Understanding how courtroom workgroups across counties implement juvenile life-without-parole reform

• In Event: Taking a Second Look at Life without Parole: Where it’s Imposed and Mechanisms for Reform

Abstract

Objective: In 2012, the Supreme Court restricted states' ability to impose life-without-parole sentences for youth under 18 convicted of homicide crimes, based on youths’ developmental immaturity and propensity for change. In response, many states required courts to resentence individuals sentenced to LWOP as minors, considering "the hallmark features of youth.” However, how these features are being applied in the decision-making process and how this varies from court to court is currently unknown. Drawing from literature establishing how courtroom workgroups collectively produce case outcomes (e.g., Eisenstein et al., 1988), the current paper studies the process through which courtroom actors define and operationalize developmental factors.
Data/methods: This study uses courtroom observation and transcript analysis (n < 20) to compare resentencing cases across counties and outcomes (i.e., reimposed LWOP versus less than LWOP).
Results: Preliminary results indicate that workgroups define developmental concepts together and create a shared, case-specific lexicon that provides a framework for both sides' arguments. Regardless of the resentencing outcome, judges appear to adhere to this framework when issuing their sentencing decisions.
Implications: Actors signal compliance with the law and to help imbue the resentencing process with legitimacy, providing implications for understanding how second look reforms are implemented and how legal sensemaking is diffused.

Author

• Leah Ouellet, Northwestern University