Abstract
In Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment requires a court to, prior to sentencing juveniles to life-without-parole, consider mitigating factors attendant to youth. The Court noted that a life-without-parole sentence was only appropriate punishment for a juvenile when the juvenile’s act reflected true incorrigibility. Given the transient nature of youthful characteristics, like impetuosity, true incorrigibility is vanishingly rare. As such, after Miller, the imposition of life-without-parole sentences for juveniles should be similarly rare.
As the birthplace of the juvenile justice system, Illinois holds a special place in the history of the American justice system. Throughout the get-tough-on crime movement in the United States, Illinois – like other states – adopted harsher, retributive-focused punishments for juvenile offenders. Fear of the young “super-predator” has somewhat abated since, but those harsh sentencing guidelines largely remain in place. Following the Miller decision, however, Illinois has a chance to return to its place as a pioneer of juvenile justice by focusing on utilitarian goals of punishment, especially rehabilitation. In keeping with the Miller decision, Illinois should seek to distinguish between the rare incorrigible juvenile offender and the much more common youthful offender whose offense reflects immaturity and impetuosity. Youthful offenders capable of growth and rehabilitation should be sentenced with those objectives in mind.
Recommended Citation
Brad Taylor,
Return to Rehabilitation: Illinois’ Evolving Juvenile Sentencing Practices in Light of Miller v. Alabama,
43
S. Ill. U. L.J.
403
(2019).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol43/iss2/5