Summary of Argument

As this 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. For that reason, the Court held in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), that a court may not sentence a juvenile offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole unless he or she is permanently incorrigible. Id. at 479-480. The Court also explained that juvenile life without parole sentences should be rare, because very few juvenile offenders are permanently incorrigible. Ibid. The Court reaffirmed the Miller rule in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), and applied that rule retroactively to cases pending on collateral review. Id. at 732.

The question in this case is whether a sentencing court must find that a juvenile offender is permanently incorrigible before sentencing that person to life imprisonment without parole. The answer is yes.

Requiring a sentencing court to make a finding of permanent incorrigibility is necessary to give effect to the constitutional rule set out in Miller and Montgomery. In those cases, the Court distinguished between two classes of juvenile offenders – the very small category of offenders who are permanently incorrigible, and the much larger category of those who are not. Because only permanently incorrigible juvenile offenders can receive sentences of life imprisonment without parole, a court seeking to impose that sentence must make a finding of permanent incorrigibility in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment.

Requiring a sentencing court to make a finding of permanent incorrigibility ensures that the court has correctly assessed the offender’s eligibility for life imprisonment without parole. In Miller, the Court instructed sentencing courts to conduct holistic and individualized assessments of juvenile offenders’ characteristics and circumstances. The Court also set out certain factors for sentencing courts to consider as part of those assessments. But courts have misunderstood some of the factors and thus have not been correctly performing the assessments Miller requires.

Further, requiring a sentencing court to make a finding of permanent incorrigibility helps to avoid biased sentencing and ensures meaningful appellate review. If a court is not required to make such a finding on the record, it may rely on conscious or subconscious biases, including racial biases, instead of considering the particular facts and circumstances of each offender.

Finally, requiring this finding will not be burdensome. State and federal courts already must comply with Miller, so requiring determinations of permanent incorrigibility will not meaningfully add to the courts’ tasks. And those findings are exactly the type of determinations that courts routinely make during sentencing. At the same time, requiring findings of permanent incorrigibility is critical to ensuring compliance with the Eighth Amendment.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the significance of youth in criminal sentencing, acknowledging the diminished culpability and rehabilitative potential of juvenile offenders. In Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), the Court established that sentencing juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) requires a finding of permanent incorrigibility. This article argues that such a finding is essential to ensure compliance with the Eighth Amendment and promote fairness in juvenile sentencing.

Constitutional Mandate

The Court in Miller and Montgomery distinguished between permanently incorrigible juvenile offenders, who may be sentenced to LWOP, and those who retain the capacity for rehabilitation. Imposing LWOP on the latter category violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, a finding of permanent incorrigibility is necessary to justify the imposition of such a severe sentence.

Individualized Assessment

Miller requires sentencing courts to conduct individualized assessments of juvenile offenders, considering factors such as age, maturity, family and social history, and the circumstances of the offense. However, courts have often misapplied these factors, leading to inconsistent and potentially biased sentencing outcomes. A requirement for a finding of permanent incorrigibility would ensure that courts thoroughly evaluate the offender's eligibility for LWOP.

Avoidance of Bias and Meaningful Appellate Review

Explicit findings of permanent incorrigibility can mitigate the influence of conscious or unconscious biases, including racial biases, in sentencing decisions. By requiring courts to articulate their reasons for imposing LWOP, appellate courts can effectively review the basis for such sentences and ensure fairness.

Minimal Burden

Requiring findings of permanent incorrigibility does not impose a significant burden on courts. They are already obligated to comply with Miller and make individualized sentencing determinations. Moreover, courts routinely make similar findings in other sentencing contexts.

Conclusion

A requirement for a finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing juvenile offenders to LWOP is crucial for upholding the Eighth Amendment, promoting individualized and unbiased sentencing, and ensuring meaningful appellate review. By adhering to this principle, courts can ensure that only those juvenile offenders who are truly beyond rehabilitation receive the most severe punishment available.

Summary of Argument

Young offenders are generally considered less responsible for their crimes and more likely to be rehabilitated than adults. In the landmark case of Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole is unconstitutional unless they are found to be "permanently incorrigible."

The Issue

The question now is whether courts must explicitly find that a juvenile offender is permanently incorrigible before imposing a life sentence without parole.

Arguments for Requiring a Finding of Permanent Incorrigibility

• Constitutional Mandate: Miller and Montgomery established that only a small group of juvenile offenders who are truly beyond rehabilitation can receive life sentences without parole. Therefore, courts must determine permanent incorrigibility to comply with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

• Individualized Assessment: Miller requires courts to consider the unique characteristics and circumstances of each juvenile offender. A finding of permanent incorrigibility ensures that courts have thoroughly evaluated the offender's potential for rehabilitation.

• Prevention of Bias and Meaningful Review: Explicitly requiring a finding of permanent incorrigibility can help prevent biased sentencing based on factors such as race. It also allows for more meaningful appellate review, as courts can examine whether the finding was supported by evidence.

Practical Considerations

• Minimal Burden: Courts are already required to comply with Miller, so adding a requirement for a finding of permanent incorrigibility would not significantly increase their workload.

• Routine Judicial Function: Courts routinely make similar determinations during sentencing, such as assessing the risk of recidivism.

Requiring courts to find permanent incorrigibility before sentencing juveniles to life without parole is essential to ensure compliance with the Eighth Amendment and to promote fair and individualized sentencing practices.

Summary of Argument

Teenagers who commit crimes are different from adults. They're less responsible for their actions and more likely to change for the better. That's why the Supreme Court has ruled that it's unconstitutional to sentence teenagers to life in prison without the possibility of parole unless they're truly beyond help.

Some courts aren't following this rule. They're sentencing teenagers to life without parole without making sure that they're really beyond help.

Courts should be required to find that a teenager is permanently beyond help before sentencing them to life without parole. This would make sure that the Supreme Court's rule is being followed and that teenagers are being treated fairly.

Requiring courts to find that a teenager is permanently beyond help before sentencing them to life without parole is the only way to make sure that the Supreme Court's rule is being followed and that teenagers are being treated fairly.

Summary of Argument

When kids and teens under 18 do something wrong, they should be punished less than adults. That's because they're not as responsible for their actions and they can still change for the better.

In some cases, judges used to give kids life in prison without the chance to get out. But the highest court in the country said that's not fair. They said that only kids who will never be able to change should get that punishment.

So, now, if a judge wants to give a kid life in prison without the chance to get out, they have to prove that the kid can't be changed.

This is important because it helps make sure that kids are treated fairly. It also helps make sure that judges are thinking carefully about each kid's situation before they make a decision.

And it's not too hard for judges to do this. They already have to follow rules when they sentence kids. They just need to add one more step: proving that the kid can't be changed.