The Importance of an Expansive Deference to Miller v. Alabama

I. Introduction 168II. Background 170A. Overview of Recent Developments in Juvenile Sentencing 170B. Miller v. Alabama 173C. The Aftermath of Miller 1761. A Narrow Interpretation of Miller Will Continue to Allow the Mandatory Imposition of Life-WithoutParole Sentences on Juveniles as Long as the Punishment Is Portrayed in a Quantifiable Set of Years....1762. If States Do Not Give Proper Deference to Miller, States Will Seek to Inhibit Miller's Individualized Sentencing Requirement 177III. Analysis 179A. In the Context of the Eighth Amendment, Miller Should Be Applied Broadly to Prohibit All Mandatory Juvenile LifeWithout-Parole Cases, Regardless of Whether the Punishment Is Strictly Constructed 1791. A Narrow Interpretation of Miller Will Result in States Sentencing Juveniles to Mandatory Life-WithoutParole Sentences Produced From a Combination of Convictions Carrying Mandatory Minimum Terms 1792. Precluding the Application of Miller in Specific States Would Allow for the Unrestrained Imposition of Long Punishments That Fail to Grant a Meaningful Opportunity for Release on Minors 183B. To Satisfy the Supreme Court's Constitutional Standards, the Restriction of a Punishment Should Fit Within a National Consensus, and It Must Stem From Court Precedent 1841. A Finding of a National Consensus Against Excessive Punishments of Juveniles Warrants an Extension of Miller to Encompass All Mandatory Life-WithoutParole Situations 1852. An Analysis of Relevant Supreme Court Precedent Does Not Produce A Precept That Would Allow for the Imposition of Mandatory Life-Without-Parole Punishments Upon Juvenile Offenders 187IV. Policy Implications and Suggestions 189V. Conclusion 192I. IntroductionWhen Cristian Fernandez was two-years-old, he was found naked and alone on a dark Miami street, while his grandmother was "holed up with cocaine in a messy motel room."1 When Cristian was twelve-years-old, school officials sent him to have an eye injury examined, and police visited his home to investigate claims that his stepfather had caused the injuries.2 When the officers arrived, they found the stepfather dead from a selfinflicted gunshot wound.3 The Fernandez family later moved to Jacksonville, where Cristian excelled in his sixth grade classes.4 Just months later, in March 2011, Cristian was accused of killing his two-yearold brother after he slammed his brother's head against a bookshelf.5 In December 2011, Cristian was charged as an adult with first-degree murder and was facing a life sentence in prison.6The Supreme Court's recent decision in Miller v. Alabama precludes Cristian from receiving a mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentence, but the particulars of his case illustrate the importance of the Miller holding and the range of consequences involved in the different interpretations of the decision.7 In Miller, the Court held that judges must consider a juvenile offender's age, background, and the circumstances of his crime instead of imposing mandatory LWOP sentences.8 If Cristian's background is not considered, as Miller requires in mandatory LWOP cases, then the judge or jury will not have explored the penological justifications for his sentence and will fail to draw from the background of an offender's upbringing that may have heavily impacted the youth's culpability.9This Comment argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama applies to juvenile sentencing in all states, not just those that previously had mandatory LWOP sentencing schemes for juveniles. Part II of this Comment examines the Court's recent forays into the juvenile justice system and will contextualize the emerging analyses on the relationship between adolescent development and criminal culpability. …