Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

MILLER v. ALABAMA 

Opinion of the Court 

mum  punishment  of  life  without  parole.  See  Ala.  Code 
§§13A–5–40(9), 13A–6–2(c) (1982). 

Relying  in  significant  part  on  testimony  from  Smith,
who  had  pleaded  to  a  lesser  offense,  a  jury  found  Miller 
guilty.  He  was  therefore  sentenced  to  life  without  the 
possibility  of  parole.  The  Alabama  Court  of  Criminal 
Appeals affirmed, ruling that life without parole was “not
overly  harsh  when  compared  to  the  crime”  and  that  the 
mandatory nature of the sentencing scheme was permissi-
ble  under  the  Eighth  Amendment.    63  So.  3d,  at  690;  see 
id.,  at  686–691.  The  Alabama  Supreme  Court  denied
review. 

We  granted  certiorari  in  both  cases,  see  565  U. S.  ___
(2011)  (No.  10–9646);  565  U. S.  ___  (2011)  (No.  10–9647), 
and now reverse. 

II 
The  Eighth  Amendment’s  prohibition  of  cruel  and  un-
usual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to 
be  subjected  to  excessive  sanctions.”  Roper,  543  U. S.,  at 
560.  That right, we have explained, “flows from the basic 
‘precept  of  justice  that  punishment  for  crime  should  be 
graduated and proportioned’ ” to both the offender and the 
offense.  Ibid.  (quoting  Weems  v.  United  States,  217  U. S. 
349,  367  (1910)).  As  we  noted  the  last  time  we  consid- 
ered  life-without-parole  sentences  imposed  on  juveniles, 
“[t]he  concept  of  proportionality  is  central  to  the  Eighth
Amendment.”  Graham,  560  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  8). 
And  we  view  that  concept  less  through  a  historical  prism
than  according  to  “ ‘the  evolving  standards  of  decency 
that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ ”  Estelle v. 
Gamble, 429 U. S. 97,  102 (1976) (quoting Trop  v. Dulles, 
356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion)).

The  cases  before  us  implicate  two  strands  of  precedent 
reflecting  our  concern  with  proportionate  punishment.
The  first  has  adopted  categorical  bans  on  sentencing