Evan Miller spent time in and out of foster care as a result of a physically abusive father and a mother who was addicted to both drugs and alcohol. Miller had attempted suicide four times in his life, with the first attempted occurring when he was just 6 years of age. One evening in 2003, when Miller was 14 years of age, Miller and a friend followed their neighbor back to his home after the neighbor had delivered drugs to Miller’s mother. When they arrived at the neighbor’s house, Miller, his friend and the neighbor smoked marijuana together and played drinking games.

When the neighbor passed out, Miller stole his wallet and split the money with his friend. Miller tried to put the wallet back in the neighbor’s pocket, the neighbor woke up and grabbed Miller by the neck. Miller’s friend then struck the neighbor in the head with a baseball bat freeing Miller, and Miller took the bat and repeatedly struck the neighbor in the head. On the final blow, Miller reportedly stated: “I am God, I’ve come to take your life.” Miller and his friend then left the neighbor’s residence, but returned a short time later after they decided that they needed to burn the evidence. The neighbor ended up dying from a combination of his injuries and smoke inhalation. Miller was tried as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole.

Miller’s case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, and, last month, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life imprisonment of juvenile offenders constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan noted that juvenile offenders are a special class of offenders who have a “lack of maturity and an undeveloped sense of responsibility,” and that juvenile offenders “are more vulnerable . . . to negative influences and outside pressures, including from family and peers; they have a limited control over their own environment and lack the ability to extricate themselves from horrific, crime producing settings.” Justice Kagan also noted that a juvenile offender’s character is less fixed than an adult’s character and criminal acts committed by a juvenile offender are “less likely to be evidence of irretrievable depravity.” Justice Kagan relied upon scientific studies that confirmed the nature of the juvenile brain is markedly different from an adult brain and those differences cause “transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences.”

Based upon all of these differences between adults and juveniles, the majority concluded that sentencing procedures that require mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders were unconstitutional. It was specifically the mandatory nature of the sentencing structure that Justice Kagan attacked in her majority opinion – the inability of the sentencing court to consider the differences between adult offenders and juvenile offenders and then weigh those differences with the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was a proportionate sentence for a particular juvenile offender.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, Chief Justice Roberts noted that “determining the appropriate sentence for a teenager convicted of murder presents grave and challenging questions of morality and social policy. Our role, however, is to apply the law, not to answer such questions.” Roberts went further to note that there were approximately 2,500 prisoners nationwide currently serving sentences for homicides they committed (or were involved in) prior to their 18th birthday. Roberts also noted that the federal government and most states provide for such punishment for juvenile offenders. Roberts concluded: “Put simply, if a 17-year-old is convicted of deliberately murdering an innocent victim, it is not ‘unusual’ for the murderer to receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole. That reality should preclude finding that mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile killers violates the Eight Amendment.” In other words, Roberts argued that you cannot say that such sentences are “cruel and unusual” punishment when there is nothing “unusual” about states imposing such mandatory sentences.

This decision has obviously called into question the constitutionality of those thousands of life sentences of juvenile killers. At this point, the argument will become a very legal one as there will be a question as to whether this decision can be applied retroactively, i.e., to disturb sentences that have already been issued. Last week, the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association has come out to oppose the retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama, noting that Justice Kagan did not state that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a juvenile killer was not unconstitutional, only that such a mandatory sentence would be unconstitutional. Generally, decisions that implicate procedural rights are not applied retroactively, while those that involve substantive rights are applied retroactively. Because the Supreme Court objected to the procedural nature of these sentences, i.e., that they were mandatory and did not allow the judge to consider the individual factors for each juvenile offender, the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association has determined that there should be no retroactive application of the Miller decision.

Ultimately, the courts will have to determine whether Miller applies retroactively – and it is probable that different courts will come to different results until such time as a case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court. Even though they are not required to do so, state courts can opt to apply procedural rules retroactively – which means that we may end up with a hodgepodge of different treatment of juvenile killers depending upon the general disposition of each state court system.