Summary of Argument

The State does not deny the Amicus Brief statement that, at least generally, "children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishment." [BIC 3] To do so would run counter to decades of Supreme Courtauthorityandcommonlyheldsocietalbeliefs. AlthoughbothBriefs- in-Chief imply that this principle is somehow new, ushered in by Roper v.Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010); in fact the Supreme Court has long recognized the relevance of age and background in sentencing matters.

Rather than create any new standard, the more recent cases simply expanded on the older ones, re-defining the parameters for sentencing juvenile offenders as adults. Roper increased the threshold age for the imposition of the death penalty from 16 to 18 years for homicide, while Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) abolished the death penalty altogether for non-homicide crimes. Miller determined that, in a homicide case, an individualized sentencing hearing is required before the imposition of any life sentence without parole; and finally, Graham established a categorical ban against a life sentence without parole for a single, non- homicide offense. All these opinions reflect a continuing judicial commitment, whenever possible, to the rehabilitative goal embedded in our juvenile system, but the cases require only the recognition that juveniles are generally less culpable than adults and more capable of change. The State, Petitioner and Amicus have spent a great deal of time analyzing what these cases held, but it bears discussing now what these cases did not hold.

Miller did not hold that a life sentence without parole for a homicide is unconstitutional. Graham did not hold that a non-homicide offender must be released within his lifetime. Mostly importantly, Graham did not prohibit the imposition of an aggregated sentence for multiple, non- homicide crimes. The Miller opinion did note that "given all we have said in Roper, Graham, and this decision about children's diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to th[ese] harshest possible penalt[ies] will be uncommon." Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2469. However, all of these decisions left open the possibility that some juvenile offenders, if incapable of change, should and might spend the greater part of their lives behind bars. Petitioner is such an offender.

Amicus, however, assumes that Graham_ applies to an aggregated punishment for multiple crimes and, inextricably intertwined with that proposition, argues that a lengthy aggregated sentence, although comprised of consecutively imposed legal sentences, nonetheless constitutes a de facto life sentence without parole. Then she argues that such a de facto sentence does not afford Petitioner a meaningful opportunity for parole and thus violates the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

None of these assertions, however, is accurate. The State submits that Graham does not apply to aggregated sentences at all, such that nothing requires this Court to provide any opportunity for parole; although Petitioner does, in fact, have the ability to seek release after 45 years. Additionally, even if this Court chooses to apply Graham to aggregated sentences, the Supreme Court has never defined the phrase "meaningful opportunity" for parole. This Court remains free, should it wish, to affirm Petitioner's sentence as constitutional, despite all the briefs' unsupported generalizations and the claim that new developments in science warrant reconsideration of Petitioner's sentences.

Summary of Argument

The State acknowledges that children are generally less culpable than adults and possess a greater capacity for change, a principle established through decades of Supreme Court precedent and societal beliefs. While the recent cases of Roper v. Simmons, Miller v. Alabama, and Graham v. Florida have expanded upon this principle, they have not established any new standard. These cases have simply redefined the parameters for sentencing juvenile offenders as adults. For example, Roper raised the minimum age for the death penalty from 16 to 18 years for homicide offenses, while Kennedy v. Louisiana abolished the death penalty for non-homicide crimes.

Miller determined that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender in a homicide case requires an individualized sentencing hearing. Graham established a categorical ban against life sentences without parole for single, non-homicide offenses. However, these decisions did not prohibit the imposition of life sentences without parole for juveniles who are deemed incapable of rehabilitation.

The State contends that the Amicus Brief misinterprets the implications of Graham, specifically its application to aggregated sentences. The Brief assumes that Graham applies to multiple offenses, leading to the assertion that an aggregated sentence, even if composed of consecutively imposed legal sentences, constitutes a de facto life sentence without parole. This argument further claims that such a sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by denying the offender a meaningful opportunity for parole.

The State refutes these claims, asserting that Graham does not apply to aggregated sentences. Therefore, the court is not obligated to provide any opportunity for parole, even though the Petitioner in this case has the possibility of seeking release after 45 years. Moreover, the State argues that even if Graham is applied to aggregated sentences, the Supreme Court has not defined the term "meaningful opportunity" for parole. The Court is free to affirm the Petitioner's sentence as constitutional despite the Amicus Brief's unsupported generalizations and claims about scientific advancements warranting a reconsideration of the sentence.

