penalty for those under the age of eighteen it is somehow more troops today and since two thousand and eleven i want to life and death penalty for all offenders but either way you serve in a sentence that the united states supreme court has called especially harsh court the illinois portion of penalties clause of our state constitution as well as our fundamental things most common law and the the characteristic about all three in that that that that distinguishing at this early age between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects the the transience immaturity of youth and the rare juvenile offender whose primary fights are all corruption or once the watchword was adult time for adult but they're saying the only way it can be fair this is after there's been a full versus the relation of the hallmark as we've seen used and these things need to be considered in mitigation and these are things when when the court uses the language of that these factors counsel against that sentence the once all that is done and of course satisfied that this is still the individual merits that sentence that would still be appropriate but the necessary fact that has that happened before we can eat th and how those factors counsel against that sentence they link life without parole to death penalty cases the way the severity of the sentence of death and so to answer not his first question in terms of who the who in turn his letters that were certainly talking about when a seventeen year old decides to do an hour in the sides to you you know in that moment it's sort of in that split second where they're not able to understand exactly what is happening and they might take an action that otherwise someone who it's happening throughout our lives it's happening for or our courts in illinois right now in fact this afternoon open for just reading and hearing from county on this very question where we're looking at a case that occurred in ninety ninety one and won't be arguing this afternoon look at how he's those in their forty's or fifty's under the if and use a little bit different you know the beauty of our system and i don't mean to lecture you please we have a feeling be judging another human being and i presume the judge to impose penalties in the state shall be determined with the objective of restoring the offender the useful citizenship this is particularly important in the context of juvenile offenders because as we now know juveniles have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults because their mind is still developing and their character as the facts actions of a juvenile are not a reliable indication of what kind of adult that person will this is been formally recognized by the supreme court and the scientific evidence that has supported the decisions and roe  miller has become stronger each and every year since the for this reason mr walker's actual rehabilitation is relevant and it serves to underscore the fencing judge necessarily could not have taken into account given the prevailing understanding of juvenile brain development at the time in this case instead walker demonstrated his rehabilitative potential we have we haven't had the benefit of eventually every hearing in this case so the record is not yet fully developed but we know from the record based on an considered aggravating yet i also think that that those facts have not been fully fleshed out there is there's contradicting evidence in terms of who requested what cab company and what what motivated that that request so it may or may not be the law has changed yet another change that is has occurred is that illinois has gotten rid of the death penalty sense and which you know it shows that we're continuing to evolve in illinois has historically been at the forefront of juvenile law in this country we were the first state to create a separate court system for juveniles recognizing that you nouns are different and therefore should be treated differently and previously we were not at a point where his sentence shock a moral sense of the community if he had brought these planes previously he would be in the same position as even was where his or her ship come out these planes were rescued economy as a hand but here we're in a different case because i think that people who are sentenced and and are going on direct appeal will tell you that i think that your point almost are you suggesting you know something we see is a lot of inmates filing all kinds of sentence was unconstitutional that in twenty two thousand and sixteen sentencing in juvenile to die in prison without having hearings where his news is taken into account in a meaningful  rationale behind miller be taken into consideration in sentencing in illinois even in cases that don't fit where they are within the lines of miller or to after considering art our clients you and what it mat in terms of his ability to plan one thing that the sentencing judge cited was the fact that there was a plan here yes there was a plan and they decided to call a cap company but something that we know now is that a seventeen year old's ability to plan is limit at he's unable to actually think through the consequences of that plan which is demonstrated by the fact that their plan was abandoned as soon as the shooting actually occur they never finished the robbery that he ran off and began vomiting right so now the sentencing charge under miller would be required to consider the youth in a way that is actually meaningful as opposed to just thank yeah he's younger but he did a terrible thing have over which ritually us supreme court decision discussing the at mission of use versus adults again mr walker didn't file his titian until  family social sexual educational problems so there wars wasn't a gating evidence that was presented including the any each of the defendant and he says the defense counsel repeated that this was a seventeen year  old person and i don't think the court in that setting this matter properly can say that this seventeen year old in these circumstances words it means a lot of natural life imprisonment that was the argument presented even if we don't have meet the also consider that the codefendant in this case received only thirty five years the judge considered the different applications of the law for these two individuals were charged with the same murder and  the sort of the perfect storm holy trinity of awful that happens you for the family on miller was very subtle faxes have that they certainly were were drawing upon insoles of force now days and terms of what is or what is not right would i would imagine say five years from now if someone were to try to bring a miller claim for the first time there would be a reasonable arguments you to ask why why did you wait five years after the new legislation before you brought this claim and they would have to make sensors ability to make that judgment the judgment of those natural life sentence and homicide cases we require it to take into account how children are different and how those differences counsel against iraq if we sentencing them to a life time  and constitutes prejudice because the miller holding applies to the defendant sensing hearing so we have to apply that you're into the hearing that took place and unless one can be satisfied that the hearing that took place existed in such a manner in