criminal past and he had a rough childhood where he never do is found there he was raised by his grandmother and his mother had passed away just shortly before roy this crime occurred and we under the cases and we are going to date to carefully consider hearing they were talking about in general when there is an answer to my challenge there should be an epidemic hearing now so i don't think that it was turning on the fact that it was being raised for the first time i think the decision was turning on the studies that have indicated that youthful offenders and not just children that are seventeen and under but youthful offenders don't have the same kind of brain development as say a thirty year old adult i mean there are studies that show us supreme court say those that in this case there wasn't any of that kind of information at least put into the record by the defendant at least not here so what what is  response to that and and shouldn't there be isn't that kind of what what we were saying was that the studies show that youthful offenders don't have the same brain development as a fully mature adult so that that sentencing right but because he's nineteen come in it's it's new territory isn't it significant that it be shown that it's more than simply these many mitigating factors present but also that the reason that it would be i'm sorry only in burma as far as mr house is concerned is because as the us supreme court pointed out that not every eighteen year old is going to be that mature adult there will be seventeen year olds that are well seasoned and and can function as a mature adult but there will be many that are twenty but it may not be able to function as an adult and therefore they should be science the study it's rendered sham marriage came to a juvenile read he argued is that a nineteen year old who is simply accountable for the crime under the writer was entitle violation as applied to him in a murder case involving two victims where there is evidence presented that he's not one of those mature eighteen year olds where there is evidence regarding his background his life experience and there's evidence regarding his culpability that he's not the shooter i believe that under the people versus team over the issue  constitutional violation will how do you respond to the thompson case the supreme court let the very wide open and they said in thompson that this up claim could not be raised for the first time on  he'll be defendant in thompson was nineteen year old nineteen years old he was making a claim very similar to this and the court in this case said the appropriate forum for such a claim is in a post conviction petition and they did not foreclose if this claim could actually exist that is that is correct they did right i guess and all i'm asking you i'm not saying this is that he's what is your position that a nineteen year old who didn't fire the gun who had a it be at ground it was unlike most that he was thrust into a gang sort of situation and he doesn't have the kind of maturity good perhaps but this is not that case now in miller one of the things the court pointed out was the disparity in terms of active participation and big compared and this it just did in this leon miller case that that's an appropriate name for it sure leon miller was only fifteen leon miller only had a couple of seconds to decide whether to be they don't need to never do find that kind of punishment constitutes cruel degrading or still only dish proportioned to the offense is to shock the moral sense of the community this is so because  our society evolves still to do our concepts of elemental decency and fairness which shape the moral sense of the community now i realize supreme court has clearly shown that there is he really to legislate announcements because when the legislature has spoken that itself says something about the general ideas of the people and this state the legislature has twice in the last two years with a constitutional issue ok and each is involved here there are some people who are not educated there are some people who have problems from birth and they need to be eighteen or and and i apologize i don't mean to blindside anybody but simply because the question was asked this question found out that a mandatory not natural life sentence imposed on a nineteen year old defendant who clearly you know whatever it is if it's out there it's out there and brown brings me back to tell it because taylor is what controls in this case to live has been with something like that yes but the court did say that that the legislature has the right to define the penalty and that means is that yes it's constitutional in the sense that it can be imposed it doesn't mean that there isn't going to be  how this decision group or represent what you're suggesting it represents certainly a number of cases have already come down where people are relying on this decision to read it as a good  and then he was a very very active participant don't you think that's a little exaggeration of the record on the view is and i'm not trying to diminish his culpability but in hand and surrounded the victims and that the defendant was run of those gang members and he had a nine millimeter gun in his hand right that demonstrates that the defendant was really not the mastermind for he was involved in the planning of yes he was found guilty under an accountability theory we don't have a dispute with that but is there any evidence that he actually pulled the trigger or does that make him not inactive participant pretty good news to follow or which  even if we go with your recitation of the facts which i'm not disputing ok at the end of the day he did not pull the trigger right that's clear he's not really an elder i agree with you there he can you possibly say that there's not something wrong with a sentencing provision perhaps as to him as applied only to ya that every single that a person who is actively well established he can be held accountable but even in the the miller case the court pointed out the the nature almost shocking that a person who doesn't pull the trigger yes the same sentence as an individual who pulled the trigger because the concept of accountability means when you facilitate a crime when you need to end a bad day you are as justice respons and therefore subject to the same eliason again we have a completely different notion for sentencing and i'm not talking about his guilt or how much you know you you argue he was if he truly was a participant we're not talking about what court is generally supposed to consider in sentencing and i don't know how you can just say that the earth is the same they should always have the same sentence there's a goal proportionality problem with this case or any case so long as they're found guilty of murder everybody say that's that's not what i mean i'm talking about sentencing i'm not talking about field hockey i'm sorry i don't mean to be to be frustrating but i guess and i think it brings it back to taylor because the supreme court in taylor said