Today the Supreme Court heard arguments that could push our nation further along the road of justice for juveniles. You can get a recap of the arguments and what transpired today through the SCOTUS blog. The Court has been on that road for several years already, having made two landmark decisions benefiting convicted kids. In 2005 they abolished the death penalty for children. In 2010, they abolished life sentences without parole for non-homicidal crimes committed by minors. Clearly the Court gives credence to scientific evidence that psychologically, emotionally and biologically, adolescents’ behaviors cannot be predicted or evaluated as adults’ can be.
The two cases heard today both involve crimes committed when the offenders were only fourteen years old. In one the person did not cause the murder, but was present during the crime. These cases will allow the Court to consider two important issues: First, whether life without parole should be allowed in sentencing juveniles, particularly younger teens; second, whether life without parole should be allowed for juveniles convicted of homicidal crimes, but who were themselves not the killer. Although forty-three states currently allow life without parole sentences for minors, only eighteen states impose them.
As Kristin Henning writes, “The same immaturity and flexibility that makes juveniles more susceptible to peer influences … also makes them quite resilient and capable of remarkable change.” Today’s cases will allow the Court to weigh in once again on the role developmental factors should play in sentencing. They will be able to further define those situations where kids, simply because of their developmental circumstances, should be given a chance at reform. We won’t know until this summer how the court rules, but either way it is a step forward in the growing consensus that young offenders, especially very young offenders, are not adults and should not be treated as adults! By Tricia Egan
