Court: Supreme Court of the United States Year of Decision: Pending

Issue: Whether the fundamental principles in the US Supreme Court 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons that declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles should also be applied to sentences of life without the possibility of parole for those who committed crimes as juveniles

Index Topic: Juvenile Sentencing

Facts: The two cases accepted for review involve juvenile offenders (one 13 and one 17 years old) who claim their life prison sentences without opportunity for parole for rape and robbery respectively constitute cruel and unusual punishment. At issue in these cases is whether the fundamental principles in the US Supreme Court 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons that declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles should also be applied to sentences of life without the possibility of parole for those who committed crimes as juveniles. APA filed an amicus curiae brief in Roper.

APA’s Position: APA’s brief filing is in support of the petitioners (Sullivan and Graham). The general structure of the brief is around three areas of attributes noted by the court in Roper v. Simmons that demonstrate juveniles’ diminished culpability: 1) immaturity (that juveniles have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility which can result in ill-considered actions and decisions); 2) vulnerability (that juveniles are more susceptible to negative influences and peer pressure), and 3) changeability (that the character of juveniles is not as well-formed as that of an adult thereby giving juveniles greater potential for rehabilitation) In summary, the brief presents research that is relevant to determining that given juveniles' diminished culpability and enhanced prospects for rehabilitation, a sentence of death in prison is inconsistent with principles of proportionality in criminal punishment.

Result: Pending