Keywords
term sentences, juveniles, law, unitedhttps://doi.org/10.21428/b6e95092.8c8ec43d states v. grant
Document Type
Article
Abstract
In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles are unconstitutional. In Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), the Supreme Court made this holding retroactive, leaving the states to fashion new sentencing schemes for juveniles previously sentenced to life without parole. Complicating this task is the debate around “de facto,” or virtual, life sentences, which are term-of-years sentences that extend beyond an individual’s life expectancy. This article proposes a framework to be used for sentencing juvenile lifers in light of the Supreme Court’s opinions and the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in United States v. Grant (2018). The framework considers an individual’s life expectancy and health, the national retirement age, and the time needed to reconnect with society. The output is a liveable term-of-years sentence that allows persons sentenced to life without parole as juveniles the prospect of release and the achievement of a meaningful life in the free world.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.21428/b6e95092.8c8ec43d
Recommended Citation
Ripper, Brittany and Johnson, Robert
(2019)
"Livable Term Sentences as Alternatives to Juvenile Life Without Parole: A Sentencing Framework Based on United States v. Grant,"
Journal of Criminal Justice and Law: Vol. 3:
Iss.
1, Article 4.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21428/b6e95092.8c8ec43d
Available at:
https://research.library.kutztown.edu/jcjl/vol3/iss1/4