Miller v Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs No. 10–9646 (and No. 10–9647) US Supreme Court 25 June 2012 - United States of America
Background
Two 14-year-olds were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The relevant state sentencing regimes mandated these sentences and the sentencing judges had no discretion to impose a different punishment.
In both cases, the children unsuccessfully appealed the severity of the sentences to the relevant superior state court, being the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and the sentences were upheld. Amici Curiae subsequently applied on behalf of the children for the United States Supreme Court to review the decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeal.
Reasoning
The court held that mandatory sentencing legislative schemes which require children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole were unconstitutional as they breached the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
In considering mandatory schemes, the court examined the fundamental principles of sentencing and held, first, that the case for retribution was not as strong with children as with adults because retribution related to blameworthiness. Second, that the same characteristics that made children less culpable than adults (immaturity, recklessness and impetuosity) made them less likely to consider potential punishments prior to an act and so undermine the deterrent effect of sentences. Third, that sentence of life without the possibility of parole removed any scope for rehabilitation.
Such mandatory sentencing schemes were not considering critical factors relating to children and youth (“immaturity”, “irresponsibility”, “impetuosity”, “recklessness” (pp. 15, 17) and failure to appreciate risks and consequences) when determining if the harshest term of imprisonment was proportional to “the distinctive attributes of youth” (p.9) and to their diminished culpability.
Remedy
The court reversed the judgments of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and returned the cases for further proceedings for re-sentencing not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Role of children
The applicants were both children at the time they were sentenced, though they were adults at the time that the Supreme Court considered their cases.
Enforcement and other outcomes
At the time of the judgment, more than half of the states in the United States had mandatory sentencing schemes which required judges to sentence children to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Following the judgment, the majority of these States have brought their sentencing schemes in line with the Supreme Court’s’s ruling.
It is important to note that certain states have since abolished mandatory life sentences without the opportunity of parole but still require mandatory sentences for the duration of a child’s meaningful life expectancy without the opportunity of parole.
Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective
The case abolished mandatory life imprisonment sentences without the possibility of parole for children convicted of homicide in the United States. It confirmed that children are different to adults and judges should retain the ability to take a child’s inherent mitigating factors into account when sentencing them for homicide.
The case built on previous decisions of the Supreme Court relating to the Eighth Amendment and challenging the death penalty and the sentence to life without parole (LWOP), such as Roper v Simmons, Graham v Florida and Montgomery v Louisiana. The court had previously prohibited a sentence of life without parole for a child who committed a non-homicidal offence. However, many US states still permit life sentences for children without parole for homicide – it just is not mandated. Further, many US States still permit what are considered to be “de facto life sentences” for children (50 plus years) which arguably contravenes the Court’s position in this case. Alongside the judicial processes, campaigns were conducted by civil society organisations, such as the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, which was responsible for lobbying and media work.
Country
United States of America
Forum and date of decision
Supreme Court of the United States
June 25 , 2012
CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources
Not applicable. The decision considers domestic law provisions only.
Domestic law provisions
Constitution of the United States of America, Eighth Amendment
Arkansas Code §9–27–318(c)(2) (1998) which provides Arkansas prosecutors with discretion to charge 14 year olds as adults when they are alleged to have committed certain serious offenses;
Arkansas Code §5–4–104(b) (1997) which provides a defendant convicted of capital murder or treason shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole (irrespective of their age);
Alabama Code §12–15–34 (1977) which provides the Alabama District Attorney discretion to seek a transfer of a case from a juvenile court to an adult court in certain circumstances; and
Alabama Code §§13A–5–40(9), 13A–6–2(c) (1982) which provides that certain crimes (including capital murder) require a mandatory minimum punishment of life without parole
Related information
For the applicants:
The Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth and others
For the Respondent:
List of amicus curiae:
The amicus curiae comprised 67 organisations and 25 individuals as set out in the Appendix of the Amicus Curia Brief.
In support of petitioners:
Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth: Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
375 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611-3069
312.503.8576 phone
cwcy@law.northwestern.edu[Former Juvenile Court Judges. Attorneys Jonathan D. Hacker, Brianne J. Gorod, Adam Goldstein, Dreanna Rice and O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Washington, D.C 20006
jhacker@omm.com
Certain Family Members of Victims Killed by Youths
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
American Psychiatric Association
800 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20024
National Association of Social Workers
750 First Street, NE Suite 800
Washington, DC 20002
American Medical Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
3615 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016-3007
American Probation and Parole Association
701 E. 22nd Street, Suite 110
Lombard, IL 60148
(859) 244-8207
840 First Street NE Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002
The Child Welfare League of America
727 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
The Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
350 Lincoln St. Ste 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
The National Partnership for Juvenile Services
2220 Nicholasville Road Suite 110-333
Lexington, KY 40503
Jeffrey Fagan, et al
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
40 Rector Street, 5th floor
New York, NY 10006
Charles Hamilton Houston Institute For Race and Justice
Harvard Law School
Areeda Hall, Room 522
1545 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
475 Riverside Dr., Suite 1901
New York, NY 10115
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
99 Hudson St, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10013-2815
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
1620 L Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036
Juvenile Law Center et al
1800 JFK Blvd, Suite #1900B Philadelphia, PA 19103
Amnesty International et al
Professor of Law and his Students from the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University
In support of respondents:
State of Michigan, Eighteen Other States, and One Territory
Case documents
Miller v Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs No. 10–9646 (and No. 10–9647) US Supreme Court 25 June 2012
Amicus Curiae:
American Medical Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Professor of Law and his Students from the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University
Secondary documents
Equal justice initiative (EJI), 'Miller v Alabama EJI won a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court striking down mandatory death-in-prison sentences for children' (Equal Justice Initiative (EJI)) <https://eji.org/cases/miller-v-alabama/#:~:text=EJI%20won%20a%20landmark%20ruling,its%20companion%20case%2C%20Jackson%20v. > accessed 11 May 2021
Marshall M, 'Miller V. Alabama And The Problem Of Prediction' (2019) 119 Columbia Law Review <https://columbialawreview.org/content/miller-v-alabama-and-the-problem-of-prediction/ >
Dharmavarapu P, 'Categorically Redeeming Graham V Florida And Miller V Alabama: Why The Eighth Amendment Guarantees All Juvenile Defendants A Constitutional Right To A Parole Hearing | The University Of Chicago Law Review' (Lawreview.uchicago.edu) <https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/categorically-redeeming-graham-v-florida-and-miller-v-alabama-why-eighth-amendment > accessed 21 February 2022
L. Piel J, 'Term-Of-Years Sentences Since Miller V. Alabama' (2020) 50 Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online <http://jaapl.org/content/early/2020/01/24/JAAPL.003918-20 > accessed 28 February 2022
'The Aftermath Of Miller V. Alabama: Hope For Those Sentenced To Life Without Possibility Of Parole For Juvenile Crimes - National Center For Youth Law' (National Center for Youth Law) <https://youthlaw.org/publication/the-aftermath-of-miller-v-alabama-hope-for-those-sentenced-to-life-without-possibility-of-parole-for-juvenile-crimes/ > accessed 28 February 2022
A. Stevenson B, and F. Stinneford J, 'Interpretation: The Eighth Amendment | The National Constitution Center' (Constitutioncenter.org) <https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 > accessed 28 February 2022
H. Boone B, 'Treating Adults Like Children: Re-Sentencing Adult Juvenile Lifers After Miller V. Alabama' [2015] Minnesota Law Review <https://minnesotalawreview.org/article/treating-adults-children-re-sentencing-adult-juvenile-lifers-miller-v-alabama/ > accessed 28 February 2022
