The Ongoing Evolution of Juvenile Life Sentences

Criminal offenders under the age of 18 have seen their rights grow steadily every year for the last decade or so. The Supreme Court has continually lessened and narrowed the circumstances under which a juvenile offender can be harshly sentenced—allowing thousands of minors or juvenile criminals a second chance. The Associated Press has published a short look at some of the cases that have shaped juvenile criminal law in the last few years.

Up until 2005, minors could still receive the death penalty in some states (although it was rare). However, the Supreme Court passed down a decision in Roper v. Simmons that banned the use of the death penalty on people who were under 18 when they committed the crime in question.

Five years later, the Supreme Court again limited the sentencing for minors in Graham v. Florida. In this case, they banned life sentences without the possibility of parole for non-murder charges. For murder charges, they also banned the use of mandatory life sentences without parole in two cases from 2012: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.

Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled that their ban on mandatory life sentences is retroactive. In 2016's Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court ruled that every case where a juvenile offender was given a mandatory life sentence without parole could be reopened for new consideration. Cases involving minors denied the possibility of parole can be opened again—up to 2,000 cases total.

The cases behind each of these decisions are heartbreaking, like so many stories of juvenile prisoners are. The law recognizes that children are not culpable for their crimes in the same way adults are—we're glad that the Supreme Court continues to shape the practice of criminal law to give children a potential second chance. Children deserve to given another shot—even after committing serious offenses.

To read about the stories behind these cases, check out the AssociatePress' article here.