Juveniles Don’t Deserve Sentencesdocshare01.docshare.tips/files/22965/229657555.pdf · Don't put...
Transcript of Juveniles Don’t Deserve Sentencesdocshare01.docshare.tips/files/22965/229657555.pdf · Don't put...
Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences
Gail Garinger Boston March 14, 2012
IN the late 1980s, a small but influential group of criminologists predicted a coming wave of violent ju‐
venile crime: “super‐predators,” as young as 11, committing crimes in “wolf packs.” Politicians soon re‐
sponded to those fears, and to concerns about the perceived inadequacies of state juvenile justice sys‐
tems, by lowering the age at which children could be transferred to adult courts. The concern was that
offenders prosecuted as juveniles would have to be released at age 18 or 21.
At the same time, “tough on crime” rhetoric led some states to enact laws making it easier to impose life
without parole sentences on adults. The unintended consequence of these laws was that children as
young as 13 and 14 who were charged as adults became subject to life without parole sentences.
Nationwide, 79 young adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison — a sentence not imposed on
children anywhere else in the world. These children were told that they could never change and that no
one cared what became of them. They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and
left without help or hope.
But the prediction of a generation of super‐predators never came to pass. Beginning in the mid‐1990s,
violent juvenile crime declined, and it has continued to decline through the present day. The laws that
were passed to deal with them, however, continue to exist. This month, the United States Supreme
Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, which will decide
whether children can be sentenced to life without parole after being convicted of homicide.
The court has already struck down the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young of‐
fenders convicted in non‐homicide cases. The rationale for these earlier decisions is simple and equally
applicable to the cases to be heard: Young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imaging
studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain responsible for controlling thoughts, actions and
emotions are not fully developed. They cannot be held to the same standards when they commit terri‐
ble wrongs.
Homicide is the worst crime, but in striking down the juvenile death penalty in 2005, the Supreme Court
recognized that even in the most serious murder cases, “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be
classified among the worst offenders”: they are less mature, more vulnerable to peer pressure, cannot
escape from dangerous environments, and their characters are still in formation. And because they re‐
main unformed, it is impossible to assume that they will always present an unacceptable risk to public
safety.
The most disturbing part of the super‐predator myth is that it presupposed that certain children were
hopelessly defective, perhaps genetically so. Today, few believe that criminal genes are inherited, except
in the sense that parental abuse and negative home lives can leave children with little hope and limited
choices.
As a former juvenile court judge, I have seen firsthand the enormous capacity of children to change and
turn themselves around. The same malleability that makes them vulnerable to peer pressure also makes
them promising candidates for rehabilitation.
An overwhelming majority of young offenders grow out of crime. But it is impossible at the time of sen‐
tencing for mental health professionals to predict which youngsters will fall within that majority and
grow up to be productive, law‐abiding citizens and which will fall into the small minority that continue to
commit crimes. For this reason, the court has previously recognized that children should not be con‐
demned to die in prison without being given a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”
The criminologists who promoted the super‐predator theory have acknowledged that their prediction
never came to pass, repudiated the theory and expressed regret. They have joined several dozen other
criminologists in an amicus brief to the court asking it to strike down life without parole sentences for
children convicted of murder. I urge the justices to apply the logic and the wisdom of their earlier deci‐
sions and affirm that the best time to decide whether someone should spend his entire life in prison is
when he has grown to be an adult, not when he is still a child.
Gail Garinger, a juvenile court judge in Massachusetts from 1995 to 2008, is the state’s child advocate, appointed by the governor.
Giving jailed juveniles a second chance at life
By Marian Wright Edelman Published: March 15
Edwin Desamour was driving with his 3‐year‐old son in their Philadelphia neighborhood recently when
the little boy looked up and said, “Daddy, look at the moon! I want to go there!” So this father did what
many parents would: He bought his son books on science and space voyages and encouraged him to
believe that his dreams can come true.
Edwin’s son has been blessed with a vastly different childhood than Edwin had. Edwin grew up poor in a
violent neighborhood in Philadelphia, surrounded by drugs, guns and crime. At age 16 he was convicted
of a homicide. The time he spent with his father as a teenager came when they were assigned to the
same cellblock in prison.
Edwin was caught up in dangerous surroundings he didn’t choose, and his violent actions as an adoles‐
cent resulted in terrible loss. But he matured in prison and became determined to earn parole so he
could return to his old neighborhood and make a difference in the lives of other young men. In 2007
Edwin founded Men in Motion in the Community, an organization that provides positive role models for
at‐risk youths. It teaches them that there are consequences to their actions, and it helps youths avoid
violence.
Edwin was lucky. He had an opportunity to demonstrate that he had changed and to earn release from
prison on parole. But other youths who committed similar crimes have been sentenced to die in prison
— including 79 who were only 13 or 14 years old when arrested, almost 70 percent of whom are chil‐
dren of color. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument about whether young people should
have the chance to prove that they have changed the way Edwin did and earn eventual release from
prison. In the cases of Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller, both of whom were 14 when they were arrest‐
ed, the court will decide whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to sentence children to life impris‐
onment without the possibility of parole.
The court has an important opportunity to affirm what it has already recognized in declaring the death
penalty for juveniles unconstitutional (Roper v. Simmons) and in invalidating the life‐without‐parole
sentence for non‐homicide crimes committed by juveniles (Graham v. Florida): Sentencing a young per‐
son to life without the possibility of parole is the same thing as sentencing that young person to die in
prison — and such a sentence is too harsh for juveniles, whose brains are not fully formed until well past
adolescence and who lack the maturity and impulse control of adults.
“When I work with kids, I see it all the time,” Edwin says. “They talk about the revenge that they hope
would prove their manhood, or a violent act that they hope will make them safe. When I ask them,
‘What happens after that?’ they’re dumbfounded. They can’t think past the immediate impulse and
process consequences.” Scientists confirm what parents already know: Teenage brains are biologically
different from adult brains and lack the ability to exercise mature judgment, especially when young
people find themselves in violent and stressful environments.