Summary of Argument

The State does not refute the Amicus Brief's claim that, generally, children are less deserving of severe punishments. This assertion aligns with long-standing Supreme Court precedent and societal beliefs. Although both briefs suggest this principle is novel, rooted in cases like Roper v. Simmons, Miller v. Alabama, and Graham v. Florida, the Court has long considered age and background in sentencing.

These recent cases haven't created new standards but instead have expanded upon existing ones, clarifying sentencing parameters for juvenile offenders as adults. Roper raised the minimum age for capital punishment from 16 to 18 for homicide cases, while Kennedy v. Louisiana abolished the death penalty for non-homicide crimes. Miller mandated individualized sentencing hearings for life without parole sentences for homicide, and Graham categorically prohibited such sentences for single non-homicide offenses.

These decisions reflect a judicial commitment to rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system, acknowledging that juveniles are generally less culpable and more capable of change than adults. The briefs extensively analyze the implications of these cases, but it's crucial to understand their limitations.

Miller did not declare life sentences without parole for homicide unconstitutional, nor did Graham mandate release for non-homicide offenders within their lifetimes. Notably, Graham did not prohibit aggregated sentences for multiple non-homicide crimes. While Miller suggested that harsh penalties for juveniles would be uncommon, all decisions left open the possibility of lifelong incarceration for certain juvenile offenders incapable of rehabilitation. The Petitioner in this case is such an offender.

The Amicus Brief wrongly assumes Graham applies to aggregated punishments and that lengthy aggregated sentences, even when imposed legally, constitute de facto life sentences without parole. It argues that such sentences deny meaningful parole opportunities, violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

These assertions are inaccurate. The State maintains that Graham does not apply to aggregated sentences, requiring no parole opportunities. Furthermore, even if Graham were to apply, the Supreme Court has not defined "meaningful opportunity" for parole. The Court is free to uphold the Petitioner's sentence as constitutional, disregarding the briefs' unsupported claims and scientific developments cited for reconsideration.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that children are less culpable than adults and more capable of change, and thus, less deserving of harsh punishments. This principle, however, does not mean that juveniles should always receive lenient sentences. The recent Supreme Court rulings in Roper v. Simmons, Miller v. Alabama, and Graham v. Florida did not create a new standard but rather expanded on existing ones.

These cases clarified the limits of sentencing juveniles as adults. For example, Roper raised the minimum age for the death penalty from 16 to 18 years for homicide offenses, while Miller required an individualized sentencing hearing before a life sentence without parole could be imposed for a homicide. Graham prohibited life sentences without parole for a single non-homicide offense. However, these decisions still allowed for the possibility that some juvenile offenders, who are incapable of change, may require lengthy prison sentences.

The Amicus Brief argues that Graham applies to aggregated sentences, implying that a lengthy aggregated sentence, even if comprised of consecutive legal sentences, constitutes a de facto life sentence without parole. This, according to the Amicus, violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it does not offer a meaningful opportunity for parole.

However, the State contends that Graham does not apply to aggregated sentences. Additionally, the Supreme Court has never established a definition for "meaningful opportunity" for parole. The State argues that the Petitioner's sentence is constitutional, despite the Amicus's claims, as it offers the opportunity for release after 45 years.

Summary of Argument

The State agrees that children should not be punished as harshly as adults. However, the State says this idea isn’t new. The Supreme Court has always recognized that children are different from adults and should be treated differently.

The Supreme Court has made some changes in recent years to how young people are sentenced, but it hasn’t said that all children should be let out of prison. The Court has decided that some young people who commit serious crimes, like murder, should be punished with very long sentences, even for their whole lives.

The State says that the Supreme Court’s decisions do not apply to sentences that are given for multiple crimes. This means that the Court does not have to give people a chance to get out of prison after a certain amount of time. Even though the person asking for a new sentence says that the State must give a chance for parole, there is no law that says this has to happen.