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 imprison- ment 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 sen- tencing. At the same time, requiring findings of permanent incorrigibility is critical to ensuring compliance with the Eighth Amendment.

Summary of Argument

The 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 life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) for juveniles should be reserved for the rare cases where the offender is deemed permanently incorrigible.

Miller and Montgomery mandate that sentencing courts must find permanent incorrigibility before imposing LWOP on juvenile offenders. This requirement stems from the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court distinguished between permanently incorrigible juveniles, who may constitutionally receive LWOP, and the majority of juvenile offenders who retain the capacity for rehabilitation.

Requiring a finding of permanent incorrigibility ensures that courts thoroughly assess the offender's eligibility for LWOP. Miller instructs courts to conduct individualized assessments, considering factors such as the offender's age, maturity, family and community environment, and the circumstances of the offense. However, misinterpretation of these factors has led to inconsistent sentencing practices.

Mandating a finding of permanent incorrigibility helps mitigate potential biases, including racial disparities, in sentencing. By requiring courts to articulate their reasons for imposing LWOP, it also facilitates meaningful appellate review.

The requirement does not impose a significant burden on courts, as they are already obligated to comply with Miller. Moreover, courts routinely make similar determinations during sentencing.

Requiring a finding of permanent incorrigibility is essential to ensure compliance with the Eighth Amendment and to protect juvenile offenders from disproportionate punishment. It promotes individualized assessments, mitigates bias, and provides a basis for appellate review, ultimately ensuring that LWOP is reserved for the truly incorrigible few.

Summary of Argument

Young people who commit crimes are different from adults. They are less responsible for their actions and more likely to change for the better. In the landmark case Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot sentence juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole unless they are "permanently incorrigible," meaning they cannot be rehabilitated.

To comply with the Constitution, courts must determine if a juvenile offender is permanently incorrigible before sentencing them to life without parole. This ensures that only the most serious offenders receive this harsh punishment.

Courts must consider a variety of factors when assessing a juvenile's incorrigibility, including their age, maturity, family background, and the circumstances of the crime. However, some courts have not been properly considering these factors.

Requiring courts to make a finding of permanent incorrigibility helps prevent biased sentencing based on factors like race. It also allows for meaningful review of sentences on appeal.

Courts are already required to comply with the Miller ruling. Adding the requirement to determine permanent incorrigibility will not significantly increase their workload.

In conclusion, requiring courts to find permanent incorrigibility before sentencing juveniles to life without parole is essential to ensure fairness and compliance with the Constitution.

Summary of Argument

When kids under 18 commit crimes, they're not as responsible as adults. They're still developing and can change for the better. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that young offenders can't be sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole unless they're truly beyond help.

The Court said that life without parole for kids should be very rare because most young offenders can be rehabilitated. In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court made this rule apply to cases that were still being reviewed.

To sentence a young person to life without parole, a court must find that they're permanently incorrigible, meaning they can't be changed. This is important because the Constitution protects young offenders from cruel and unusual punishment.

Requiring courts to find that a young offender is beyond help ensures that they're not just relying on stereotypes or biases. It also allows for meaningful review of the decision on appeal.

Courts are already required to follow the Miller rule, so adding this extra step won't be a big burden. It's important to make sure that young offenders are treated fairly and that the Constitution is upheld.

Summary of Argument

When kids 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 learn and grow. So, the highest court in the country has said that kids shouldn't get life in prison without the chance to get out unless they're so bad that they'll never change. And even then, it should be very rare.

Judges have to look at each kid and their situation carefully. They need to think about things like the kid's age, how they were raised, and what kind of crime they did. If a judge doesn't have to say why they think a kid will never change, they might make a mistake. They might be unfair to the kid or give them too harsh of a punishment.

Making judges say why they think a kid can't be changed will help make sure that kids are treated fairly and that the punishment fits the crime. It will also make sure that judges are doing their job properly.