After Montgomery v. Louisiana made Miller v. Alabama retroactive, a small group of juvenile homicide offenders in the federal system became eligible to be resentenced by federal district courts around the country. A review of six of these resentencing proceedings reveals that district courts lack appropriate guidance and are ultimately ill-suited to make these difficult resentencing decisions. Further, the lack of predictability in federal sentencing outcomes for juvenile offenders convicted of homicide presents challenges for present-day juveniles accused of homicide in the federal system. Accordingly, a wholesale revision of federal sentencing law and policy is necessary to effectuate Miller’s substantive guarantees.
Megan G. Crane, Shobha L. Mahadev & Scott F. Main∞ The opportunity for release will be afforded to those who demonstrate the truth of Miller’s central intuition—that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change. Children—even children who
Beth Caldwell∞ Abstract This article presents findings from a study on the implementation of California’s new Youth Offender Parole Hearing law, which aims to provide juvenile offenders with meaningful opportunities to obtain release from adult prison. It contributes to the
No matter the circumstances of the crime, no matter the public's general punitiveness, no matter the normal political process, no matter traditional federalism concerns, no matter our obligations under international law, kids are just different.
This article argues that the use of remorselessness to aggravate juvenile sentences is unconstitutional.