Five years ago, the Children’s Defense Fund launched the Cradle to Prison Pipeline Campaign to focus
attention on the national crisis that leaves a black boy born in 2001 with a one‐in‐three chance of going
to prison in his lifetime and a Latino boy a one‐in‐six risk of the same fate. The pipeline is fueled by racial
disparities, pervasive poverty, trauma, inadequate physical and mental health care, gaps in early child‐
hood development, disparate educational opportunities, chronic abuse and neglect, and overburdened
and ineffective juvenile justice systems. Edwin Desamour faced these overwhelming odds, but he was
able to earn a second chance to escape the pipeline. Other children have never been given that chance.
All children are God’s children. But too many children, especially those of color, find themselves in dan‐
gerous circumstances they can neither escape nor successfully navigate. Sentencing children to die in
prison is an expression of hopelessness. The Supreme Court should recognize what Edwin’s story so
powerfully demonstrates: These young people have a great capacity for change and growth, and it is
excessive and unfair to make a final judgment that children who commit even the most serious crimes
must be forever confined to prison, with no hope of demonstrating reform or achieving release. Science
tells us that children’s brains will change and mature. Our hearts tell us all children deserve the chance
to grow up and give back.
Don't put juveniles in jail for life
By Laurence Steinberg, Special to CNN updated 10:21 AM EDT, Mon March 19, 2012
(CNN) ‐‐ There are more than 2,500 people serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for
crimes they committed when they were juveniles. Some were as young as 13 when they were sent to
prison.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that life without parole for juveniles convicted of crimes other
than homicide violated the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, a ruling
that extended the court's logic in its 2005 decision to abolish the juvenile death penalty. In both of these
cases, the court held that because adolescents are not as responsible for their actions as adults, they
should not be punished as harshly, even for the same crimes.
The court relied in part on the research my colleagues and I conducted for the MacArthur Foundation
Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice showing that adolescents are less
mature than adults in ways that make them more impulsive, more short‐sighted and more susceptible
to peer influence, all factors that make them less culpable.
On Tuesday, the court will hear appeals of two cases that ask whether life without parole is an appro‐
priate sentence for juveniles convicted of homicide. Both cases involve people who were 14 at the time
of their offense, but their crimes were very different. Kuntrell Jackson was part of a group of boys who
shot a store clerk during a robbery of a video store in Arkansas; although Jackson did not do the shoot‐
ing, he was found guilty of "felony murder," because he was part of the group that committed a felony
during which someone was killed.
The other plaintiff, Evan Miller, carried out a brutal murder of a neighbor in Alabama whom he and an‐
other teenager robbed, beating the victim to death and later returning to the crime scene and setting
the victim's trailer on fire to cover up the crime.
The contrast between the crimes, as well as the youthfulness of the juveniles in question, creates many
possible alternatives for the justices to contemplate. The court could extend the logic of its previous de‐
cisions and ban life without parole for juveniles unequivocally, on the grounds that even the most hei‐
nous crime doesn't magically turn a 14‐year‐old into an adult.
On the other hand, the court could decide that "death is different" and rule that life in prison is an ap‐
propriate punishment for someone who has committed murder, regardless of his age. In between these
two extremes are numerous middle grounds.
They include banning life without parole for juveniles convicted of felony murder but not other types of
murder; banning life without parole for youths 14 and younger, but leaving undecided the constitution‐
ality of this sentence for older teens; permitting life without parole for juveniles as an option but pro‐
hibiting it as a mandatory sentence, as it now is in about two‐thirds of states that permit it; and various
combinations of these alternatives.
Opinion: Why are millions of Americans locked up?
The argument in favor of life without parole for people convicted of murder is that the sentence is nec‐
essary to deter crime, protect public safety and remove from society those who are thought to be incor‐
rigible.
It is hard to see how this logic applies to Kuntrell Jackson, who had no history of violent crime, who was
serving as a lookout during the robbery, and who did not personally murder anyone. A 14‐year‐old boy
in the presence of his peers will often do foolish and dangerous things, and the sort of behavior Jackson
exhibited is far more likely to be indicative of transient adolescent immaturity than deep‐seated deprav‐
ity.
It is harder to generate sympathy for Evan Miller, given the heinousness of his crime, but there are ways
to punish him and protect the public without precluding the possibility of his rehabilitation.
There is no scientific evidence that sentencing juveniles to long prison sentences deters other adoles‐
cents from committing crimes, because the same immaturity that leads teenagers to do impulsive and
reckless things makes them unlikely to think far enough ahead to be deterred by the prospect of a seri‐
ous punishment.
More importantly, we are simply not good enough at predicting the behavior of a 14‐year‐old, even one
who has committed a grisly, violent offense, to say with any certainty that he is beyond redemption.
Rather than commit now to spending millions of dollars keeping Miller locked up for life, a parole board
can evaluate Miller after he has matured into adulthood and decide whether and when it is appropriate
to return him to the community.
Ending life without parole for all juvenile offenders is the sensible thing to do.
Laurence Steinberg is a professor of psychology at Temple University and former director of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. He is the author of "You and Your Adolescent: The Essential Guide for Ages 10 to 25."
States News Service Copyright 2012 States News Service
March 20, 2012 JUVENILE LIFE SENTENCES: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR TEENAGE MURDERERS WASHINGTON The following information was released by the Heritage Foundation: By Charles Stimson and Elizabeth Garvey
On Tuesday, March 20, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in two cases involving the constitution‐
ality of sentences of life without parole (LWOP) for teenage murderers. The real issue before the Court is
this: Will the Court again "find" or "invent" a heretofore undiscovered constitutional prohibition and
thus strike an entire category of sentences for the most violent teenagers, or will it defer to the carefully
considered judgment of the vast majority of the states (39) and federal government that have decided
to authorize the sentence in appropriate cases?
The Two Cases
In the first case (Miller v. Alabama), Evan Miller was 14 years old when he robbed and repeatedly beat
an intoxicated neighbor with a baseball bat then set the man's trailer on fire and left him to die. The ju‐
venile court, under state law, transferred Miller to adult court based on the nature of the crime, his pre‐
vious delinquency history, and the fact that he was deemed competent to stand trial. Miller was found
guilty of capital murder. Since he was 14 at the time of the crime, Miller was not eligible for capital pun‐
ishment but rather Alabama's mandatory minimum sentence of LWOP.
