Summary of Argument

The Sentencing Project’s decades of experience in juvenile justice resoundingly confirms the central insight of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012): Children are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing” because the defining characteristics of children—their lack of maturity, greater vulnerability to negative influences, and limited control over their environment, among others—make them “‘less deserving of the most severe punishments.’” Id. at 2464 (citation omitted). Miller properly applied this principle to hold that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children violate the Eighth Amendment’s “requirement of individualized sentencing for defendants facing the most serious penalties.” Id. at 2460. The Sentencing Project’s decades of experience likewise teaches that the same principles apply to children, like Petitioner, who receive a mandatory life sentence, even if the sentence leaves open the possibility of parole.

The Sentencing Project’s research confirms that thousands of children nationwide receive such sentences even though they have the same hallmarks of diminished culpability that were dispositive in Miller: As the case studies presented below illustrate, many of these children were themselves first victimized by violence. They often came from broken homes in which one or both parents were absent or in prison. And they often fell in with negative peer groups, but were unable to extricate themselves given the vulnerabilities and immaturities of youth. While these children may have participated in serious crimes, many are not culpable enough to justify exposing them to a lifetime in prison. That is especially true for children, like Petitioner, who were convicted not as principals but via felony murder, joint venture, and other derivative-liability theories.

No other mechanism in the criminal-justice system avoids the constitutional injury these children suffer. The process of transfer from juvenile to adult court is often mandatory, as it was for Petitioner, and it is never sufficient to take account of children’s lesser culpability.

Likewise, the parole system is no answer for these children. The possibility of parole does nothing to change the fact that many children, in light of their “diminished culpability,” did not deserve to be exposed to life sentences in the first place. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2464. Parole’s practical realities, too, confirm that it is no adequate safeguard. Parole is entirely discretionary, and parole boards are executive-branch bodies whose decisions often reflect the influence of politics, not individual equities. Particularly for prisoners like Petitioner with murder convictions, these boards and their members often apply express or implied policies that “life means life”—so that juvenile offenders may spend decades in prison for reasons having nothing to do with their individual culpability

Summary of Argument

The Sentencing Project argues that mandatory life sentences for juveniles, even with the possibility of parole, violate the Eighth Amendment's requirement of individualized sentencing. The organization cites its decades of experience in juvenile justice and the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama. Miller held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional because juveniles are "constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing." The Sentencing Project contends that this principle applies equally to mandatory life sentences with the possibility of parole.

The Sentencing Project's research highlights the vulnerabilities and immaturity of juveniles, arguing that they are often "less deserving of the most severe punishments." Many juveniles sentenced to life with the possibility of parole have been victims of violence, come from broken homes, and have been exposed to negative influences. These factors, coupled with their developmental immaturity, can lead them to engage in serious crimes without necessarily being fully culpable.

The Sentencing Project criticizes the transfer process from juvenile to adult court, claiming that it is often mandatory and inadequate for addressing the unique circumstances of juveniles. Moreover, the Sentencing Project finds that parole is an inadequate safeguard because it is discretionary and subject to political influence. Parole boards often apply policies that effectively equate "life" with "life without parole," resulting in lengthy sentences for juveniles that are not reflective of their individual culpability.

Summary of Argument

The Sentencing Project, with its extensive experience in juvenile justice, supports the principle established in Miller v. Alabama, which asserts that children are fundamentally different from adults when it comes to sentencing. This difference stems from the unique characteristics of childhood, including immaturity, vulnerability to negative influences, and limited control over their environment. Miller recognized this disparity, ruling that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment's requirement of individualized sentencing.

The Sentencing Project argues that these principles also apply to cases where juveniles receive mandatory life sentences with the possibility of parole. The project's research indicates that numerous children across the country are subjected to such sentences despite exhibiting the same hallmarks of diminished culpability highlighted in Miller. Many of these children have been victims of violence themselves, come from dysfunctional families, and have been influenced by negative peer groups. While their involvement in serious crimes cannot be disregarded, the Sentencing Project argues that their level of culpability often does not warrant a lifetime in prison, especially for those convicted through derivative-liability theories like felony murder or joint venture.

The Sentencing Project contends that existing mechanisms within the criminal justice system fail to address the constitutional harm these children endure. Mandatory transfer from juvenile to adult court, often experienced by juveniles like the petitioner, is insufficient to account for their diminished culpability. Similarly, the parole system proves inadequate, as the possibility of parole does not negate the fact that many juveniles, due to their diminished culpability, should not have been subjected to life sentences in the first place. The discretionary nature of parole and the influence of political factors on parole board decisions, often resulting in a "life means life" policy, further undermine the effectiveness of parole as a safeguard.

Summary of Argument

The Sentencing Project, which has worked in juvenile justice for many years, agrees with the ruling in Miller v. Alabama that children are different from adults when it comes to sentencing. The Miller court said that children are less responsible for their actions because they are still developing, easily influenced by others, and don't have much control over their lives. Miller found that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for children are unconstitutional because they don't allow for individual consideration of the crime.

The Sentencing Project has found that thousands of children have been sentenced to life in prison, even though they might be eligible for parole. These children often have the same traits as those mentioned in Miller. For example, many were victims of violence themselves, came from troubled families, or were influenced by negative peers. While they may have been involved in serious crimes, these children often aren't responsible enough to justify spending the rest of their lives in prison. This is especially true for children, like the petitioner in this case, who were found guilty because of other people's actions, such as felony murder or conspiracy.

The Sentencing Project argues that the current system for handling children who commit crimes is not enough to protect them from these kinds of sentences. For example, when children are moved from juvenile court to adult court, their age and immaturity aren't fully considered. Parole boards are also not reliable because they are controlled by the government and their decisions can be influenced by politics rather than the specific situation of the prisoner. Even though some prisoners might have the possibility of parole, they are still being sentenced to life in prison, which is too harsh for many children.

Summary of Argument

The Sentencing Project has been working with young people in the justice system for many years. They believe that young people are different from adults, and should be treated differently by the law. The law says that young people can't be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever getting out. The Sentencing Project says this should also apply to young people who are sentenced to life in prison, but might be able to get out on parole someday.

The Sentencing Project says that many young people who are sentenced to life in prison have difficult lives. Many have experienced violence and have families with problems. They may hang out with the wrong crowd and get in trouble. Even though they might have done something serious, they don't deserve to spend their whole lives in prison. Especially if they weren't the ones who actually did the crime, but were convicted because they were with someone who did.

There are no good ways to fix the problems with how young people are treated in the justice system. Sometimes, young people are automatically sent to adult court instead of juvenile court. And parole isn't a good solution either. Parole boards are part of the government, and they don't always make fair decisions. They might decide that a young person who was convicted of murder should never get out of prison, even if they didn't really deserve it.