Our brief urged the court to grant review in order to enforce its precedent recognizing the reduced culpability and heightened Eighth Amendment protections for youth, and declare a categorical bar on all life without parole sentences for juveniles. We argued that juvenile life without parole sentences are imposed in racially discriminatory ways that disproportionately punish Black boys.
Karen Howell was convicted under the felony murder doctrine in Tennessee for her involvement with another juvenile and four adult co-defendants in the murder of
D.Z., a public school student, was questioned as part of an investigation jointly undertaken by the school’s assistant principal and a police officer stationed at
We argued that juvenile adjudications are insufficient "to alone sustain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an element of [an adult felony]" because it contradicts the rehabilitative purpose of Ohio's juvenile justice system.
We argued that parole availability does not remedy a sentencing court's failure to give mitigating effect to the youth-related factors set forth in Miller.
We argued that Miller and Montgomery establish a presumption against life without parole, which requires a determination that a juvenile has no potential for rehabilitation prior to imposing a life without parole sentence.
We argued that Maryland's parole system is an unconstitutional ad hoc executive clemency system which fails to provide a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release" to youth sentenced to life or life equivalent terms.
We argued that research in adolescent development and neuroscience confirm that life without parole sentences categorically are unconstitutional when applied to children.
We argued that mandatory life sentences imposed on children are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Such sentences are incompatible with the penological goals of deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.