Just Grow Up Already: The Diminished Culpability of Juvenile Gang Members after Miller v. Alabama

INTRODUCTIONIn 2012, in Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory sentences of life without parole (LWOP) for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.1 Historically, the Court has been extremely reluctant to strike down noncapital sentences as violations of the Eighth Amendment unless they are "grossly disproportional" to the underlying crime.2 The Court in Miller, however, struck down a noncapital sentencing scheme after applying the more rigorous Eighth Amendment analysis normally reserved for capital sentences.3 It focused on physiological and developmental differences that set juvenile offenders apart from adults to justify extending the use of this analysis.4 By using its more rigorous Eighth Amendment analysis, the Court was able to review whether it was constitutional for any juvenile offenders-regardless of the particular circumstances of their conviction-to ever be sentenced to mandatory LWOP.5After Miller, it is possible that the Court will extend this approach to other types of mandatory sentences imposed on juvenile defendants.6 One set of laws that may be subject to the Court's Miller analysis are those that impose lengthy mandatory sentence enhancements on juveniles who commit gangrelated crimes.7 Under California's Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act, for instance, juveniles who commit felonies as part of a criminal street gang are subject to term-of-years sentence enhancements when tried in the adult system.8 One consequence of this approach to gang violence is that juvenile offenders can now face heavy jail sentences for committing crimes connected to gang activity.9The STEP Act's gang enhancements implicate the Miller Court's concern that harsh sentencing schemes might fail to account for developmental differ- ences between juveniles and adults.10 In Miller, the Court explained that juvenile offenders are less culpable than adults because: (1) they are less able to assess risk; (2) they are more susceptible to outside influences; and (3) they do not have a fully developed character.11 The gang setting magnifies all of these concerns.12 Accordingly, Miller's categorical Eighth Amendment analysis should be extended to review the STEP Act's gang enhancements.13After applying the categorical analysis used in Miller, the Court should hold that the STEP Act's gang enhancements are unconstitutional when applied to any juvenile.14 The Categorical Eighth Amendment analysis is typically used to review the application of capital sentences to certain categories of offenders or types of crimes.15 In reviewing a sentence under this analysis, the Court normally examines: (1) objective factors (e.g., the national consensus regarding the punishment); and (2) subjective factors (e.g., the penological objectives of the punishment) to decide if the sentence is proportional to the crime committed, as required by the Eighth Amendment.16 In Miller, the Court sidestepped the objective analysis after classifying the challenge of the application of mandatory LWOP sentences to juveniles as procedural, allowing the Court to rest its holding almost entirely on the subjective prong of the analysis.17 A challenge to the gang enhancements would be considered procedural because the Court-rather than striking down a type of punishment all together-would only be reviewing the procedure used for applying such a sen- tence.18 Therefore, the Court should focus its analysis of the enhancements on the subjective prong.19 In light of the unique developmental forces at play for juvenile offenders, the Court should hold that penological objectives do not justify the application of gang enhancements to juvenile offenders.20This Note assesses the constitutionality of gang enhancements as applied to juveniles in light of the Court's evolving Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.21 Part I explains how Miller lays a new framework for assessing juvenile culpability and punishments.22 This Part also explains that the Court has demonstrated a willingness to extend its recognition of the differences between juveniles and adults beyond its review of the harshest sentencing schemes. …