Risks considerations when resentencing juvenile homicide offenders: Unresolved science, policy and law issues post-Jones v. Mississippi

Purpose

The resentencing of juvenile homicide offenders (JHOs) remains a contentious issue after the Jones v. Mississippi decision. This research investigates whether pre-Montgomery long-term life sentences validly differentiate between JHOs with and without irreparable corruption. It also examines the influence of life sentence type, racial/ethnic minority status, and their interactions on serious and violent prison infractions.

Principal findings

The findings reveal non-significant and small observed differences in absolute rates of prison incorrigibility between JHOs sentenced to juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) and juvenile life with parole (JLWP), challenging the assumption that JLWOP sentences accurately reflect higher levels of prison depravity than JLWP sentenced JHOs. Further, neither type of life sentence nor minority status, individually or interactively influence rates of violent or serious prison infractions among juvenile lifers.

Conclusions

The results introduce concerns about the validity of prosecutorial arguments opposing the resentencing of pre-Montgomery JLWOP inmates in Arizona.

Additionally, they highlight prioritizing behavioral evidence gathered during imprisonment, over the “reasonable feasibility” of employing predictive judgments of irreparable corruption at sentencing, underscoring the need for a hybrid sentencing framework allowing for assessments of irreparable corruption after the completion of a desert phase of a JLWP sentence.