The Constitutional Revolution in Juvenile Sentencing
Over a fifteen-year period, the Supreme Court fundamentally transformed the legal landscape for people sentenced to life in prison for crimes committed as juveniles. Three landmark decisions — Roper, Graham, and Miller — established that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of punishment, and that certain severe sentences imposed on juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
For families of people who were sentenced to life — with or without parole — for crimes committed before age 18, these decisions are essential to understand. Many people serving such sentences are now entitled to resentencing hearings they have never received.
The Three Landmark Cases
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
The Supreme Court held that the death penalty cannot be imposed on individuals who were under 18 at the time of their crime. The Court recognized that juveniles have diminished culpability due to their immaturity, greater susceptibility to negative influences, and the transient nature of their character. Roper was the first case to constitutionally categorize juveniles differently from adults for sentencing purposes.
Graham v. Florida (2010)
The Court extended the reasoning of Roper to hold that life without parole cannot be imposed on juvenile offenders for non-homicide crimes. The Court recognized that sentencing a juvenile to die in prison for a crime that did not involve killing violates the Eighth Amendment. States are required to give juvenile non-homicide offenders a meaningful opportunity to obtain release.
Miller v. Alabama (2012)
The most expansive ruling. The Court held that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders are unconstitutional. Courts must consider the distinctive attributes of youth before imposing life without parole on a juvenile. Sentencing courts must have the opportunity — and take it — to consider how youth and its attendant circumstances are relevant to the sentence imposed.
Miller did not categorically bar life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide, but it required individualized sentencing that considers youth as a mitigating factor.
Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016)
Miller was made retroactive. This is critical: Montgomery held that Miller announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases already final on direct review. This means that people sentenced to mandatory life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles — even decades ago — are entitled to resentencing hearings.
What Relief Is Available
For Those Sentenced to Mandatory LWOP
Anyone sentenced to mandatory life without parole for a crime committed before age 18 may be entitled to a resentencing hearing under Miller/Montgomery. At that hearing, the sentencing court must consider the attributes of youth — immaturity, impetuousness, failure to appreciate risks and consequences, the role of family environment and peer pressure, the possibility of rehabilitation — before reimposing life without parole or imposing a lesser sentence.
For Those Sentenced to LWOP for Non-Homicide
Under Graham, a life without parole sentence for a non-homicide offense committed before age 18 is unconstitutional. States must provide a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
State-Level Reforms
Many states have gone beyond what the Supreme Court required. Several states have categorically banned life without parole for all juvenile offenders. Others have created parole eligibility for juveniles serving long sentences. California, Washington, and several other states have enacted laws giving juvenile offenders the right to parole consideration after serving a specified number of years.
How to Pursue Relief
If your loved one was sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed as a juvenile — regardless of when the sentence was imposed — relief may be available:
- Determine whether the sentence was mandatory (no judicial discretion) or discretionary at the time of sentencing
- Identify what state or federal court has jurisdiction over the post-conviction claim
- File a habeas petition or state post-conviction petition asserting the Miller/Montgomery claim
- At the resentencing hearing, present evidence of youth characteristics at the time of the offense and evidence of rehabilitation since
These cases benefit enormously from expert testimony — developmental psychologists, trauma specialists, and mitigation specialists who can speak to the specific circumstances of the person's youth and their current rehabilitation.