Summary of Argument

In *Miller v. Alabama*, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that the mandatory imposition of sentences of life without the possibility of parole on juvenile offenders convicted of murder is unconstitutional. Under Massachusetts law, any juvenile fourteen or older convicted of first degree murder must be sentenced to life without parole. This statutory scheme is now unconstitutional. In the absence of any action by the legislature, this Court must look to existing statutes to determine what constitutional sentence may be imposed on juveniles convicted of homicide. In Massachusetts, the only constitutional statutory sentence available is the sentence for lesser included offenses. Therefore, this Court should hold that the appropriate remedy for juveniles convicted of first degree murder is to impose the current statutory sentence for the lesser included offense of manslaughter. This approach is consistent with precedent and with adolescent development.

Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers violate the Eighth Amendment. Massachusetts law currently requires such sentences for juveniles aged fourteen or older convicted of first-degree murder, making it unconstitutional.

In the absence of legislative action, the court must rely on existing statutes to determine a constitutional sentence for juvenile homicide offenders. The only permissible statutory sentence is for lesser included offenses. Therefore, the court should sentence juveniles convicted of first-degree murder to the statutory sentence for manslaughter, the lesser included offense. This approach aligns with legal precedent and acknowledges the developmental characteristics of adolescents.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of murder are unconstitutional. This decision impacts Massachusetts law, which mandates life without parole for juveniles 14 or older convicted of first-degree murder.

Due to the unconstitutionality of the current law, the court must look to existing statutes to determine a permissible sentence for juvenile homicide offenders. The only available constitutional sentence is the penalty for lesser included offenses. Therefore, the court should impose the statutory sentence for manslaughter, which is the lesser included offense of first-degree murder. This approach aligns with existing legal precedents and the understanding of adolescent development.

Summary of Argument

In the case of Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to automatically sentence a young person convicted of murder to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This means that Massachusetts law, which requires this sentence for anyone 14 or older convicted of first-degree murder, is now against the law.

Since the state legislature hasn't changed the law, the court needs to decide what sentence is legal for young people convicted of murder. The only legal sentence in Massachusetts is the one for lesser crimes. Therefore, the court should sentence these young people to the same sentence as they would receive for manslaughter, which is a less serious crime. This decision follows previous legal rulings and reflects our understanding of how young people develop.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court said that it's not fair to give kids who commit murder a life sentence without the chance to get out of prison. In Massachusetts, the law says that kids 14 or older who commit murder have to go to prison for life without the chance to get out. But the Supreme Court says that's not right.

So, what should happen to kids who commit murder? The court should use the rules for a less serious crime called manslaughter. This is fair because kids are different from adults and make different choices.