Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 22

18 

MILLER v. ALABAMA
 

Opinion of the Court 

III
 
Alabama  and  Arkansas  offer  two  kinds  of  arguments
against  requiring  individualized  consideration  before  sen-
tencing  a  juvenile  to  life  imprisonment  without  possi- 
bility of parole.  The States (along with the dissents) first 
contend  that  the  rule  we  adopt  conflicts  with  aspects  of 
our  Eighth  Amendment  caselaw.    And  they  next  assert
that  the  rule  is  unnecessary  because  individualized  cir-
cumstances  come  into  play  in  deciding  whether  to  try  a
juvenile  offender  as  an  adult.    We  think  the  States  are 
wrong on both counts. 

A 
The States (along with JUSTICE THOMAS) first claim that 
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957 (1991), precludes our 
holding.  The  defendant  in  Harmelin  was  sentenced  to  a 
mandatory  life-without-parole  term  for  possessing  more 
than  650  grams  of  cocaine.  The  Court  upheld  that  pen-
alty, reasoning that “a sentence which is not otherwise cruel 
and  unusual”  does  not  “becom[e]  so  simply  because  it  is
‘mandatory.’ ”  Id., at 995.  We recognized that a different
rule,  requiring  individualized  sentencing,  applied  in  the 
death  penalty  context.    But  we  refused  to  extend  that 
command  to  noncapital  cases  “because  of  the  qualitative
difference  between  death  and  all  other  penalties.”  Ibid.; 
see  id.,  at  1006  (KENNEDY,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and 
concurring  in  judgment).    According  to  Alabama,  invali-
dating  the  mandatory  imposition  of  life-without-parole
terms  on  juveniles  “would  effectively  overrule  Harmelin.” 
Brief  for  Respondent  in  No.  10–9646,  p.  59  (hereinafter 
Alabama Brief); see Arkansas Brief 39.

We think that argument myopic.  Harmelin had nothing 
to  do  with children  and  did  not  purport  to  apply  its  hold-

—————— 

fendants  and  crimes.    By  contrast,  the  sentencing  schemes  that  the

dissents find permissible altogether preclude considering these factors.