Life Without Parole for Juveniles in the U.S.: A Road That Goes Nowhere

By Maddison Simonds

The United States is the only nation in the world to sentence juveniles under the age of eighteen to life without parole.[1] Jurisprudence over the last thirty years has led to a steady decline in the number of states which utilize life without parole sentencing for juveniles, as well as a narrowing of circumstances and offenses for which it is constitutionally permitted to apply to.[2] The uniting principle underlying the jurisprudence narrowing the applicability of such sentencing for juveniles, is the legal effect of courts acknowledging the fact that “children are constitutionally different from adults in their level of culpability.”[3] The continued prevalence of this sentencing option in any capacity in U.S. courts for juvenile offenders, however, directly equates to further perpetuating rates of disproportionate, extreme, and unusual punishment which fails to be meaningfully justified when applied to children.[4]

In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to permit death penalty eligibility for crimes committed by youth under the age of eighteen.[5] The Court reasoned that because the death penalty must be reserved for the “worst offenders,” the immature and irresponsible nature of juvenile offenders disallows them from being “as morally reprehensible” as their adult counterparts.[6] Similarly, the Court reasoned that the penological goals of retribution and deterrence do not adequately justify the death penalty for juvenile offenders because of their diminished culpability. ^[7] Lastly, there was no clear evidence of any deterrent effect imposed on juveniles by the sentence.[8] Five years later, the Court ruled in Graham v. Florida that juvenile life without parole sentences were prohibited for all crimes other than homicide.[9] Although juvenile offenders of non-homicide crimes are not guaranteed “eventual freedom,” they are guaranteed that such a judgment may not be made by the Court at the outset, barring any opportunity to “obtain release based on maturity. . . .”[10] This decision reinforced the applicability of reason behind the line drawn between childhood and adulthood for other purposes such as voting, buying substances, serving on juries etc.[11] The restriction of societal abilities is due to the developmental stage of the brain, which translates into the court’s duty to offer a meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation for offenders at such a stage.[12]

Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court prohibited mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders.[13] Instead, sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole was deemed to be left up to the discretion of the court in any individual case.[14] The Court reasoned that those mandatory sentences disallowed sentencers from taking into consideration relevant factors such as characteristics, age, and surrounding circumstances.[15] In delivering juvenile life without parole sentences, the Court found it crucial to consider traits such as a child’s developmental stage, lack of maturity, susceptibility to negative influences, and lack of likelihood, to have a character which is “evidence of irretrievabl[e] deprav[ity]” when determining sentencing.[16] Thus, the application of mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles was deemed disproportionate in application because of the inevitable inability to consider the relevant factor of age.[17] The Court held this decision applied retroactively in Montgomery v. Louisiana in 2016,which permitted the prospect of resentencing for eligible citizens serving a juvenile life without parole sentence.[18] The Supreme Court most recently held, in Jones v. Mississippi, that an explanation with a factual finding of “permanent incorrigibility” is not required when sentencing a juvenile to life without parole, protecting each state’s discretionary power for character considerations when sentencing such individuals.[19]

Since the Miller decision in 2012, there has been a decrease in the prevalence of juvenile life without parole sentences in a generalized capacity; however, rates of disproportion related to such sentences have simultaneously increased.[20] Since that decision, the number of states which permit life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders has decreased by 28.[21] Similarly, there has been an 85% decrease in the total number of those serving juvenile life without parole sentences.[22] In contrast, prior to Miller, black juveniles represented around 60% of all juveniles serving life without parole sentences.[23] After the Miller decision, however, that percentage has grown to black juveniles representing roughly 80% of all juveniles serving life without parole.[24] Similarly, the resentencing standards are unequally made accessible to offenders. According to a 2024 report, more than half of those serving juvenile life without parole sentences have been waiting 12 years for a resentencing hearing.[25]Those awaiting resentencing are “overwhelmingly” black.[26]

The nature of life without parole sentencing for juveniles is inextricably linked to increasing racial disparities and disproportionately punishing juveniles of color at harsher and unequal rates.[27] There is a reason the United States stands alone as the only nation to permit life without parole for youth under the age of 18 and isn’t because it’s serving a groundbreaking benefit to society, the justice system, or those subjected to it.

[1] Joshua Rovner, Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview, The Sentencing Project (Apr. 7, 2023), https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/juvenile-life-without-parole-an-overview/.

[2] Id.; see generally Campaign for the Fair Sent’g of Youth, Unusual & Unequal: The Unfinished Business of Ending Life Without Parole for Children in the United States (Apr. 2024), https://cfsy.org/wp-content/uploads/JLWOP-Unusual-Unequal-April-2024.pdf.

[3] Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 213 (2016).

 

[4] See Campaign for the Fair Sent’g of Youth, supra note 2, at 2, 4, 9, 12.

[5] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 579 (2005).

[6] Id. at 570.

[7] Id. at 571-72.

[8] Id.

[9] Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 82 (2010).

[10] Id. at 75.

[11] Rovner, supra note 1.

[12] Graham, 650 U.S. at 75.

[13] Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 489 (2012).

[14] Id. at 489.

[15] Id. at 479.

[16] Id. at 471.

[17] Id. at 479, 489.

[18] Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 208-12 (2016).

[19] Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98, 117 (2021).

[20] Campaign for the Fair Sent’g of Youth, supra note 2 at 4, 10.

[21] Anne Teigen, Juvenile Life Without Parole, Nat’l Conf. State Legislatures (Feb. 13, 2026), https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-life-without-parole.

[22] Campaign for the Fair Sent’g of Youth, supra note 2.

[23] Id. at 4, 10.

[24] Id. at 10.

[25] Id. at 8.

[26] Id. at 10.

[27] Id. at 10, 12.