Prospects for developmental evidence in juvenile sentencing based on Miller v. Alabama.

Abstract

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions barred mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide (Miller v. Alabama, 2012) and applied Miller retroactively (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016). Miller identified several developmental factors to consider in mitigation, but left many questions unanswered about their application. The authors offer several sentencing contexts to frame the types of developmental and clinical evidence that may be relevant for Miller hearings under various circumstances. Within these contexts, they explore types and sources of relevant developmental evidence and raise questions about quality and limitations. Their analysis identifies areas in which appellate court clarification is needed to determine how developmental evidence will be used in Miller cases, and they alert developmental experts to prospects and cautions for providing relevant evidence, as well as areas in need of research.

Life‐sentenced juveniles: Public perceptions of risk and need for incarceration

“…But it is not clear from Miller and Montgomery that risk should be an explicit part of the resentencing calculation. Neither decision identifies recidivism risk as a factor to consider in resentencing, and good forensic practice at present may not involve assessing risk as part of evaluating juvenile resentencing (Grisso & Kavanaugh, ). However, it can also be argued that the US Supreme Court's emphasis in these cases on the evaluee's capacity for rehabilitation does imply that it will be relevant to consider both risk and need with respect to future crime.…”

Risk assessment and juvenile resentencing: A critical analysis

“…Others who have analyzed how these “ Miller factors” apply to juvenile resentencing suggest that their relationship to risk assessment is attenuated (Grisso & Kavanaugh, ). But consider the following: Adolescents' propensity for risk‐taking and sensation‐seeking behavior – these two factors are risk factors in standard adolescent specialized risk assessment measures such as the SAVRY (Borum, Bartel, & Forth, ) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, ). Adolescents' dependency and limited ability to avoid negative consequences or adversity (e.g., abuse, negative peer influence) – this factor addresses situational aspects of risk assessment such as home and peer contexts. Offense context (or the relationship of risk‐taking propensity or dependency factors to youth's involvement in the offense ) – this factor involves the application of the first two factors to the offense itself, which is a process similar to the application of risk factors to the potential of future offending that is at the heart of risk assessment. Rehabilitation potential that accompanies maturity – the important question with respect to this factor is whether it encompasses criminogenically relevant rehabilitation (reduction of the risk of future offending) or clinical rehabilitation (addressing deficits that make it difficult for an adolescent to function effectively in social and behavioral health terms), or both.…”

“…The United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller and Montgomery have created a need for a distinctive form of FMHA: the evaluation of adults who were convicted of and sentenced to mandatory life for offenses committed as adolescents. With these decisions have come a number of questions that are addressed in this article, building on the analyses offered by others (e.g., Grisso & Kavanaugh, ; Heilbrun et al, ). Based on the preceding discussion, we offer the following recommendation to those who provide evaluations of juvenile resentencing in Miller/Montgomery cases: Consider using a risk–need framework, which incorporates four of the five specific “ Miller factors,” and also promotes the appraisal of risk of reoffending in the community and need for intervention either in the community upon release or while incarcerated and serving the remainder of a new sentence. Do not directly address the question of whether a given individual is irreparably corrupt, as that determination is influenced by non‐clinical, non‐scientific values that are properly the domain of the court.…”

“…Others who have analyzed how these "Miller factors" apply to juvenile resentencing suggest that their relationship to risk assessment is attenuated (Grisso & Kavanaugh, 2016). But consider the following:…”

“…The United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller and Montgomery have created a need for a distinctive form of FMHA: the evaluation of adults who were convicted of and sentenced to mandatory life for offenses committed as adolescents. With these decisions have come a number of questions that are addressed in this article, building on the analyses offered by others (e.g., Grisso & Kavanaugh, 2016;Heilbrun et al, 2017). Based on the preceding discussion, we offer the following recommendation to those who provide evaluations of juvenile resentencing in Miller/ Montgomery cases:…”