minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years. Because the trial court did not have any discretion to consider Mr. Lugo’s age or other mitigating circumstances before imposing this harsh adult sentence, it is unconstitutional under Miller. Accordingly, Amici ask this Court to reverse Mr. Lugo’s conviction and sentence and remand the case for an individualized resentencing.

Summary of Argument

Drawing upon both intuitive observations and empirical evidence, the United States Supreme Court and other courts have recognized the constitutional significance of age in sentencing juvenile defendants (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016; Miller v. Alabama, 2012). Mandatory sentencing schemes that impose severe adult penalties on juveniles without considering their age and mitigating factors contravene the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court's Juvenile Jurisprudence

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court condemned mandatory sentencing schemes that "prevent the sentencer from taking account of" the unique characteristics of youth (p. 474). Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) further emphasized the need for individualized sentencing, acknowledging the developmental differences not only between juveniles and adults but also among juveniles themselves.

State Responses to Supreme Court Rulings

In response to these rulings, states have begun to abandon mandatory sentencing schemes for juveniles, recognizing the potential for disproportionate outcomes due to the failure to account for individual circumstances.

Felony Murder and Adolescent Development

Mandatory sentences are particularly inappropriate for homicide offenses based on felony murder theories of liability. The underlying rationale of felony murder, which imputes an intent to kill from mere participation in a dangerous felony, conflicts with scientific research on adolescent development.

Adolescent Brain Development and Behavior

Adolescents differ from adults in their cognitive processing, risk-taking tendencies, and emotional regulation (J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 2011; Graham v. Florida, 2010). These developmental factors make it inappropriate to infer an intent to kill from a juvenile's participation in a felony.

Conclusion

The automatic imposition of life sentences with lengthy minimum terms on juveniles convicted under second-degree murder statutes violates the Eighth Amendment. In light of the Supreme Court's juvenile jurisprudence and scientific evidence on adolescent development, courts must consider age and mitigating factors in sentencing juvenile offenders. Failure to do so results in unconstitutional and disproportionate punishments.

Summary of Argument

Courts have recognized that age is a crucial factor to consider when sentencing juvenile offenders. This is because juveniles differ significantly from adults in their development and decision-making abilities. Mandatory sentences that do not allow for individualized consideration of age violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court's Stance on Juvenile Sentencing

In several landmark cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory sentencing schemes for juveniles are unconstitutional. These cases include:

• Miller v. Alabama (2012): Prohibited mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles.

• Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016): Emphasized the need for individualized sentencing that considers the unique characteristics of each juvenile offender.

The Problem with Felony Murder Charges for Juveniles

Felony murder charges, which hold individuals responsible for deaths that occur during the commission of a felony, are particularly problematic for juveniles. This is because the underlying rationale for felony murder—that individuals should foresee the risk of death—does not align with the developmental realities of adolescents.

Adolescent Development and Decision-Making

Scientific research has shown that adolescents have distinct cognitive and emotional processes compared to adults. They are more likely to:

• Act impulsively

• Engage in risky behaviors

• Be influenced by peer pressure

Conclusion

Mandatory sentences that do not consider the age and mitigating circumstances of juvenile offenders are unconstitutional. In cases involving felony murder charges, it is especially important to recognize the limitations of adolescent decision-making. Individualized sentencing is essential to ensure that justice is served fairly and appropriately for juvenile offenders.

Summary of Argument

The courts have said that age matters when sentencing young people. They've noticed that teenagers are different from adults in important ways that affect their behavior.

Why Age Matters

• Brain Development: Teenagers' brains are still developing, which means they don't always think things through as well as adults.

• Impulsivity: Teenagers are more likely to act without thinking, especially when they're feeling strong emotions.

• Risk-Taking: Teenagers are more likely to take risks, even when they know it's dangerous.

Mandatory Sentencing is Unfair

Some laws require judges to give teenagers the same harsh punishments as adults, even if they're not as mature or responsible. This is unfair because it doesn't take into account the differences between teenagers and adults.

Felony Murder

Felony murder is when someone is charged with murder even if they didn't intend to kill anyone. This is especially unfair for teenagers because their brains aren't fully developed and they may not understand the risks of their actions.

The Case of Mr. Lugo

Mr. Lugo was 17 when he was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for 15 years. The judge couldn't consider his age or any other factors that might have made his sentence less harsh. This is unconstitutional because it violates the idea that teenagers deserve special consideration in sentencing.

Conclusion

Teenagers should not be given the same harsh punishments as adults. Their brains are still developing and they're more likely to act impulsively. Mandatory sentencing laws that don't allow judges to consider these factors are unfair and should be changed.

Summary of Argument

Judges have decided that it's important to think about a kid's age when they're being sentenced for a crime. That's because kids are different from adults in many ways. They don't always think things through as well, they might take more risks, and they can act without thinking, especially when they're feeling strong emotions.

So, it's not fair to give kids the same harsh punishments as adults. It's especially unfair when kids are charged with murder, even if they didn't mean to kill anyone. That's because the reason we punish people for murder is that they should have known that their actions could lead to someone dying. But kids don't always understand that as well as adults do.

In this case, a 17-year-old boy was sentenced to life in prison without the judge being able to consider his age or any other reasons why he might deserve a lesser punishment. That's not fair, so we're asking the court to change his sentence and give him a chance to be sentenced in a way that takes his age into account.