Term-of-Years Sentences Since Miller v. Alabama.

Abstract

Since the landmark case of Roper v. Simmons in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases on sentencing for juvenile criminal offenders. Emphasizing that children are different for the purposes of criminal punishment, the Court has incrementally held that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to impose death or life without parole for most juvenile offenders. Although the Supreme Court rulings establish minimum standards, they do not prescribe a clear framework for implementation. States have, accordingly, responded differently in interpreting and implementing the Supreme Court precedent. One area where a split exists between states is in juvenile term-of-years sentences that amount to de facto life sentences without parole. The case of People v. Contreras from California is one of the most recent state cases to address this problem. Reviewed here are Contreras, the historical precedent supporting juvenile justice reform, and jurisdictional responses to the notion of sentencing juveniles to de facto life sentences. Also discussed is a call for meaningful periodic opportunities for juveniles to be considered for release.