Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

MILLER v. ALABAMA 

Opinion of the Court 

We  found  that  evidence  “particularly  relevant”—more  so
than  it  would  have  been  in  the  case  of  an  adult  offender. 
455 U. S., at 115.  We held: “[J]ust as the chronological age 
of  a  minor  is  itself  a  relevant  mitigating  factor  of  great
weight, so must the background and mental and emotional 
development  of  a  youthful  defendant  be  duly  considered” 
in assessing his culpability.  Id., at 116. 

In light of Graham’s reasoning, these decisions too show 
the  flaws  of  imposing  mandatory  life-without-parole  sen-
tences  on  juvenile  homicide  offenders.  Such  mandatory 
penalties,  by  their  nature,  preclude  a  sentencer  from 
taking  account  of  an  offender’s  age  and  the  wealth  of
characteristics  and  circumstances  attendant  to  it.  Under 
these  schemes,  every  juvenile  will  receive  the  same  sen-
tence as every other—the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, 
the  shooter  and  the  accomplice,  the  child  from  a  stable
household  and  the  child  from  a  chaotic  and  abusive  one. 
And  still  worse,  each  juvenile  (including  these  two  14-
year-olds)  will  receive  the  same  sentence  as  the  vast  ma-
jority of adults committing similar homicide offenses—but
really,  as  Graham  noted,  a  greater  sentence  than  those 
adults  will  serve.7    In  meting  out  the  death  penalty,  the 
elision of all these differences would be strictly forbidden.
And  once  again,  Graham  indicates  that  a  similar  rule 
should  apply  when  a  juvenile  confronts  a  sentence  of  life 
(and death) in prison.

So  Graham  and  Roper  and  our  individualized  sentenc-

—————— 

7 Although  adults  are  subject  as  well  to  the  death  penalty  in  many
jurisdictions,  very  few  offenders  actually  receive  that  sentence.    See, 
e.g.,  Dept.  of  Justice,  Bureau  of  Justice  Statistics,  S.  Rosenmerkel,  M. 
Durose,  &  D.  Farole,  Felony  Sentences  in  State  Courts  2006— 
Statistical Tables, p. 28 (Table 4.4) (rev. Nov. 22, 2010).  So in practice, 
the  sentencing  schemes  at  issue  here  result  in  juvenile  homicide 
offenders receiving the same nominal punishment as almost all adults,
even though the two classes differ significantly in moral culpability and 
capacity for change.