Summary of Argument

Under Miller and Montgomery, the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without parole for juvenile offenders except for the rare juvenile whose crime reflects irreparable corruption rather than transient immaturity of youth. This case concerns the procedures States must adopt to “separate those juveniles who may be sentenced to life without parole from those who may not.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 735 (2016). To implement the substantive guarantee of the Eighth Amendment, without intruding more than necessary upon the States’ sovereign administration of their criminal justice systems, the Court should require that sentencing courts at a minimum, must ask and answer correctly the question whether a juvenile offender’s “crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Adams v. Alabama, 136 S. Ct. 1796, 1799 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand).

Important rule of law considerations underpin the conclusion that lower courts must focus their inquiry on the specific distinction between transient immaturity and irreparable corruption. Mere consideration of the juvenile offender’s age “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 479. And although States “have some flexibility” in the design of their own procedures, their “‘discretion’” is “not ‘unfettered.’” Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039, 1052 (2017) (quoting Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 719 (2014)). A sentencing court’s failure to decide whether the juvenile defendant before it is among those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption carries the too great risk that this Court’s substantive constitutional rule in Miller will go unheeded.

Thus, to ensure compliance with the Miller rule in accordance with the rule of law, the Court should impose a guardrail on the States’ discretion to design their own procedures by requiring sentencers to ask the “essential question whether [the defendant is] among the very ‘rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.’” Adams, 136 S. Ct. at 1800–1801 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand) (quoting Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 734). Sentencing courts can answer that essential question by make a finding on the record of permanent incorrigibility—indeed, that is the best way to ensure adherence to the holding of Miller and Montgomery. Alternatively, States may assign the prosecution the burden of rebutting a presumption against permanent incorrigibility. Regardless, States still will retain considerable leeway in the “task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences.” Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 416–417 (1986).

The ABA urges the Court to reverse the judgment below because there is no indication that the sentencing judge even asked the question Miller required him to answer correctly: whether Mr. Jones’ crime reflected irreparable corruption.

Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders unless their crimes demonstrate "irreparable corruption" rather than "transient immaturity." To ensure compliance with this rule, the Court has recognized the need for procedural safeguards.

The Essential Question

Justice Sotomayor, in her concurrence in Adams v. Alabama, emphasized that sentencing courts must explicitly consider whether a juvenile offender's crime "reflects irreparable corruption." This inquiry is crucial to prevent disproportionate punishment and ensure adherence to the Miller and Montgomery holdings.

Procedural Flexibility with Guardrails

While states retain flexibility in designing their sentencing procedures, their discretion is not unlimited. The Court has imposed a "guardrail" by requiring sentencers to address the essential question of irreparable corruption. This can be done through a finding of permanent incorrigibility on the record or by placing the burden on the prosecution to rebut a presumption against it.

The ABA's Position

The American Bar Association (ABA) advocates for reversing judgments where there is no evidence that the sentencing court considered the question of irreparable corruption. This is necessary to ensure that the constitutional protections established in Miller and Montgomery are effectively enforced.

Conclusion

To comply with the Eighth Amendment and the rule of law, sentencing courts must explicitly address the question of irreparable corruption when considering life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. This procedural safeguard is essential to prevent disproportionate punishment and ensure the integrity of the justice system.

Summary of Argument

The Law

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, including life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that such sentences are allowed in rare cases where the juvenile's crime shows they are permanently incapable of being rehabilitated.

The Problem

States have different ways of deciding which juvenile offenders should receive life sentences without parole. Some courts do not explicitly consider whether the offender is permanently incorrigible, which can lead to unfair and disproportionate punishments.

The Solution

To ensure that the Eighth Amendment is upheld, the Supreme Court should require sentencing courts to answer one key question: Does the juvenile offender's crime reflect permanent incorrigibility?

Courts can do this by:

• Making a clear finding on the record that the offender is permanently incorrigible.

• Requiring the prosecution to prove that the offender is permanently incorrigible.

Conclusion

By requiring courts to focus on this specific question, the Supreme Court can ensure that juvenile offenders are sentenced fairly and in accordance with the Constitution. This will balance the need for justice with the recognition that young people have the potential for rehabilitation.

Summary of Argument

The law says that most young people who commit crimes should not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This is because young people are still developing and may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

However, there are some rare cases where a young person's crime is so serious that they deserve to spend the rest of their life in prison. These are cases where the young person is considered "irreparably corrupt," meaning they are unlikely to ever change their behavior.

How Do Courts Decide?

To make sure that only the most deserving young offenders receive life sentences, courts must follow certain rules. They must ask themselves: "Does this young person's crime show that they are permanently bad?"

If the answer is yes, then the court can sentence the young person to life without parole. But if the answer is no, then the court must give them a different sentence.

Protecting Young People's Rights

It's important to make sure that courts are making these decisions fairly. That's why some people believe that courts should have to prove that a young person is "irreparably corrupt" before sentencing them to life without parole.

This would help to ensure that young people who deserve a second chance are not locked away forever. However, it would also give states less flexibility in how they handle these cases.

The American Bar Association (ABA) believes that courts should be required to ask the question of whether a young person is "irreparably corrupt." They argue that this is the best way to protect young people's rights and make sure that the law is being followed.

Summary of Argument

There's a law that says kids who commit crimes shouldn't get life in jail without parole, unless they're so bad that they can't be fixed. This rule is important because kids are still growing and changing, and they might not be as bad as they seem when they're young.

But sometimes, courts don't follow this rule. They don't ask the question: "Is this kid really so bad that they can't be fixed?" If they don't ask this question, they might give kids life in jail without parole even though they don't deserve it.

That's why it's important for courts to ask this question. They can either find that the kid is really bad and can't be fixed, or they can give the kid a chance to change.

A group called the ABA wants the court to make sure that judges ask this question. They say that if the judge doesn't ask the question, the kid might get a punishment that's too harsh.