We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
CONFUSION IN MONTGOMERY'S WAKE: STATE RESPONSES, THE MANDATES OF MONTGOMERY, AND WHY A COMPLETE CATEGORICAL BAN ON LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR JUVENILES IS THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION.
- Authors
Hoesterey, Alice Reichman
- Abstract
In 2012, the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama held that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional. Several years later, the Court in Montgomery v. Louisiana determined that Miller must be applied retroactively. However, Montgomery did more than decide the issue of retroactivity--it expanded Miller's holding. Following the decision in Montgomery, state courts have split over whether the decision requires additional protections for juveniles facing life without parole sentences. This Article outlines the differing state responses to Montgomery, examining disagreements over when Montgomery's protections are triggered and what procedural safeguards are required at sentencing. It then proceeds to argue that Montgomery does in fact mandate additional procedures beyond what many states have implemented. Montgomery is itself a groundbreaking decision that requires significant changes to current juvenile life without parole sentencing schemes. Even if states implement the additional protections necessitated by Montgomery, the reasoning behind this, as well as prior opinions, make a categorical ban on life sentences without parole the only constitutional option for juveniles.
- Subjects
MILLER v. Alabama; JUVENILE offenders -- Trials, litigation, etc.; MONTGOMERY v. Louisiana (Supreme Court case); CRIMINAL justice system; JUVENILE delinquency; DISCRIMINATION in juvenile justice administration
- Publication
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2017, Vol 45, Issue 1, p149
- ISSN
0199-4646
- Publication type
Article