Miller v. Alabama and the Problem of Implementation

On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Miller v. Alabama, a case which challenged the mandatory application of life without parole sentences in juvenile cases. Justice Kagan wrote the Court’s opinion in which she stated: “a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.”[1] Three years later in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court decided that Miller v. Alabama “announced a substantive rule of constitutional law,” and as such, would apply retroactively to relevant cases. Writing the Court’s opinion, Justice Kennedy stated, “Miller’s conclusion that the sentence of life without parole is disproportionate for the vast majority of juvenile offenders raises a grave risk that many are being held in violation of the Constitution.”[2] These two rulings suggest that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is usually unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment and that such a harsh punishment should be reserved for only the most exceptional cases.

In word and in theory, these rulings are extremely progressive, providing many incarcerated individuals with the opportunity to appeal their cases and receive lesser sentences. However, in practice, the application of these rulings has been inconsistent, and, some might argue, ineffective. This inconsistency can primarily be attributed to the issue of discretion. These rulings leave it up to judges and parole board members to decide what constitutes an extreme case and whether an individual sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile is worthy of receiving a lesser sentence. Aside from Montgomery v. Louisiana stating that the Miller v. Alabama decision could be applied retroactively, these rulings make few stipulations about when, where, and how these rulings should apply. Consequently, many of the individuals who might have benefitted from these rulings have been unable to do so. According to a 2020 report[3], of the 2800 individuals who were eligible for resentencing after the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, over 700 still have not had the opportunity to appeal their sentences and 1600 will have to appear before parole boards who have the discretion to deny parole for even minor infractions. Additionally, some states have continued to sentence juveniles to life without parole despite the ruling that such sentences should be uncommon[4]. In order for Miller and Montgomery to actually reduce the number of unnecessarily harsh sentences handed down to juveniles, the Supreme Court needs to limit the opportunity for judicial discretion by more concretely outlining what constitutes a rare case in which a crime committed by a juvenile reflects “irreparable corruption.”[5]

At its core, Miller v. Alabama is a case about the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and how it applies to juveniles. The 8th Amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”[6] According to Supreme Court precedent, a punishment that would be cruel and unusual for a juvenile is not necessarily equivalent to what would be cruel and unusual for an adult. In the Court’s opinion in Miller v. Alabama, Justice Kagan cites the decisions of Weems v. United States, Roper v. Simmons, and Graham v. Florida to establish the line of precedent that informed the Court’s decision in Miller.[7] Weems v. United States established the idea of proportionality, that, “punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.”[8] Roper v. Simmons determined that inflicting the death penalty on juvenile offenders was unconstitutional.[9] And Graham v. Florida held that sentencing juvenile nonhomicide offenders to life without parole is unconstitutional.[10] It was with these cases in mind that the Court ultimately decided, “The Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates[11] life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.”[12] In keeping with Supreme Court precedent, Miller v. Alabama ruled that a juvenile offender’s age must be considered when handing down a sentence. Sentencing juveniles to life without parole is not the same as sentencing adults to life without parole, and, in most cases, such a sentence would violate the offender’s 8th Amendment right.

Central to the decision in Miller is the idea that judges should have the opportunity to consider the circumstances surrounding a crime before being required to sentence a juvenile to life without parole. Miller then effectively prohibits any law that would require a life sentence for a juvenile in any case. However, the ruling in Miller still leaves open the option for juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole in rare cases in which a crime, “reflects irreparable corruption.”[13] What those cases are, or what criteria those cases would have to meet is not an issue that is discussed in Miller v. Alabama nor in Montgomery v. Louisiana.

Leaving the implementation of Miller in the hands of judges and parole board members is problematic as what is considered to be a “rare” case differs greatly from state to state. In its decision, the court cited data on sentencing practices that was collected in 2009[14] to argue that, “when given the choice, sentencers impose life without parole on children relatively rarely.”[15] However, out of the top eleven states which were sentencing the most juveniles to life without parole in 2009, only four have enacted laws to end juvenile life without parole sentences.[16] And the same four states which sentenced the most juveniles to life without parole in 2009 still account for 80 percent of these sentences today.[17] While it is possible that these states are reserving juvenile life without parole sentences for those rare cases Justice Kagan mentioned, it is equally possible that these states, for whatever reason, tend to hand down harsher sentences.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case which gives them the opportunity to address some of the issues with their rulings in Miller and Montgomery. The case in question is Jones v. Mississippi. The petitioner in this case, Brett Jones, has claimed that the state failed to determine whether his crime reflected irreparable corruption, which he claims is a determination that must be made before sentencing a juvenile to life without parole under the Miller ruling.[18] Jones also claims that he has presented evidence which indicates that he can be rehabilitated, and thus, does not qualify for a life without parole sentence under Miller.[19] This case provides the Court with an opportunity to more concretely outline what criteria must be met for a juvenile to be considered “irreparably corrupt.” It also provides an opportunity for the rulings in Miller and Montgomery to be applied more liberally, thus giving thousands of incarcerated individuals an opportunity to demonstrate that one horrible childhood mistake does not make a person incapable of rehabilitation for the rest of their life.

[1] “Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012),” Justia Law, accessed March 1, 2021, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/460/.

[2] “Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. (2016),” Justia Law, accessed March 2, 2021, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-280/.

[3] “Montgomery v. Louisiana Anniversary,” The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, January 25, 2020, https://cfsy.org/wp-content/uploads/Montgomery-Anniversary-1.24.pdf.

[4] Ibid.

[5] “Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005),” Justia Law, accessed March 2, 2021, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/.

[6] “United States of America 1789 (Rev. 1992) Constitution - Constitute,” accessed March 2, 2021, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992?lang=en.

[7] “Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).”

[8] “Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910),” Justia Law, accessed March 2, 2021, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/217/349/.

[9] “Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).”

[10] “Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010),” Justia Law, accessed March 2, 2021, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/48/.

[11] Emphasis added.

[12] “Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).”

[13] “Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).”

[14] “State Distribution of Youth Offenders Serving Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP),” Human Rights Watch, October 2, 2009, https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/10/02/state-distribution-youth-offenders-serving-juvenile-life-without-parole-jlwop.

[15] “Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).”

[16] “Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview,” The Sentencing Project, accessed March 2, 2021, https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Howe, “Case Preview: Court to Consider Life Sentences for Juveniles – Again,” SCOTUSblog (blog), November 2, 2020, https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/case-preview-court-to-consider-life-sentences-for-juveniles-again/.

[19] Ibid.