The End of Mandatory Juvenile Life Without Parole

• Date: 01 September 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403413478159
• Author: Megan Kennedy
• Published date: 01 September 2014
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2014, Vol. 25(5) 553 –578

© 2013 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403413478159

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

The End of Mandatory

Juvenile Life Without Parole

Megan Kennedy1

Abstract

The Supreme Court recently abolished mandatory life without parole (LWOP) for

juveniles in Miller v. Alabama (2012). The Court’s ruling follows a series of decisions that

have recognized the inherent differences between children and adults for purposes

of sentencing. As a result, the Court has declared that no person who commits an

offense prior to the age of 18 can be sentenced to LWOP without an examination of

mitigating factors, including age. This new mandate creates difficult policy questions

and has far-reaching implications. This article considers the fate of the 2,000 inmates

who are serving a mandatory LWOP sentence. Second, this article considers the

impact of the Court’s ruling on the states that currently have mandatory LWOP

sentencing laws. Third, the article addresses the ruling’s impact on families of murder

victims. Finally, the author considers the likelihood juvenile LWOP will be completely

abolished and offers suggestions for future research.

Keywords

juveniles, criminal justice policy, sentencing policy

Determining the appropriate sentence for a teenager convicted of murder presents grave and

challenging questions of morality and social policy.

Miller v. Alabama (2012, p. 2477), Roberts, C.J., dissenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a mandatory sentence of life in prison

without the possibility of parole is cruel and unusual punishment if the offender is

under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. This decision, applauded and heralded

as a step closer to fair and more proportionate sentencing for juveniles, creates numer-

ous issues, leaves open many questions, and fuels various policy debates. We must

examine, uncover, and consider the various implications of this decision.

1SUNY–Albany, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Megan Kennedy, SUNY–Albany, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA.

Email: mkennedy2@albany.edu

478159CJP25510.1177/0887403413478159Criminal Justice Policy ReviewKennedy

research-article2013

554 Criminal Justice Policy Review 25(5)

The Court’s recent landmark decision considered the constitutionality of manda-

tory life without parole (LWOP) sentences for crimes committed when the offenders

were each 14 years old. Although the decision marked another step toward abolition

of severe sentences for youth, Miller v. Alabama (2012) was a disappointment for

many individuals and policy groups. First, those who advocate for the abolition of this

sentence had their hopes dashed when the Court decided to narrowly rule on the issues

by declaring only that mandatory juvenile LWOP is unconstitutional. Second, indi-

viduals and families, as well as advocacy groups such as “Victims of Juvenile Lifers,”

reacted with outrage at the potential for changing sentences believed to be final

(National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, 2012).

The decision raises many questions, presents far-reaching policy implications, and

affects not only the juveniles currently serving mandatory LWOP but also the victims’

families who believed the murderer would never leave prison. The question remains

whether this ruling will impact the approximately 2,000 inmates serving a mandatory

LWOP sentence by taking retroactive effect. In addition, this ruling presents many

questions that are left to state legislatures, courts, and parole boards.

This article first examines the evolution of the Court’s case law on juvenile sen-

tencing. The evolution of decisions serves to explain the lack of surprise necessarily

following the Court’s opinion in Miller (2012). Based on the Court’s holding, the

article delves into a much needed discussion and explanation of the implications for

inmates currently serving LWOP for crimes committed prior to the age of 18. This

article then considers the potential implications and policy issues left to the states in

the wake of this decision. In recognizing the inmates are not the only people affected

by this decision, the article also examines the potential impact of the decision on vic-

tims’ families. Finally, suggestions for future research are discussed.

When Is a Juvenile’s Sentence Cruel and Unusual?

The evolution of the juvenile justice system provides an important backdrop for a

discussion of the current legal and moral issues surrounding juvenile sentencing and

the Eighth Amendment. As noted by Massey (2006), societal attitudes have greatly

impacted the goals of the juvenile system throughout history. When the juvenile court

system was established in 1899, the goal of the system was individualized assistance

and rehabilitation. The court served to provide rehabilitation without the strictures of

the traditional criminal justice system. (Quinn, 2012).

The juvenile system, with a primary goal of rehabilitation, often resulted in arbi-

trary and informal decision making, especially in cases of serious crime. The juvenile

system was not adept at handling serious crime committed by juveniles and lacked

adherence to procedural due process rights. This would change, however, when the

Court heard the case of Kent v. United States in 1966. In Kent (1966), the Court deter-

mined juveniles must be afforded procedural safeguards prior to a waiver to adult

court. Shortly thereafter, in Gault (1967), the Court decided juveniles are entitled to

important due process rights.