In this case, the Court ruled that mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders was unconstitutional. The decision held that such sentences violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The case specifically addressed two individuals, Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed as minors. The ruling in Miller v. Alabama established that judges must have the discretion to consider the individual circumstances and rehabilitation potential of juvenile offenders when imposing sentences, rather than being bound by mandatory life without parole sentences. This decision marked a significant shift in how the justice system treats juvenile offenders, recognizing their potential for growth and rehabilitation.
In this case, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for non-homicide crimes. The case centered around Terrence Graham, who had been sentenced to life without parole for a non-lethal armed robbery he committed as a teenager. The Court's decision in Graham v. Florida established that such sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide offenses violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This case marked an important development in the legal treatment of juvenile offenders, recognizing that they should not be subjected to life imprisonment without the chance for parole for crimes that did not involve loss of life. It highlighted the principle that the justice system must take into account the unique characteristics of juvenile offenders and their potential for rehabilitation.
In this case, the Court ruled that the execution of juvenile offenders who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes is unconstitutional. The case focused on Christopher Simmons, who had been sentenced to death for a murder he committed when he was 17 years old. The Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons held that the imposition of the death penalty on individuals who were juveniles at the time of their offenses violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This landmark decision marked a shift in the treatment of juvenile offenders in the criminal justice system, recognizing that they should not be subject to the ultimate punishment of death due to their status as minors and their potential for rehabilitation.
In this case, the Court ruled that its prior decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012), which held that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders were unconstitutional, applied retroactively. The case centered around Henry Montgomery, who had been sentenced to life without parole for a murder he committed as a teenager in 1963. The Court's decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana established that individuals who had received mandatory life without parole sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles, and who were serving those sentences before Miller v. Alabama was decided, were entitled to the opportunity for resentencing or parole consideration. This ruling marked an important clarification that the principles set forth in Miller applied to all individuals in similar circumstances, even if their sentences had been imposed prior to the Miller decision. It recognized the need for retroactive application of the ruling to ensure a fair and just treatment of juvenile offenders in the justice system.
The case revolved around a 13-year-old student, identified as J.D.B., who was interrogated by the police at his school regarding a string of burglaries without being given a Miranda warning or informed of his right to remain silent. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the age of a minor is a relevant factor to consider when determining whether a juvenile suspect is in custody for the purposes of Miranda rights. The Court held that a child's age must be taken into account, along with other circumstances, when assessing whether a reasonable person in the juvenile's situation would have felt free to leave the interrogation. This ruling emphasized the need to consider the vulnerability and psychological maturity of minors when evaluating their rights during police questioning. It established that a minor's age can affect the determination of whether they are in custody, triggering the requirement for Miranda warnings.