In the second case (Jackson v. Hobbs), Kuntrell Jackson was also 14 when he and two other teenagers
attempted to rob a video store. Jackson knew one of his accomplices had a sawed‐off shotgun and
threatened the female store clerk before one of the other teenagers shot her in the face and killed her.
Jackson was tried in adult court, where he was found guilty of capital murder and aggravated robbery
and sentenced to LWOP under Arkansas state law.
An "Evolving Standard of Decency"
In petitioning the Supreme Court, both Miller and Jackson argue that their LWOP sentences amount to
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These cases present the High
Court with yet another opportunity to chip away at the states' framework for dealing with violent teen‐
agers such as Miller and Jackson.[1]
In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court found the death penalty for teenage murderers unconstitutional
because those sentences supposedly violated the "cruel and unusual punishment" standard of the
Eighth Amendment. Five years later, in Graham v. Florida (2010), the Court banned the use of LWOP
sentences for teenagers who committed violent crimes other than murder, citing the same reason.
Over time, the Court has grafted onto "cruel and unusual punishment" a requirement that punishments
reflect the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." And the Court
has granted to itself the sole duty of deciding those "evolving standards of decency" rather than defer‐
ring to society itself, as reflected through elected, accountable representatives of (in this case) 39 states
and the U.S. Congress. Advocates for the murderers are hoping that the Court applies the "evolving
standards of decency" and finds LWOP sentences for teenage murderers unconstitutional. The states of
Alabama and Arkansas, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), and victim's rights organiza‐
tions are hoping that the Court draws a line for common sense and defers to the considered wisdom and
constitutional authority of the states to fashion appropriate sentences for the worst of the worst.
A National Consensus
The vast majority of juveniles who commit crimes are tried in the juvenile justice system. Every state has
a separate juvenile justice system to deal with juvenile crimes. Those systems exist because American
society believes that most teen criminals can be rehabilitated‐or at least should be given the opportuni‐
ty to try to reform their ways. That is smart public policy. Thus, there is a national consensus that most
juveniles belong in the juvenile justice system.
But there is another national consensus: that a small percentage of the worst teen offenders‐a small
percentage of teen murderers‐should be waived and/or tried in adult court. And a small percentage of
those who are convicted of the worst crimes should be eligible for LWOP.
In general, the Supreme Court looks for trends or a national consensus to determine the progress of
American society as it matures. There are strong figures to support the use and constitutionality of
LWOP sentences. Currently, 39 jurisdictions allow teenagers 14 years and older to receive LWOP sen‐
tences for aggravated murder, and 26 states and the federal government make LWOP the mandatory
minimum sentence when a 14‐year‐old defendant is tried in adult court and convicted of aggravated
murder. But LWOP is reserved for the most serious offenders.
As Jackson admits in his brief to the Supreme Court, approximately 79 individuals who committed of‐
fenses at age 13 or 14 have been sentenced to LWOP since the imposition of the first LWOP sentence in
1971.
The fact that some 79 teenagers have been deemed deserving of LWOP in over 40 years is significant; it
indicates that the criminal justice system has worked effectively, ensuring that only those teenagers
who commit the most heinous aggravated murders receive LWOP sentences. A number of checks within
the system have made this possible, from the discretion of juvenile courts to transfer teenagers to adult
court or keep them in the juvenile system to prosecutors' selection of which charges appropriately cor‐
respond with the gravity of the crime. Advocates for Miller and Jackson have no meaningful rebuttal to
these facts.
Additionally, they argue that there is a "consensus" within the scientific community that teenagers (or
"children" as they call them) are "unfinished products" with limited foresight and are generally less cul‐
pable for their actions. In other words, they are not mature enough to make rational and intelligent de‐
cisions and thus should not be subjected to the sentence of LWOP when tried as adults.
But as the NDAA argues in its amicus brief, constitutional prohibitions should not be based on social
science. Whether or not LWOP sentences are appropriate should be left to the state legislatures to de‐
termine, since they are accountable to their electorates.
Murder Is Murder
In Graham v. Florida, the Court noted that there is a difference between homicides and non‐homicides
and thus struck down the sentence of LWOP for teenagers who committed violent non‐homicides.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said:
The Court has recognized that defendants who do not kill, intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken
are categorically less deserving of the most serious forms of punishment than are murderers." There is a
line between homicide and other serious violent offenses against the individual." Serious nonhomicide
crimes"in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public"cannot be com‐
pared to murder in their severity and irrevocability." Although an offense like robbery or rape is a seri‐
ous crime deserving serious punishment, those crimes differ from homicide crimes in a moral sense.[2]
Thus, the Court has previously drawn a line between crimes that result in death and all others. The Court
should preserve this distinction and rule in favor of Alabama, Arkansas, and the 37 other states that
currently allow the use of LWOP sentences for teenagers convicted of aggravated murder. As the num‐
bers demonstrate, there is a national consensus that LWOP sentences are appropriate for certain homi‐
cides.
Ultimately, though, such policy considerations are better left to state legislators, who are accountable
representatives to their constituents, rather than the justices, who should be determining the require‐
ments of law and not bending the Constitution to comport with their policy preferences.
