Juvenile Law Center’s brief argues that the mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole imposed on a 16-year-old is a disproportionate punishment under the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions.
Argued that a juvenile’s 75-year sentence for a crime in which the victims suffered no serious injury is disproportionate and violates state, federal and international law.
Argued that the use of delinquency adjudications to enhance an adult criminal sentence violates US Supreme Court precedent as well as California's commitment to maintaining a separate juvenile justice system.
Juvenile Law Center argued that juvenile court should retain discretion to spare children from permanent stigma associated with lifetime sex offender registration.
Supporting a juvenile defendant in Illinois who challenged the representation he received in court, when his defense lawyer sacrificed his defense believing that it was in the child’s "best interests."
Argued that Petitioner Bunch's sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida, which held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole without a meaningful and realistic opportunity to re-enter society prior to the expiration of their sentences for non-homicide offenses.
Argued that imposing strict liability on a 12-year-old violates the US and Ohio Constitutions' guarantees of fundamental fairness, provides for highly disproportionate penalties and collateral consequences and creates a risk of prosecution based on personal views or biases.
Argued that a sentence of 110 years to life (three consecutive life-terms) for a non-homicide offense committed as a juvenile violates the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Florida.
Follow: