567 U.S. 460 (2012)
In November 1999, fourteen-year-old Kuntrell Jackson and two other boys decided to rob a video store in Arkansas.1
En route, Jackson learned that one of the boys carried a sawed-off shotgun.2 Jackson initially stayed outside the store but later entered while the robbery was underway.3 When the clerk, Laurie Troup, refused to hand over money and threatened to call the police, one of Jackson's co-defendants shot and killed her.4 The three boys fled without taking any money.5
Arkansas prosecutors exercised their discretion to charge Jackson as an adult with capital felony murder and aggravated robbery.6 A jury convicted him of both offenses.7 The trial court imposed the statutorily mandated sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.8 Jackson did not challenge the sentence on direct appeal, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.9
In 2003, fourteen-year-old Evan Miller and a friend, Colby Smith, spent an evening drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana with Miller's neighbor, Cole Cannon, at Cannon's trailer in Alabama.10 After Cannon passed out, Miller stole his wallet.11 Cannon awoke and grabbed Miller by the throat.12 Smith struck Cannon with a baseball bat, and Miller then repeatedly hit Cannon with the bat.13 The boys set two fires in the trailer before leaving.14 Cannon died from his injuries and smoke inhalation.15 Miller had previously been in and out of foster care, regularly used drugs and alcohol, and had attempted suicide four times.16
Alabama law initially required that Miller be charged as a juvenile, but the district attorney sought and obtained removal of the case to adult court.17 A jury convicted Miller of murder in the course of arson.18 The trial court imposed the statutorily mandated sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.19
Following this Court's decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, Jackson filed a state habeas petition arguing that his mandatory life-without-parole sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.20 The circuit court dismissed the petition, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.21 Miller's direct appeal was likewise unsuccessful.22 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases.23
Whether the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders?24
The Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.25 Such schemes prevent the sentencer from considering the special circumstances of youth and its attendant characteristics before imposing the harshest possible penalty.26
Yes. The mandatory sentencing schemes at issue here prevent the sentencer from taking into account the special circumstances of youth before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.27 Jackson was fourteen years old when he participated in the robbery that resulted in the clerk's death, yet the Arkansas scheme imposed life without parole without regard to his age, role as a non-shooter, or background.28 Miller was likewise fourteen with a documented history of abuse, foster care, substance abuse, and suicide attempts when he committed murder during arson, but the Alabama scheme mandated the same irrevocable sentence.
By requiring that all juveniles convicted of certain crimes receive life without parole, these schemes preclude the sentencer from considering the mitigating qualities of youth, including immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences, as well as the family and home environment and the possibility of rehabilitation. Because the sentencing schemes at issue in these cases do not take into account the special circumstances of youth, they violate the Eighth Amendment.29
The mandatory life-without-parole sentences imposed on Jackson and Miller violate the Eighth Amendment.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Sotomayor
Justice Breyer joined the Court's opinion in full but wrote separately to emphasize that the Eighth Amendment requires a determination whether the juvenile killed or intended to kill before a life-without-parole sentence may be imposed.31 In Jackson's case the jury convicted under a felony-murder statute that did not require proof Jackson himself killed or intended to kill.32 Transferred intent from the underlying robbery is insufficient for juveniles because they lack the capacity to assess full consequences.33
Without a finding that Jackson killed or intended to kill, Graham forbids the sentence regardless of whether it is mandatory or discretionary.34
Joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, And Alito
Chief Justice Roberts dissented, arguing that the Court's holding is not compelled by Roper or Graham because those cases involved the death penalty and nonhomicide crimes respectively.35 He stressed that nearly 2,500 prisoners are serving life without parole for juvenile murders and that the sentence is neither unusual nor categorically disproportionate.36 The decision overrides legislative judgments in 29 jurisdictions and imposes the Court's own policy preferences rather than applying the Eighth Amendment's text or objective indicia of societal standards.37
Justice Scalia joined the Chief Justice's dissent.38 He argued that the Court's decision continues its misguided efforts to constitutionalize sentencing policy.39 The text of the Eighth Amendment and the historical practice at the time of its adoption do not support the prohibition of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile murderers.40
The Court lacks any basis for displacing the policy choices made by Congress and the states.41
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas joined the Chief Justice's and Justice Scalia's dissents.42 He argued that the decision rests on precedent inconsistent with the original understanding of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.43 That clause prohibits only torturous methods of punishment and contains no proportionality principle.44
Neither Roper nor Graham supports a procedural requirement of individualized sentencing for juvenile homicide offenders.45 Harmelin already rejected extending individualized-sentencing rules beyond capital cases.46
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Alito joined the Chief Justice's dissent.47 He contended that the Court has abandoned any reliance on objective indicia of societal standards.48 The Eighth Amendment now reflects only the majority's inward-looking views of moral evolution.49
Congress and 43 states permit life without parole for some juvenile murderers.50 Twenty-eight states plus the federal government make it mandatory for some.51 The majority simply overrules these democratic judgments without constitutional warrant.52