Charles Stimson is a Senior Legal Fellow and Elizabeth Garvey is a Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Montgomery Advertiser (AL) Copyright 2012 Gannett
March 20, 2012
Court to weigh life term for juveniles convicted of murder Evan Miller of Alabama was 14 when he and an accomplice robbed a neighbor, bludgeoned him with a baseball bat and burned his trailer. A Lawrence County jury convicted him of murder for killing Cole Cannon, 52. Miller received the man‐datory sentence under state law — life in prison without parole. The Miller case and a similar case out of Arkansas will be debated before the Supreme Court today. The court will decide later whether sentencing juveniles as young as 14 to life without parole for murder vi‐olates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment barring "cruel and unusual punishments." Earlier Supreme Court decisions have barred the death penalty for juveniles. Justices also have ruled that juveniles can't be sentenced to life in prison for crimes in which no one was killed. In the Arkansas case, Kuntrell Jackson was 14 when he took part in a 1999 video‐store robbery in which the clerk was shot and killed by someone else. He and Miller turned to the Supreme Court after ex‐hausting their appeals at the state level. Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery will represent Miller and Jackson in to‐day's oral arguments. Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman Jr. and Arkansas Assistant Attorney Gen‐eral Kent Holt will argue the states' case. The Alabama attorney general's office says prosecutors seek life without parole for adolescents — as many state legislatures require them to — only when those youths commit particularly brutal crimes. Earlier Supreme Court rulings were based on a "national consensus and widely shared moral principles" that sentencing juveniles to death or life in prison when no one was killed during the crime is excessive, the state said in court papers. "This case presents no similar consensus and no compelling argument that these punishments are con‐trary to prevailing values," Alabama officials said. "These sentences are a reasonable solution to a diffi‐cult problem, and the values underlying the Constitution should allow them to stand." Stevenson, Randall Susskind and Alicia D'Addario, all with the Equal Justice Initiative, argued in court papers that juveniles convicted of murder deserve the chance to eventually leave prison because their brains and moral awareness weren't fully developed when they committed their crimes. They noted that previous Supreme Court rulings have said "youth and its attendant features have a crit‐ical role to play in determining an adolescent's culpability." "To wholly disregard a 14‐year‐old offender's age and age‐related characteristics in sentencing him to be imprisoned for the remainder of his existence makes a mockery of this fundamental precept," they wrote. Adolescents are impulsive risk‐takers whose crimes are rooted in the circumstances in which they're
raised, the attorneys wrote. For instance, Miller was physically abused by his father, raised in extreme poverty and tried to kill him‐self at age 5, they wrote. At the time he killed Cannon, he had been drinking and was high on marijuana. The American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association, Amnesty International and other groups have filed legal briefs supporting Miller and Jackson.
Twenty states, the territory of Guam and the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers have written the court supporting the states.
mcall.com
Supreme Court questions whether young killers should get a chance for parole MARK SHERMAN Associated Press 3:58 PM EDT, March 20, 2012WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether
young teenagers convicted of killing someone may be locked up for life with no chance of parole, the
latest in a line of cases seeking a second chance for young people. The justices are looking at two cases
involving teenagers serving life sentences. In one, 14‐year‐old Evan Miller in Alabama beat a man, then
set fire to his home. In the other, 14‐year‐old Kuntrell Jackson in Arkansas didn't pull the trigger, but was
in on an attempted robbery in which another boy shot and killed a store clerk. Justice Anthony Kennedy
wrote earlier opinions ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole sentences for
young people whose crimes did not involve killing. He seemed again to be the pivotal justice in Tues‐
day's arguments. Roughly 2,300 people are behind bars for life with no chance of winning their freedom
for crimes they committed before their 18 birthday. Only 79, however, are in prison for crimes that took
place when they were 14 or younger. Kennedy was one of several justices who appeared to be troubled
by the lack of flexibility in sentencing young killers. Several states that try people younger than 18 in
adult courts allow for only one sentence, life with no chance of parole, for defendants who are convict‐
ed of murder. He seemed to indicate he might favor a ruling that gives judges a role in determining an
appropriate sentence, "that the sentence cannot be mandatory, but that in some cases, it might still be
imposed." Bryan Stevenson, the lawyer for both defendants, tried to resist Kennedy's approach, prefer‐
ring an outcome that would force states to consider parole at some point for anyone with a life sentence
who was convicted before turning 18.Stevenson said the court has previously recognized that it is a
"mistake to equate kids with adults. And we don't have the ability to make those judgments even if we
create a different kind of process." Arguing for Alabama, state Solicitor General John Neiman Jr. said the
court should respect the decisions of Alabama, Arkansas and 37 other states that allow children to be
tried and punished as adults." Imposing life without parole sentences on aggravated murder offenders
like Evan Miller is in line with the national consensus, is morally justified, and is consistent with legiti‐
mate penological goals," Neiman said. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito sounded most likely to
vote with the states. Scalia peppered Stevenson with questions about where the court should draw the
line." Well, you know, once you depart from the principle that we've enunciated that death is different,
why is life without parole categorically different from 60 years or 70 years or, you know, you'd be back
here next term with a 60‐year sentence?" Scalia said. The court has a range of options available if there
is a majority to cut back on states' sentencing powers. The court could issue a blanket ruling that applies
to everyone under 18.It could set a younger cutoff age, as both defendants at the high court were
14.The justices also might throw out mandatory sentences, but still allow judges to impose life without
parole once they consider the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's background. On that
point, several justices pointed to the apparent difference in the culpability of the defendants in the two
cases. The court should decide the cases by early summer. The cases are Miller v. Alabama, 10‐9646,
and Jackson v. Hobbs, 10‐9647.
Do Juvenile Killers Deserve Life Behind Bars?
Nina Totenberg
March 20, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in two homicide cases testing whether it is unconsti‐
tutionally cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a 14‐year‐old to life in prison without the possibil‐
ity of parole.
There are currently 79 of these juvenile killers who will die in prison. What's more, in many states, the
penalty is mandatory, meaning neither judge nor jury is allowed to consider the youngster's age or
background in meting out the sentence.
In cases dealing with punishment for juveniles, context is everything. In 2005, the Supreme Court struck
down the death penalty for juveniles, declaring that kids are different from adults. The court said that
because of their youth, their brains are literally less developed, they are more impulsive, more subject
to peer pressure and less able to see the consequences of their acts.
Two years ago, the court used the same rationale when it struck down the penalty of life
without parole for non‐homicide crimes committed by juveniles. But in Tuesday's cases, the
court faces the question of life without parole in homicide cases.
A case from Arkansas involves a teenager who was not the triggerman. Fourteen‐year‐old
Kuntrell Jackson and two other kids held up a video rental store. One of the other boys pointed a
sawed‐off shotgun at the cashier, and when she threatened to call the police, shot and killed her. Under
Arkansas' felony‐murder law, Jackson was deemed just as responsible as the triggerman. He was tried as
an adult for aggravated murder and, under state law, received a mandatory sentence of life without pa‐
role.
The other case, from Alabama, involves Evan Miller, a boy so brutalized as a child that by the time he
was arrested for murder at age 14, he had tried to kill himself six times, the first time when he was 5
years old.
