Recent changes in how we understand and address problem behavior are largely guided by scientific studies. Over the last ten years, researchers have learned a lot about how young people develop behaviors that might lead to trouble, like studying how the brain grows and changes. This means that the strategies we use to help young people are based on evidence and science. We use the scientific method to figure out if the things we try are actually helpful. By studying what works, what doesn’t, and what might work in the future, both researchers and people who make decisions about policies and programs can make sure they’re doing the best they can to help young people.

Key Supreme Court Cases

Some important Supreme Court cases show how our ideas about fairness and how we treat young people have changed over time. These cases highlight a shift toward helping young people improve themselves rather than just punishing them. They recognize that kids are different from adults and need to be treated differently in the justice system.

Roper v Simmons (2005)

In 2005, a landmark decision by the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to impose a death penalty sentence on any youth who was under the age of 18 when they committed their offense (Roper v. Simmons). Although Christopher Simmons planned and committed a capital offense (he murdered his neighbor, Shirley Cook), the court ruled that 18 years of age is where criminal responsibility should rest. That is to say, if a child is too young to vote, sign contracts, or do many other things (because society deems them not responsible enough), then they are too young to receive the death penalty. The court stated “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be “cruel and unusual.” Simmons received life in prison. It was ruled that imposing the death penalty on a person under 18 at the time of the crime constituted cruel and unusual punishment. At the time of the Roper v Simmons verdict, the United States was only one of a handful of countries that still imposed the death penalty on juveniles (among other countries were Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran).

Feel free to learn more about Roper v. Simmons (2005) [Website].

Graham v Florida (2010)

While the death penalty was taken off the table for youth under the age of 18, they were instead sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). This was until the 2010 case of Graham v. Florida. Terrance Graham received life in prison for a felony offense (armed burglary) when he was only 16 years old. Since Florida does not have parole, his sentence de facto became a life without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court heard his case and ruled that it was unconstitutional to sentence a minor to life without the possibility of parole for a nonhomicide offense.

Feel free to learn more about Graham v. Florida (2010) [Website].

Miller v Alabama (2012)

Two years later, juvenile law again rested in the hands of the Supreme Court. Even though Graham v. Florida abolished life without the possibility of parole for nonhomicide offenses, youth under the age of 18 were still receiving that sentence for crimes of murder. In 2012, when Evan Miller was 14 years old, he killed his neighbor by severely beating him with a baseball bat while attempting to rob him. With contemporary research about brain formation and juvenile culpability, the Supreme Court ruled that youth are not as responsible as adults for their actions because their brains have not fully formed.

In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features—among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

This seemed like a huge win for juvenile justice reformers. Juveniles could no longer receive the death penalty, life without parole for nonhomicide, nor mandatory life without parole for homicide. However, so many people serving LWOP sentences were still juveniles when they committed their crime.

Feel free to learn more about Miller v. Alabama (2012) [Website].

Montgomery v Louisiana (2016)

In 2016, the Supreme Court heard the case of Henry Montgomery, who was 17 years old in 1963 when he killed a sheriff’s deputy. He initially received a death sentence, but this was overturned because of the racial tension of the time (Montgomery was a Black youth who killed a White law enforcement officer). He instead received a life sentence and appealed this sentence after the Miller v. Alabama ruling. Montgomery v. Alabama barred mandatory life without parole sentences retroactively. This meant that all youth sentenced prior to 2012 with LWOP sentences needed to be retried.

These four major Supreme Court cases identify the differences between adults and juveniles. They recognize the difference in brain formation and culpability, owning the ability to rehabilitate youth and move step by step away from a retribution/punishment model for youth. In 2012, there were about 2,600 youth serving life without parole, and in 2020, that number decreased to around 1,465 (Rovner, 2021).

Evan Miller was resentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and Henry Montgomery was denied parole in 2018 and 2019 only finally being released in 2021 after serving 57 years in prison.

Feel free to learn more about Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) [Website].

Jones v. Mississippi (2021)

Brett Jones, a young victim of abuse and neglect, was 15 years old when he killed his grandfather. He struggled with mental health issues and lost access to his psychiatric medications when he was kicked out of his mother’s house and moved in with his grandparents. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, which was the mandatory sentence in Mississippi for homicide.

After the Miller decision, Jones was retried, and the judge determined that life without parole was the appropriate punishment. Jones appealed, stating that under Montgomery v. Louisiana the judge must find a murder under the age of 18 is permanently incorrigible beyond hope. The Supreme Court ruled that the judge did not need to use those magic words—that a finding of incorrigibility was not necessary in order to sentence a youth to life without parole. It was enough that the judge reheard the case. The Court ruled that discretionary sentencing is sufficient.

Critics argue that this ruling guts the proceeding two Supreme Court decisions and moves juvenile justice reform back two steps. The question remains: is the sentencing of a youth to life without the possibility of parole considered cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of the 8th Amendment? The Supreme Court would argue it is not. However, the United States is the only country in the world that permits youth to be sentenced to life without parole. Sentencing children to die in prison is condemned by international law (Juvenile Law Center, 2022).

Feel free to learn more about Jones v. Mississippi (2021) [Website].

Licenses and Attributions for Returning to Rehabilitation in the Contemporary Juvenile Justice System

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Returning to Rehabilitation in the Contemporary Juvenile Justice System” by Alison Burke is adapted from “10.9 Returning to Rehabilitation in the Contemporary Juvenile Justice System” by Alison S. Burke in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications include editing for style, consistency, recency, and brevity; added DEI content.