Filter Results

Keywords
Active Filters
X mandatory life without parole for juveniles
Filter by Topic
Filter by Content Type

Showing 1 - 5 of 5 results

    • Brief

    State v. Booker

    Brief of the National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant.


    Argument: Tennessee’s sentencing statute for first-degree murder, which mandatorily imposes a minimum 51-year term of prison confinement on a juvenile, without consideration of the teenager’s youth and immaturity or other mitigating circumstances, violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clauses and other provisions of the federal and state constitutions. In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 460 (2016), the United States Supreme Court held that, in light of contemporary understanding of adolescent psychology and brain development, it is unconstitutional to mandatorily deprive a juvenile offender of “a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Because a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for 51 years exceeds the expected life-span of offenders sentenced at a young age, it does not provide young offenders with the “meaningful opportunity” for release contemplated by the Supreme Court of the United States. A majority of state court decisions from outside Tennessee have held that term-of-years sentences of over fifty years do not provide young offenders with a meaningful opportunity for release. Further, after Miller and Montgomery, numerous state legislatures have enacted juvenile sentencing and parole procedures allowing juveniles the opportunity for parole within a much shorter time period.

    • Media

    Ep.14 - Miller and Alvarez

    This week, we speak with George Washington University Law Professor Paul Butler about the Supreme Court's decision on June 25 in Miller v. Alabama eliminating mandatory life without parole for juveniles.