Miller and a 16‐year‐old friend went next‐door to the home of a neighbor who was dealing drugs to
Miller's mother. The neighbor, 52‐year‐old Cole Cannon, gave the boys liquor and marijuana. Miller
consumed a fifth of whiskey as the boys engaged in drinking games with Cannon and planned to steal
his wallet.
Eventually, a fight broke out and the boys severely beat Cannon, set fires in the trailer and fled, ignoring
Cannon's pleas for help. Cannon died of smoke inhalation. The 16‐year‐old friend made a deal with
prosecutors in exchange for his testimony, and got life with parole eligibility. Fourteen‐year‐old Miller
“Therearecurrent‐ly79ofthesejuve‐nilekillerswhowill
dieinprison.”
got life without parole.
Bryan Stevenson, the lawyer who represents the boys in both
of these cases, will make two basic arguments before the
Supreme Court. The first is that a mandatory punishment of
life without parole for a 14‐year‐old is cruel and unusual
punishment because the defendant's age and background
are irrelevant and cannot mitigate punishment.
Judges can't consider it. Juries can't consider it. No one can consider it," says Stevenson.
The states counter that the juvenile's age has already been considered by taking the death penalty off
the table.
"If the defendant is not going to get the death penalty, then at the very least, the defendant ought to
get life without parole" to counterbalance the harm he has inflicted, says Alabama Solicitor General John
Neiman.
But the big question before the Supreme Court on Tuesday is whether life without the possibility of pa‐
role is itself an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment when it is applied to juveniles.
Defense lawyer Stevenson notes that the American legal system treats minors as both less culpable and
less responsible. Fourteen‐year‐olds, for instance, are not allowed to drink, to marry, to vote, to serve
on juries or even to drive.
"We're not saying that juvenile offenders who commit homicide can't be punished severely," Stevenson
says. "They may even end up spending the rest of their lives in prison. But it's premature, excessive and
unfair to say we know this juvenile will never be rehabilitated."
Indeed, a brief filed by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators and other juvenile crime ex‐
perts points to many amazing cases of rehabilitation. Among them is 16‐year‐old Scott Filippi, who shot
his mother but after his release joined the Army and became a member of the Presidential Honor
Guard.
Or there is Raphael Johnson, who shot and killed a classmate when he was 17, but after his release got
bachelor's and master's degrees with honors and started a community policing program in Detroit. Or
there is Lawrence Wu, a 15‐year‐old New York gang member who eventually became the editor‐in‐chief
There's no sense in destroying a second life if that life is actually redeemable. If there's anyone who still has a modicum of redemption left in their life, it's a
juvenile. ‐ Charles Dutton, sentenced to prison for
of the Columbia Law Review. One of the most famous of those who have changed their lives is
award‐winning actor‐producer Charles Dutton. By age 12, he had quit school and was living a life of
fights and crime on the streets of Baltimore.
"I liked getting in trouble," says Dutton. "I enjoyed getting in fights. I enjoyed the challenge of battle."
By age 17, he was sentenced to prison for manslaughter. Even in prison, though, he continued his
fighting ways, assaulting a guard and getting eight years added to his sentence. A decade or so later, he
was on his way to "the hole" for solitary confinement when he picked up a book of plays sent to him by
a girlfriend. It ended up changing his life. As he puts it, he found what he was "born to do."
"Up until that point in time, I didn't really concentrate on the life I had taken," he says. "But only at that
moment of rediscovering my own humanity [could I] go back and have a very, very strong and sincere,
heartfelt remorse for taking that life." Now, four decades later, he says he thinks of the man he killed
every day and wonders who he would have been.
Dutton says he understands the desire to avenge a terrible crime, but "there's no sense in destroying a
second life if that life is actually redeemable. If there's anyone who still has a modicum of redemption
left in their life, it's a juvenile."
The states that have adopted life without parole for juvenile killers have a very different view.
"The one thing that we don't know is what the potential of the life would be that was snuffed out in the
crime," says Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. "The hypothetical of who might be rehabili‐
tated in prison is a hard one to analyze, but there have to be some circumstances under which these
persons can serve life without parole."
Indeed, Alabama Solicitor General Neiman notes that 38 of the 50 states authorize life without parole
for a 14‐year‐old convicted of murder, and the federal government authorizes it for 15‐year‐olds. Part of
the justification for that, he observes, is the notion of retribution.
"As a moral matter, it is OK for a government to say, even if there is a possibility that someone will re‐
habilitate themselves, if a person commits a sufficiently egregious crime, then they just deserve a very
severe sentence," Neiman says.
Defense lawyer Stevenson counters that in reality, only 18 states have imposed life without parole on a
14‐year‐old, and only 79 killers who are 14 or younger are currently serving life‐without‐parole sentenc‐
es.
Arkansas Attorney General McDaniel says that even if those statistics are accurate, and he disputes
them, it doesn't prove much.
"It's not because society doesn't have the moral stomach to impose those sentences," McDaniel says.
"It's because, realistically, 14‐year‐olds don't commit a lot of murders."
Finally, the states argue that life without parole is a sufficiently severe sentence that it will deter at least
some juveniles from committing murder.
Defense lawyer Stevenson dismisses that argument, echoing the sentiments of many experts who deal
with violent juveniles.
"Most of my clients had never heard of life imprisonment without parole and had no capacity to appre‐
ciate what it would mean," Stevenson says. "It takes them years before they even get what it means to
be sentenced to life in prison without parole, because they're just not used to thinking that far ahead."
Court Wary Of Life without Parole for Juveniles
MARK SHERMAN | March 20, 2012 03:53 PM EST
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to say anew that young people who
commit even the most brutal crimes should not be punished as harshly as adults, taking up a pair of
cases in which 14‐year‐olds convicted of murder are serving life sentences with no chance of parole.
The latest in a line of cases asks whether young teenagers facing the rest of their lives in prison deserve
the possibility of a second chance. In recent years, the court has ruled out the death penalty for juve‐
niles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing.
Roughly 2,300 people are behind bars for life with no chance of winning their freedom for crimes they
committed before their 18th birthday. Seventy‐nine of them are in prison for crimes that took place
when they were 14 or younger.
