Topics on this Page
Explore these keywords to find related information.
The decision to send a youth to the adult system is a very serious one. Juveniles are different from adults and should be treated as such. The juvenile system is more focused on rehabilitation and provides more support and opportunities for juvenile offenders compared to adult criminal facilities. Substantial research has concluded youth dealt with in the juvenile system are far less likely to commit new crimes than those tried as adults.
Roper v. Simmons (2004) - The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that is is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for a crime committed by a child under the age of 18, stating that it is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida (2010) - The United States Supreme Court ruled that life without the possibility of parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses unconstitutional.
J.D.B v. North Carolina (2010) - Under consideration in this case was whether a child's age is a relevant factor to consider in determining whether the child is in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a child's age must be considered by law enforcement in determining whether Miranda warnings need to be given to children during police interrogations. NACDL Amicus Brief
Miller v. Alabama (2012) - Under consideration in this case was the constitutionality of imposing life without parole sentences on juveniles convicted of homicide offenses. The United States Supreme Court ruled that "mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments' and that a 'judege or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penaly for juveniles.'"
Montgomery v. Louisiana (2015) - Under consideration in this case was whether Miller v. Alabama applied retroactively to individuals serving mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences. In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that their decision in Miller v. Alabama applied retroactively.
NACDL was pleased to assist in the development and sought subsequent Board approval of Trial Defense Guideline: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence. This valuable resource provided defense attorneys with a standard in defending juveniles who are facing the possibility of a life sentence.
In 2012, NACDL hosted several webinars providing essential instruction to defense lawyers representing juveniles. The first webinar series provides instruction on representing juveniles at sentencing in adult court in the post – Roper, Graham and Miller era. Topics include Lessons Learned from Graham v. Florida and Re-sentencing Juveniles Convicted of Homicide Post-Miller.
Continue reading below
The second webinar series provides strategies for representing juveniles in adult court. Topics include Communicating with a Juvenile Client: JTIP Lesson on Interviewing and Counseling Youth; Incorporating Adolescent Brain & Behavioral Development Science into All Stages of the Criminal Proceeding; and Strategies for Keeping Youth out of Adult Jails and Prisons: Bail, Sentencing and Post-Sentencing Advocacy.
Both series were conducted in partnership with the National Juvenile Defender Center, the Juvenile Law Center, and the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, supported by funding from the Foundation for Criminal Justice and the Ford Foundation.
Continue reading below
This is a sponsored ad
The "Bitcoin" of addiction
Over the past year there have been several advancements in legislation to transform state juvenile justice systems. Raise the age legislation continues to advance with Missouri raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 17 to 18-years-old (SB 793 and SB 800). Delaware legislation addressed mandatory minimum sentencing schemes for youth (HB 307), as well as expanded the Juvenile Civil Citation Program to provide law enforcement officers with the discretion to refer any first-time juvenile offender engaged in any misdemeanor-level behavior to the civil citation program (HB 442). Massachusetts passed an omnibus criminal justice reform measure that included critical juvenile justice related measures including creating opportunities for expungement of misdemeanors and most felony offenses before age 21, decriminalizing school-based public order offenses and banning indiscriminate shackling of children in court (S. 2371). To date, Twenty-eight states and Washington, DC ban or do not use life without parole for children.
See below for pending legislation NACDL is tracking related to juvenile justice reform.
December 2018, Congress passed major juvenile justice reform legislation - the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018 (H.R. 6964). The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1974. It is the only federal statute that sets out national standards for the custody and care of youth in the juvenile justice system. The JJDPA was last reauthorized in 2002 and expired in 2007.
There was several bills tackling juvenile justice reforms pending in Congress. This includes legislation to address the use of mandatory minimum sentences on children in the federal system (H.R. 1949) and legislation that would end life (and de facto life) without parole sentences for children (H.R. 1951), bringing the federal government in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Montgomery v. Louisiana. Visit NACDL's legislative action center for more information on pending federal legislation NACDL is tracking related to juvenile justice.
Below, please find information on recent newly released reports and other resources.
On January 25, 2016, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Montgomery v. Louisiana that Miller v. Alabama would apply retroactively. These two cases concern the unconstitutionality of juveniles being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On Thursday, February 11, 2016, guests Marsha Levick, Deputy Director and Chief Counsel of the Juvenile Law Center and Jody Kent Lavy, Director and National Coordinator, Fair Sentencing of Youth discussed the decision and implications for state level advocacy. Audio of the call and resources will be posted soon.
Learn more about NACDL's State Criminal Justice Network. Angelyn C. Frazer-Giles, Host. Doug Shaner, production supervisor. Music I Will! Rise Above (Jared C. Balogh) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.
The National Advocacy Call on Developing Legislation in June featured a discussion on sentencing and re-sentencing Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) cases post Miller. Speakers included, LaShunda Hill, state strategist, and John Hardenberg, Litigation Specialist both with the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth and Marc Bookman the Director of Atlantic Center for Capital Representation. Learn more about NACDL's State Criminal Justice Network. Angelyn C. Frazer, Host. Steven Logan, production supervisor. Music I Will! Rise Above (Jared C. Balogh) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.
Speakers: Erin Davies, Children's Law Center, Inc. (Kentucky); Deborah St. Jean, Juvenile Protection Division, Maryland State Public Defender Moderator: Cathryn Crawford, Defense Attorney/Juvenile Justice Expert
Pre and post-trial custody can have a tremendous effect on a teenager's development, physical and mental health, and likelihood of offending in the future. In this webinar, we address strategies for obtaining pre-trial release, avoiding placement of a teen in adult jail, incorporating psychological and social scientific evidence into sentencing proceedings, and post-sentencing advocacy. Presenters will provide data and research on juvenile versus adult facilities, tips on investigation and document collection, techniques for obtaining and presenting evidence in support of your client's wishes to avoid adult jail / prison, and suggestions for things a lawyer can do to help minimize the harm to the incarcerated client.