Amici argued that mandatory sentencing that imposes harsh adult consequences on juvenile offenders without any individualized consideration of age or other mitigating circumstances contravenes the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Along with the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Juvenile Law Center filed a brief in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania arguing that imposing an additional six years on a juvenile lifer at resentencing is excessive where the court found credible evidence that established that the juvenile had been rehabilitated. We further argued that it is unconstitutional to impose a mandatory lifetime parole tail on all juvenile lifers being resentenced.
The amicus brief argued that Miller and Montgomery establish a presumption against imposing life without parole sentences on juveniles and requires a finding that the juvenile is permanently incorrigible and incapable of reform.
Our brief argued that discriminating against prospective foster parents on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity harms children and diminishes their ability to achieve permanency.
Juvenile Law Center’s brief supports Mr. Timbs' position that the U.S. Constitution’s protection against excessive fines applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government. Our brief seeks to educate the Court about how exorbitant fines and fees in the juvenile justice system affect young people.
Our brief urged the court to grant review to address the constitutionality of Ohio's felony murder statute as applied to juveniles because it prescribes a mandatory 15 years to life sentence without consideration of youth.
The brief argued that greater procedural protections—including the right to counsel—are required during parole hearings to ensure that juveniles serving life sentences are given a meaningful opportunity to obtain release as required by Graham.
Our brief argues that overruling Parsons and decertifying the class in B.K. would have a serious, adverse effect on class action impact litigation, and that it would have an especially negative impact on access to the courts and appropriate relief for system-involved children who are subjected to constitutional wrongs.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.