The precise contours of an eventual ruling were not apparent after arguments Tuesday, but several jus‐
tices said they were troubled by the way some states try and sentence young people accused of crimes.
Justice Anthony Kennedy raised the lack of flexibility in sentencing young killers. Several states that try
people younger than 18 in adult courts allow for only one sentence, life with no chance of parole, for
defendants who are convicted of murder.
Kennedy seemed to indicate he might favor a ruling that gives judges a role in determining an appropri‐
ate sentence, "that the sentence cannot be mandatory, but that in some cases it might still be imposed."
He wrote the earlier opinions holding juveniles less responsible than adults when their sentences are
considered. He seemed again to be the pivotal justice in Tuesday's arguments.
Bryan Stevenson, the lawyer for both defendants, tried to resist Kennedy's approach, preferring an out‐
come that would force states to consider parole at some point for anyone with a life sentence who was
convicted before turning 18.
Stevenson said the court has previously recognized that it is a "mistake to equate kids with adults. And
we don't have the ability to make those judgments even if we create a different kind of process."
Allowing an inmate to be considered for parole doesn't mean it will be granted, Stevenson said. In Ne‐
vada, for example, an inmate convicted of murder has to serve 20 years before getting a parole hearing,
he said.
Arguing for Alabama before the justices, state Solicitor General John Neiman Jr. said the court should
respect the decisions of Alabama, Arkansas and 37 other states that allow children to be tried and pun‐
ished as adults.
"Imposing life without parole sentences on aggravated murder offenders like Evan Miller is in line with
the national consensus, is morally justified and is consistent with legitimate penological goals," Neiman
said.
Neiman said the court already has drawn a line between crimes involving killing and those that don't.
Kennedy also asked both sides for statistics on how often people who are imprisoned at a young age
show that they have been rehabilitated.
But Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in earlier juvenile sentencing cases, scoffed at the notion.
"Well, I thought that modern penology has abandoned that rehabilitation thing, and they no longer call
prisons reformatories or whatever, and punishment is the criterion now. Deserved punishment for
crime," Scalia said.
The court has a range of options if a majority decides to limit states' sentencing powers:
_The court could issue a blanket ruling that applies to everyone under 18.
_It could set a younger cutoff age, as both defendants at the high court were 14.
_The justices also might throw out mandatory sentences but still allow judges to impose life without parole once they consider the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's back‐ground. On that point, several justices pointed to the apparent difference in the culpability of the defendants in the two cases.
The court should decide the cases by early summer.
The cases are Miller v. Alabama, 10-9646, and Jackson v. Hobbs, 10-9647.
Supreme Court Revisits Issue of Harsh Sentences for Juveniles
Adam Liptak March 20, 2012
WASHINGTON — At a pair of Supreme Court arguments on Tuesday, the justices returned to the ques‐
tion of what the Constitution has to say about harsh sentences imposed on juvenile offenders.
A majority of them appeared prepared to take an additional step in limiting such punishments, but it
was not clear whether it would be modest or large. The court’s precedents have created so many over‐
lapping categories — based on age, the nature of the offense and whether judges and juries have dis‐
cretion to show leniency — that much of the argument was devoted to identifying the possible lines the
court could draw.
In 2005, in Roper v. Simmons, the court abolished the juvenile death penalty, a decision that affected
about 70 prisoners. “It is worth noting,” that decision said, “that the punishment of life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person.”
In 2010, in Graham v. Florida, the court ruled that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the pos‐
sibility of parole also violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment — but only
for crimes that did not involve killings. The decision affected about 130 prisoners convicted of crimes
like rape, armed robbery and kidnapping.
The majority opinions in both cases were written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who said teenagers
deserved more lenient treatment than adults because they are immature, impulsive, susceptible to peer
pressure and able to change for the better over time. Bryan A. Stevenson, a lawyer with the Equal Jus‐
tice Initiative, which represented both defendants in Tuesday’s arguments, said that logic should apply
in at least some cases involving killings.
The two cases the justices considered concerned defendants who were 14 when they were involved in
killings. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, there are about 80 prisoners serving sentences of life
without parole for murders committed when they were 14 or younger.
One case, Miller v. Alabama, No. 10‐9646, involved Evan Miller, an Alabama man who was 14 in 2003
when he and an older youth beat a 52‐year‐old neighbor and set fire to his home after the three had
spent the evening smoking marijuana and playing drinking games. The neighbor died of smoke inhala‐
tion.
The other, Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10‐9647, concerned Kuntrell Jackson, an Arkansas man who was 14
when he and two older youths tried to rob a video store in 1999. One of the other youths shot and killed
a store clerk.
Kent G. Holt, an assistant state attorney general in Arkansas, said the victim, Laurie Troup, was 28. Her
body was found by her mother and her 11‐year‐old son.
“The punishment for this crime reinforces the sanctity of human life,” Mr. Holt said, “and it expresses
the state’s moral outrage that something like this could happen.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded that there were important values on Mr. Jackson’s side, too.
“You say the sanctity of human life,” she told Mr. Holt, “but you’re dealing with a 14‐year‐old being
sentenced to life in prison, so he will die in prison without any hope. I mean, essentially, you’re making a
14‐year‐old throwaway person.”
Mr. Stevenson later picked up on the point. He said his request was in one sense modest.
“We are not suggesting that states should not be able to impose very harsh punishments and very se‐
vere sentences on even children who commit these kinds of violent crimes,” he said.
“They can even impose sentences that give them the authority to maintain control of the lives of these
children for the rest of their natural lives,” he said. “What we are arguing is that they cannot do so with
no hope of release, that that would be incompatible with child status.”
John C. Neiman Jr., Alabama’s solicitor general, said the sorts of parole hearings that Mr. Stevenson
sought imposed burdens.
“There’s really no cost to society at least in allowing that process to occur,” Mr. Neiman said, “but the
cost is to the victims and their families, who have to endure what are often very painful hearings.”
Much of the argument concerned the lines the court might draw. It could prohibit sentences of life
without parole for offenders younger than 15. Or it could bar the punishment for all juvenile offenders,
which would affect more than 2,000 prisoners.
The court could also bar sentences of life without parole for defendants like Mr. Jackson, who was an
accomplice and not the gunman, while leaving them available for defendants like Mr. Miller, who actu‐
ally committed the killing. Or it could bar mandatory sentences, which are common, and require judges
and juries to take account of the defendant’s youth.
