Opinion ID: 2278146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: The Role of Scientific Understanding

Text: Without state legislation establishing clear guideposts, courts turn to a different barometer of social decency  scientific understanding. Roper and Graham show that the Supreme Court's view and society's view of juvenile offenders are influenced highly by scientific facts  namely that, due to juveniles' innate biological differences, they must not be held to the same punitive standard as adults. See also Thompson, 487 U.S. at 815-16, 108 S.Ct. 2687. Brain imaging studies have shown that the frontal lobes of the brain, which are not developed until late adolescence, have an impact on response inhibition, regulation of emotion, planning and organization. [12] Roper and Graham acknowledge that modern science now has established as fact the differences in juvenile brains and the effects of those differences on behavior and culpability. For instance, in Roper, the majority cites Steinberg & Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 Am. Psychologist, November 2009, at 1009, 1014; Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. at 569, 125 S.Ct. 1183. Laurence Steinberg, one of the authors cited in Roper, has a more recent review of the science in the November 2009 issue of the same journal. Lawrence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy? 64 AM. PSYCHOLOGIST, November 2009, at 742-43. Steinberg notes four specific noteworthy changes in the brain during adolescence: First, there is a decrease in gray matter in the prefrontal regions of the brain during adolescence  most likely due to the elimination of unused neuronal connections. This biological change results in major improvements in information processing and logical reasoning as the adolescent matures. Id. at 742. Second, there is a significant change in activity of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Shifts in the proliferation and redistribution of dopamine receptors are believed to affect adolescent's weighing of costs and rewards of behavior. Id. at 743. Third, there is an increase during adolescence of white matter in the prefrontal regions. This increased white matter affects the adolescent's response inhibition, long-term planning, weighing of risks and benefits, and the simultaneous consideration of multiple sources of information. Id. Finally, as the child ages, there is an increase in connections between the cortical and subcortical regions, a change that is important for regulation of emotion. Id. A very recent review of the relevant brain science notes an explosion of studies examining the neurobiology of adolescence. Leah H. Somerville & B.J. Casey, Developmental neurobiology of cognitive control and motivational systems, 20 Current Op. in Neurobiology, September 2010, at 236-241. The studies, the authors observe, have focused on evaluating the hypothesis that during adolescence, unique patterns of brain activity arise that predict stereotypical aspects of adolescent behavior including risk-taking and sub-optimal decision-making in the face of incentives. Id. According to recent studies, the authors report, adolescents show a unique sensitivity to motivational cues that challenges the less mature cognitive control system, resulting in an imbalance between these systems and ultimately patterns of behavior that are unique to adolescents.  Id. (Emphasis added.) Studies also show that preference for immediate rewards and sensation-seeking peak around ages 14 and 16 and then decline. Lawrence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy? 64 AM. PSYCHOLOGIST, November 2009, at 745 (November 2009). Impulse control, anticipation of future consequences, strategic planning and resistance to peer influence all increase linearly from preadolescence through late adolescence. The compelling and simply stated result of this research? Juveniles are different. Id. at 746. This current research confirms what the Supreme Court majority said in Graham: No recent data provide reason to reconsider the Court's observations in Roper about the nature of juveniles. . . . [D]evelopments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds. For example, parts of the brain involved in behavior control continue to mature through late adolescence. . . . Juveniles are more capable of change than are adults, and their actions are less likely to be evidence of `irretrievably depraved character' than are the actions of adults. 130 S.Ct. at 2026. [13] This Court must consider the culpability of the offenders as well as the severity of their punishment. Roper and Graham, in their essence, recognize that juveniles are less culpable than adults. Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2026; Roper, 543 U.S. at 575, 125 S.Ct. 1183. The Supreme Court recognized: As compared to adults, juveniles have a `lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility'; they are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure; and their characters are not as well formed. These salient characteristics mean that [i]t is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offenders whose crime reflects irreparable corruption. Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. at 2026 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 569-573, 125 S.Ct. 1183). Punishment, therefore, should reflect the ambiguity regarding motivation and culpability in the commission of a crime. A juvenile's culpability for the same crime is innately less than an adult's because from a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a great possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed. Roper, 543 U.S. at 570, 125 S.Ct. 1183. This basic tenet holds true even when a juvenile commits the most heinous of crimes, homicide. The severity of the punishment  life in prison without the possibility of parole  is the second most severe penalty of all and is the most severe that exists for juveniles. Although the state does not execute the juvenile, the sentence alters the offender's life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable. Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2027. A life without parole sentence is a denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days. Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2027 (quoting Naovarath v. State, 105 Nev. 525, 526, 779 P.2d 944 (1989)). Life without parole in practicality is a death sentence. It is especially harsh for a juvenile offender, who will serve both a greater number of years as well as a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult. Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2027; Roper, 543 U.S. at 572, 125 S.Ct. 1183. The lessened culpability of a juvenile  when compared to the greater relative severity of the punishment  does not meet contemporary standards of decency.