Codifying the hallmark features of youth: Understanding how the Miller factors shape sentencing legislation

• In Event: Understanding the effects of (re)sentencing legislation

Abstract

Objective: Miller (2012) and Montgomery (2016) represent notable changes in the United States’ legal treatment of minors convicted of violent crime. They established that developmental differences make youth less legally culpable than adults and, accordingly, should face less severe punishments. However, the extent to which states incorporated this penal logic into sentencing policies is unclear. The current project addresses that gap. Data/methods: Using policy surveillance and tracking methods, we systematically measure policy changes in each state since Miller. Data are analyzed quantitatively to identify where factors outlined in Miller are incorporated into state legislation and qualitatively to understand how these dimensions are evoked across sentencing schemas. Results: Only 22 of 46 statutes mention Miller factors. Results suggest these dimensions are more robustly incorporated into legislation that bans life without parole for minors and in statutes passed post-Montgomery. Findings demonstrate similarities in how developmental immaturity is conceptualized across legislation and considerable variation regarding how rehabilitation, environmental impact on behavior, and the minor’s role in the offense are conceptualized. Conclusions/Implications: Examining the extent to which the logic of Miller and Montgomery is incorporated into post-Miller sentencing policies elucidates the changing landscape of punitive sentencing of youth in the U.S.

Authors

• Leah Ouellet, Northwestern University

• Daphne Brydon, University of California, Los Angeles

• Laura Abrams, University of California, Los Angeles

• Rebecca Turner, The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth

• Jeffrey T. Ward, Temple University

• J.Z. Bennett, University of Cincinnati

• Dylan B. Jackson, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health