Mr. Stevenson said the court should extend its ruling in the Graham case to bar all sentences of life
without parole for crimes committed by juveniles.
If the court is not prepared to do that, he said, it should bar such sentences for offenders younger than
15 and bar mandatory sentences of life without parole for all juvenile offenders.
Justices mull whether life without parole appropriate for underage killers By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 5:20 PM EDT, Tue March 20, 2012
Washington (CNN) ‐‐ The Supreme Court struggled Tuesday, speaking in somber tones, when confront‐
ing one of its toughest criminal sentencing questions: whether two men convicted of killings committed
when they were 14 deserve life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The justices seemed to find little agreement on how young is too young in these rare instances, and
whether it would be cruel and unusual punishment to forgo the chance that these now‐adult inmates
may someday be rehabilitated.
"What's the definition of a child?" asked Justice Samuel Alito, trying to draw a constitutionally accepta‐
ble line on mandatory sentences for underage murderers.
"It seems to me some of the issues that we have suggested justify a different treatment of juveniles
have to do with mental development," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "And those same issues would be
taken into account by a jury in considering which of a list of offenses the juvenile should be convicted
of."
The high court in 2005 banned the death penalty for those under 18 who commit aggravated murder.
Then, five years later, the justices said juveniles found guilty of non‐homicides could not receive life
without parole.
Now the spotlight turns on the youngest of killers and the question of whether a national consensus has
developed to treat them differently regarding a lifetime of incarceration.
The separate appeals involve an Alabama boy who, with an accomplice, robbed a neighbor and then
beat the man to death and set his house on fire; and an Arkansas youth who was part of a group of
teens who robbed a video store where the clerk was blasted to death with a shotgun.
Both were tried and convicted as adults and received the minimum sentences allowed under state law
for felony capital murder.
There are about 2,500 prisoners serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed as juveniles,
at least 79 of whom are 14 years or younger, according to the Equal Justice Initiative, which is repre‐
senting the two men before the high court.
Attorney Bryan Stevenson urged the justices not to "give up" on child offenders, who he said are fun‐
damentally different from adults. He said while they must be held accountable for their actions, youths
are also works in progress, emotionally and developmentally.
"These deficits in maturity and judgment and decision‐making are not crime‐specific. All children are
encumbered with the same barriers that this court has found to be constitutionally relevant before im‐
position of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty," said Stevenson, who is
based in Montgomery, Alabama. "These differences are even more pronounced in young children."
Justice Antonin Scalia jumped in. "Once you depart from the principle that we've enunciated that (the)
death (penalty) is different, why is life without parole categorically different from 60 years or 70 years?
You'd be back here next term (challenging) a 60‐year sentence." He wondered aloud whether it would
be fair to argue 14‐year‐olds deserve less time behind bars than a 15‐year‐old.
Stevenson said firmly all those under 18 at the time of their crimes deserve the chance for parole
someday. He said the often‐terrible facts of a murder can overwhelm any mitigating factors like a de‐
fendant's age, especially for jurors who may be unaware that a young person's brain development, living
environment and self‐control are often not complete.
"You would say that a person of 17 years and 11 months, who commits the worst possible string of of‐
fenses ‐‐ and demonstrates great maturity ‐‐ still cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without pa‐
role?" asked Alito, sounding skeptical.
"What justifies an absolute ban at a certain age and a modified ban above an age?" added Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg.
Scalia said 39 states allow juveniles to receive life without parole for certain murder offenses. "The
American people have decided that that's the rule. They allow it. And the federal government allows it.
So I'm supposed to impose my judgment on what seems to be a consensus of the American people?"
Later, the Alabama solicitor general said states deserve discretion to set punishments for the worst of
offenders, even teenagers.
"The government's primary goal here is expressing the retributive judgment about the wrongfulness of
murder and why it's different," said John Neiman Jr. "They don't want to roll the dice on convicted
murderers. Society acts with particular revulsion when a convicted murderer commits a crime again"
after being released from custody, he said.
"How do you go back to justifying," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "the mandatory nature of life impris‐
onment without parole, given that not every juvenile is equal and not every murder is equal with re‐
spect to them?"
Justice Stephen Breyer pressed the question further, asking, "What's the minimum age, in your opinion,
or is there any constitutional minimum at all in respect to which you could give" life without parole to a
young killer.
"I mean, you could have an instance of a 10‐year‐old or an 8‐year‐old. I mean, is it totally up to the
states, or is there a minimum?" Breyer said.
Neiman ran into trouble when backed into this legal corner, suggesting, "If I were the state up here try‐
ing to defend a 12‐year‐old (getting life without parole), I would argue that that was the line. So a
12‐year‐old‐‐ well, no ‐‐ well, yes," he finally decided.
"Do you see the difficulty? All right. So now put yourself in my position," responded Breyer. "Do you
want to say 12? Do you want to say 10? Do you want to say 9? Because as soon as whatever you say, I'm
going to say: and why not 14?" he added.
Justice Anthony Kennedy ‐‐ as he has in many divided cases ‐‐ may prove to be the deciding vote. But he
seemed troubled about articulating an appropriate age limit.
"Now, we have some quite compelling stories of rehabilitation in this case. I don't know if they're iso‐
lated; I don't know where they are in the statistical universe of how often rehabilitation is demonstrated
and is real. What do I look at? What's a judge supposed to do?" he asked Stevenson. "You're just forcing
us into a bipolar position. We're either going to say that you can't prevail at all or that everyone under
18 cannot get life without parole. I don't see this middle course."
Complicating matters, several justices noted differences between the two cases before them. Neiman
noted the murder committed by Evan Miller in Alabama was especially "gruesome." The boy and his ac‐
complice had smoked marijuana with the victim in his trailer. The 52‐year‐old man burned to death after
the mobile home was set ablaze.
In Kuntrell Jackson's case, he was originally outside as a lookout when the Chickasaw County, Arkansas,
robbery took place. It was a 15‐year‐old boy who shot the female clerk when she refused to turn over
money. The actual shooter later pleaded guilty and received life with the possibility of parole.
