Summary of Argument

Petitioners challenge the constitutionality  under the Eighth Amendment of an irrevocable  sentence of life without parole for youthful offenders  who committed non-homicide crimes while under the  age of eighteen. Amici urge this Court to find these  sentences unconstitutional.  

 This Court’s holding in Roper v Simmons,  striking the juvenile death penalty as cruel and  unusual punishment, was the Court’s most recent  application of the Eighth Amendment to juveniles  and reflects a decades-long commitment to  considering the special characteristics of youth when  construing their rights under the Constitution.  While the Court’s solicitude for youth is particularly  pronounced in cases addressing children’s  involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice  systems, children’s unique developmental status has  repeatedly been taken into account in determining  the scope and breadth of their rights under various  provisions of the Constitution that reach into the  civil arena as well. This doctrinal approach to  determining children’s rights under the Constitution  must also govern the Court’s analysis here.  

 Additionally, while Roper adhered to this  Court’s special consideration of youth, its holding  was enriched and informed by scientific and developmental research that confirmed, inter alia,  the transitory nature of the characteristics of youth,  their diminished criminal culpability and their  capacity for change and rehabilitation. This research  informs the outcome in these appeals as well.  

Lastly, this Court’s Eighth Amendment  jurisprudence proscribes penalties that do not accord  with human dignity. Looking beyond legislative  indicia, this Court must exercise its own independent  judgment in determining the constitutionality of  criminal punishments under the Eighth Amendment.  Such independent judgment must consider the  diminished culpability of the petitioners and the fact  that these life without parole sentences fail to serve  any legitimate penological purpose.  

 This Court’s historical youth jurisprudence,  informed by research and buttressed by the Court’s  independent consideration of whether a sentence of  life without parole imposed on adolescents comports  with human dignity, collectively prohibit the  imposition of these sentences on youth who have  been convicted of non-homicide crimes committed  while under the age of eighteen. 

Summary of Argument

The constitutionality of irrevocable life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders who committed non-homicide crimes under the age of 18 is challenged under the Eighth Amendment. This argument is supported by the following considerations:

• Historical Precedent: The Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005) established a precedent for considering the unique characteristics of youth in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

• Developmental Considerations: Scientific and developmental research demonstrates that juveniles possess diminished criminal culpability, a transitory nature of youthful characteristics, and a capacity for rehabilitation.

• Human Dignity: The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments that violate human dignity. Life sentences without parole for juvenile non-homicide offenders fail to serve legitimate penological purposes and undermine the inherent dignity of these individuals.

Based on these considerations, it is argued that the imposition of life sentences without parole on juvenile non-homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court's historical jurisprudence, informed by developmental research and considerations of human dignity, supports this conclusion.

Summary of Argument

Petitioners argue that sentencing young offenders who committed non-homicide crimes to life in prison without parole violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Court's History of Protecting Youth:

• The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the unique characteristics of youth in its legal decisions.

• In Roper v. Simmons, the Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles, citing their diminished culpability and potential for rehabilitation.

Developmental Research:

• Scientific research supports the idea that young people are still developing and have a greater capacity for change than adults.

• This research suggests that life sentences without parole may be inappropriate for juvenile offenders.

Human Dignity:

• The Eighth Amendment requires punishments to be consistent with human dignity.

• Petitioners argue that life without parole for juveniles fails to serve any legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.

Conclusion:

Based on the Court's history of protecting youth, scientific evidence, and the principle of human dignity, the petitioners urge the Court to declare life sentences without parole for juvenile non-homicide offenders unconstitutional.

Summary of Argument

Some young people who commit crimes before they turn 18 are sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole (getting out early). People are arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

Why It Matters for Youth

The Supreme Court has said that young people are different from adults in important ways. They're still developing, they're less responsible for their actions, and they have a better chance of changing and becoming productive members of society.

The Science Behind It

Research has shown that the brains of young people are still developing, which affects their decision-making and impulse control. They're also more likely to be influenced by their environment and peers.

What the Court Should Consider

The Supreme Court should consider all of these factors when deciding whether life sentences for young offenders are constitutional. They should also think about whether these sentences are fair and serve a legitimate purpose.

Conclusion

Many people believe that life sentences for young offenders who commit non-violent crimes are too harsh and violate their constitutional rights. They argue that these young people deserve a chance at rehabilitation and a future outside of prison.

Summary of Argument

Some people think it's not fair to give kids who commit crimes life in jail without the chance to get out. They say that kids are different from adults and deserve a second chance.

Why Kids Are Different

When the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, makes decisions about kids, they think about how kids are still growing and changing. Kids don't always think things through like adults do, and they can make mistakes. They also have a better chance of changing and becoming good citizens.

Science Shows Kids Can Change

Scientists have studied kids' brains and behavior, and they've found that kids are more likely to change and grow than adults. This means that even kids who commit serious crimes can turn their lives around.

Life Without Parole Is Cruel

The Supreme Court has said that punishments should be fair and not too harsh. Giving kids life in jail without parole is too harsh because it doesn't give them a chance to show that they can change. It also doesn't help them become better people.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court should rule that it's not fair to give kids life in jail without parole for crimes they commit when they're under 18. Kids deserve a second chance, and science shows that they can change.