Our brief argued that courts must consider emerging research on youth brain development during sentencing, and Washington’s “Three Strikes” law should incorporate the Eighth Amendment’s requirement for individualized sentencing because the characteristics of youth relied upon in Roper and its progeny are still developing in older adolescents and young adults.
We urged the court to grant review, arguing that Steve’s youth, learning disabilities, and intoxication at the time of the interrogation made it impossible for him to have the capacity to waive his rights.
Juvenile Law Center and Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society, along with pro bono counsel Ballard Spahr LLP, filed an amicus brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of J.M.G. Our brief argued that effective psychiatric treatment requires absolute confidentiality and disclosing privileged communications between a psychiatrist and patient is never harmless error.
We argued that given youths’ general inability to pay bail, the risk of coerced guilty pleas, and the heightened danger of pretrial detention for youth, youth should receive a presumption of indigence to secure pretrial release.
Our brief urged the court to grant review and argued that “sophistication and maturity” is a term of art that requires interpretation according to the vast adolescent development science and research.
Our brief argued that J.L.’s removal violated Pennsylvania statute which requires that removal of a child only be used as a last resort and when clearly necessary to protect the child or the community. Our brief further outlined the ineffectiveness and long-lasting harms of residential placements on children. Finally, we highlighted research demonstrating that community-based services are effective in addressing truancy while preventing the harms of removal and placement.
Our brief challenged the constitutionality of Mr. Helm’s lengthy sentence, arguing that the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama requires sentencing courts provide system involved youth with a second chance to participate and engage with family and community, and individualized sentencing that takes account of the youth’s distinctive and hallmark developmental attributes.
Our brief focused specifically on the young adult population—18 to 25 year olds—who make up over one third of Pennsylvania’s current death row population and whose developmental traits of immature decision-making, impetuosity, susceptibility to negative peer influences, and greater capacity for rehabilitation further underscore the overall arbitrary and disproportionate nature of Pennsylvania’s death penalty.
Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued that a 65-year sentence does not provide a meaningful opportunity for release based upon demonstrated rehabilitation and maturity as required by United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. We further argued that young offenders’ distinct capacity for rehabilitation forecloses de facto life sentences and that age and the possibility of fulfillment outside prison walls, not life expectancy, determine whether a sentence provides a meaningful opportunity for release.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.
