Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
White Matter Integrity, Substance Use, and Risk Taking in Adolescence
Brain imaging studies show that during adolescence, brain white matter develops, improving connections. This development is linked to better cognitive control and can influence risk-taking behaviors.
Aligning Justice System Processing with Developmental Science
Scientific evidence suggests that key aspects of maturity develop until the early twenties. The article argues that legal systems should extend diminished responsibility to ages 21–24 and implement rehabilitative programs for young adults.
Considerations for Imaging the Adolescent Brain
Adolescence involves significant neurobiological changes, impacting risk-taking and social behaviors. Brain regions for self-control mature slower than those for emotion, and peer influence also affects brain function.
Development of the Social Brain in Adolescence
Humans develop "theory of mind" to understand others' thoughts and feelings. Brain imaging shows a specific network of regions, including the mPFC, is key for this ability.
Risk Taking and the Adolescent Reward System: a Potential Common Link to Substance Abuse
The article finds that adolescents who take more risks show less brain activity in areas related to reward. This suggests a common brain basis for risk-taking and addiction, possibly before substance abuse begins.
Paula E v. State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services
The Alaska Supreme Court found that OCS did not follow proper procedures regarding notice of hearings and visitation rights for a mother whose four children were removed due to substance abuse.
Romero v. State
The court upheld a life sentence for second-degree murder, ruling that a prior decision limiting life without parole for juveniles applies only to non-homicide offenses.
Conley v. State
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a life without parole sentence for a 17-year-old murderer. The court found the victim's young age outweighed the defendant's age and mental health.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center on Behalf of Appellant
This brief argues that Nebraska's mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. It claims the law fails to consider a juvenile's culpability or provide parole for those not directly involved in a killing.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al. in Support of Appellees and Urging Affirmance
This brief argues that routine, suspicionless strip searches of juveniles for minor offenses are unconstitutional. It claims these searches violate Fourth Amendment rights and do not meet "special needs" criteria.
Brief on Behalf of Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that the lower court's sentence for a juvenile violates Supreme Court precedent by not considering the individual's culpability and denying a meaningful chance for release.
Brief of Jeffrey Fagan, Deborah Baskin, Frank R. Baumgartner, Katherine Beckett, Donna Bishop, Alfred Blumstein, and Robert Brame et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that the "juvenile superpredator" concept, which led to harsh sentencing for youth, was a myth. It contends that life without parole sentences for juveniles lack an empirical basis and do not deter crime.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that sentencing juveniles to life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment. It contends that juveniles are less culpable than adults and capable of rehabilitation, making such sentences disproportionate.
Supplemental Brief for Amicus Curiae the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association in Support of Appellee the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Miller v. Alabama only bars mandatory life without parole for juveniles and does not negate first-degree murder convictions. It requires a new sentencing hearing to consider youth, but a maximum life term remains valid.
Brief of NAACP et al. in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that sentencing a 14-year-old to life without parole is unconstitutional, citing cruel and unusual punishment. It states that racial bias improperly influences such sentences for children.