Life without Parole is Inappropriate for Juveniles

In what ways are juveniles Culpable?

In Miller v. Alabama, the US Supreme Court ruled on June 25, 2012 that mandatory life-

without-parole sentences for children seventeen years or younger convicted of homicide is

unconstitutional. Although Miller v. Alabama 2012 did not entirely ban juvenile life without

parole, children have a high capacity for change and rehabilitation; thus, their culpability tend to

be diminished when sentencing is court’s decision is exercised in a thoughtful manner. Children

are biologically distinct from adults and less responsible for their wrongdoing. It is important

that courts provide juveniles a meaningful opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and become

appropriate candidates for release. Simmons and Graham v. Florida concluded that children are

also constitutionally distinct from adults when it comes to punishment. The courts contended that

children are immature, underdeveloped, irresponsible, reckless, and are susceptible to heedless

risk-taking. Roper v. Simmons opined children’s vulnerability to peer pressures and other

negative influences from their families, peers, and their own environment. Children are incapable

of extricating themselves from horrific and crime-producing circumstances.

Is it possible for youths to be irreparably corrupt?

According to Hoesterey (2017), sentencing courts must determine that a youth is

irreparably corrupt before imposing a life sentence without parole. In other words, juveniles

whose crimes upon consideration reflects irreparable corruption can be constitutionally

sentenced to life without parole. Children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity have high

chances for conformity and rehabilitation. Moreover, Miller and Montgomery clarified that

irreparable youths are rare defendants possessing characteristics that are unique and uncommon
in children (Hoesterey, 2017). Irreparability could be based on frequency of offending and the

magnitude of insanity. Overall, these court decisions assumed that juveniles are less culpable

than adults.

What developmental evidence should be taken into consideration?

Many researchers contend that the brains of juveniles are not fully developed as those of

adults. For instance, developmental research suggests that brain development is not complete

until at least 25 years (National Conference of State Legislatures, n.d). Researchers also agree on

diminished decision-making in adolescents. Moreover, adolescents generally have poor risk

assessment skills and tend to be less risk-adverse than adults.

 References

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-9646 (Accessed October 3, 2021).

National Conference of State Legislatures. Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislators:

Adolescent Development & Competency. Retrieved from

https://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/jjguidebook-adolescent.pdf (Accessed October 3,

2021).