Stevenson said there was a real question whether Jackson had an "intent to kill" during the botched
robbery, perhaps allowing for a lesser sentence.
But the Arkansas assistant attorney general said the sentence of life without parole was still appropriate,
arguing the defendant could have received the death penalty if he had been an adult at the time of the
crime.
"A legislative judgment has been made with regard to drawing a baseline for all murderers, whether
they are juvenile murderers, whether they are getaway drivers," said Kent Holt. "And when you counsel
or aid or do anything that gets you liability for being a capital murderer, then that is the minimum sen‐
tence" ‐‐ life without parole, with no exceptions.
The cases are Miller v. Alabama (10‐9646) and Jackson v. Hobbs (10‐9647). Rulings are expected within
the next three months.
Do 14‐year‐old killers deserve life without parole? Supreme Court hears cases. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is seen as the potential swing vote in two cases questioning whether life
without parole for 14‐year‐old killers is cruel and unusual punishment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy took center stage Tuesday as the US Supreme Court began examining two
cases testing whether life in prison without parole is cruel and unusual punishment for someone who
committed murder at age 14.
Much of the two hours of argument in the cases from Arkansas and Alabama were directed at Justice
Kennedy, who is widely seen as wielding the potential swing vote that could win the case for either side.
Based on his questions, Kennedy appears to be searching for a means to rule for the two juveniles and
somehow invalidate the mandatory imposition of life without parole for some category of young of‐
fenders.
Such a ruling would extend the same reasoning embraced by the high court in two landmark cases in‐
volving juveniles, and it would add another precedent to an emerging jurisprudence of juvenile punish‐
ment.
In 2005, the high court invalidated the death penalty for those age 18 and younger. Five years later, the
court again cited the same reasoning and ruled that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole for a
non‐homicide crime also violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Both cases were decided by 5‐to‐4 votes, and both were written by Justice Kennedy.
Now the justices are being asked to extend that same reasoning yet again, this time to bar the imposi‐
tion of life‐without‐parole sentences to convicted murderers who were 14 years old at the time of their
crime.
“We are not suggesting that states should not be able to impose very harsh punishments and very se‐
vere sentences on even children who commit these kinds of violent crimes,” Bryan Stevenson,
aMontgomery, Ala., attorney, told the justices.
“What we are arguing is that they cannot do so [while offering them] no hope of release,” he said.
Stevenson told the court that young offenders are less culpable than adults for the crimes they commit.
Studies have shown that biologically and psychologically, teens are more susceptible to peer pressure
and more prone to impulsive and reckless behavior. Studies show that their judgment and character are
not yet fully formed.
These factors must be considered in meting out appropriate punishment for crimes, Stevenson said. His
argument wasn’t simply for leniency. He said life in prison with the possibility of parole could be an ap‐
propriate sentence in certain cases.
But he said that sending a 14‐year‐old to prison with no hope of release is cruel and unusual under the
Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
“It would be cruel to declare these children fit only to die in prison given what we now know about their
status, about their development, and about their potential,” he said.
Urging the high court to uphold Alabama’s sentencing scheme, the state’s solicitor general, John
Neiman, said it should be up to state lawmakers to decide whether to punish the state’s worst criminals
with a mandatory sentence of life without parole – even when they are as young as 14.
“The government’s primary goal here is expressing the retributive judgment about the wrongfulness of
murder,” he said. “I think governments are quite legitimate and quite reasonable when they also say
that they don’t want to roll the dice on convicted murderers.”
Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Kent Holt offered a slightly different argument. “The punishment
for this crime reinforces the sanctity of human life and it expresses the state’s moral outrage,” he told
the justices.
“You say the sanctity of human life, but you are dealing with a 14‐year‐old being sentenced to life in
prison, so he will die in prison without any hope,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied. “I mean, essen‐
tially, you’re making a 14‐year‐old a throwaway person.”
Solicitor General Neiman told the justices that there would be a significant cost to forcing states to re‐
vive their parole systems for certain offenses.
“Why not just let these guys get their parole hearings, give them hope, and likely they won’t get parole
anyway,” Mr. Neiman said, highlighting the counter‐argument that granting parole hearings is relatively
cost‐free.
“The cost is to the victims and their families who have to endure what are often very painful parole
hearings,” he said.
“When those come up on a frequent basis, that sort of retraumatization process is something that gov‐
ernments can legitimately take into account when they decide – for aggravated murder – that a
life‐without‐parole sentence is an appropriate sentence,” Neiman said.
Currently there are an estimated 79 individuals in American prisons serving a life sentence without the
possibility of parole for crimes they committed when they were 14 years old.
Roughly 2,300 individuals are serving life without parole for crimes committed when they were younger
than 18 years old.
Thirty‐eight states and the federal government allow life without parole sentences for those 14 and old‐
er. Twenty‐six states have made the sentence mandatory.
The cases at the high court involve two young offenders convicted of murder.
Kuntrell Jackson was 14 when he and two friends tried to rob a video shop in Blytheville, Ark., in 1999.
Two of the boys confronted the shopkeeper with a shotgun and demanded money while Mr. Jackson
stood at the shop doorway. When the shopkeeper denied having any money, Jackson allegedly walked
into the shop to the counter and told the shopkeeper: “We ain’t playin.’ ”
The teen with the gun again demanded money. When the shopkeeper threatened to call police, she was
shot in the head and killed. The boys ran from the store without any money. Although he was not the
triggerman, Jackson was deemed to have played a significant enough role in the killing to warrant a
sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
The second case involves Evan Miller, who was 14 at the time he and a 16‐year‐old friend decided to rob
Mr. Miller’s neighbor. The plan was to get the neighbor drunk and steal money from his wallet.
The neighbor awoke as Miller attempted to slip the now‐empty wallet back into his pocket. The neigh‐
bor grabbed Miller by the throat and a fight broke out. Miller and his friend beat the neighbor with a
baseball bat and then set his trailer on fire.
As the smoke and flames grew more intense, the boys heard the neighbor coughing. The friend started
back to pull the man from the flames, but Miller allegedly stopped him.
The neighbor died of smoke inhalation. The friend later testified against Miller, who was convicted and
sentenced to life in prison without parole.