Juvenile life without the possibility of parole: Constitutional but complicated

Abstract

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Miller v. Alabama found that juvenile life without the possibility of parole sentences for homicide crimes was unconstitutional if mandated by state law. Thus, allowing this sentence only after an individualized decision determines the sanction proportional given the circumstances of the offense and mitigating factors. This decision, for a number of reasons, does not go far enough in protecting those youthful offenders afflicted with maltreatment victimizations, mental health problems, and/or learning disabilities — all potential links for some adolescents to serious offending and potentially homicide. While the Supreme Court has not protected these youthful offenders from a potential life sentence, there are early interventions and preventative programming that can help decrease serious adolescent offending behaviors. So while many states will, post Miller , allow this life imprisonment sentence, it is only just, in light of the extensive difficulties for many of these adolescents, that their future allows at least the possibility of a parole hearing. ► Miller v. Alabama allows a juvenile to be sentenced to life in prison. ► This does not protect youthful offenders with serious problems. ► These include maltreatment, mental health disorders, and learning disabilities. ► These difficulties are linked to serious youthful offending. ► Interventions and treatments can decrease serious offending behaviors.