Juvenile Law Commons^™

Youth Matters: Miller V. Alabama And The Future Of Juvenile Sentencing, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

In the Supreme Court's latest Eighth Amendment decision, Miller v. Alabama, the Court held that statutes authorizing mandatory sentences of life in prison with no possibility of parole are unconstitutional as applied to offenders who were under eighteen when they committed their crimes. This short essay examines several themes presented in Miller, including the constitutional significance of youth and science, the legitimacy of mandatory life sentences and juvenile transfer statutes, and the conflict between “evolving standards of decency” and the Supreme Court’s “independent judgment.” This essay also introduces important articles by Richard Frase, Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, Franklin Zimring …

A Solution To Michigan's Child Shackling Problem, Gabe Newland

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Detained children routinely appear before Michigan's juvenile courts shackled with handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains. Once security officers bring a child to court in these shackles, the child usually remains in them for her hearing or trial. In Michigan, as in many other states, no statute or court rule requires the judge to decide whether shackles are necessary. This Essay argues that Michigan should pass legislation or amend state court rules to create a presumption against shackling children. Unless a child poses a substantial risk of flight or physical danger and less restrictive alternatives to shackling will not adequately …

Omnipresent Student Speech And The Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker In The Digital Age, Watt L. Black Jr.

Watt Lesley Black Jr.

This paper focuses primarily on federal circuit level decisions regarding public school district's ability to discipline students who engage in electronic speech while off-campus and not involved in school activities. Particular attention is paid to the question of whether and how appeals courts have been willing to apply the "material and substantial disruption" standard from the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision to speech occurring off-campus. The paper, which is targeted toward both legal scholars and school administrators, draws together the common threads from the various circuits and weaves them into a set of guidelines for school administrators …

Beyond Paroline: Ensuring Meaningful Remedies For Child Pornography Victims At Home And Abroad, W. Warren H. Binford

W. Warren H. Binford

This article considers how the United States could fulfill its international treaty obligations to support the full restoration of child pornography victims in the aftermath of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Paroline v. United States. The article details how the United States provided leadership historically in creating a skeletal legal framework domestically and internationally to help combat child pornography and restore victims, and highlights how that framework is failing victims on a near-universal basis in an age dominated by technological innovation and globalization. The article proposes the adoption and implementation of effective domestic and international …

In Defense Of Idea Due Process, Mark C. Weber

Mark C. Weber

Due Process hearing rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are under attack. A major professional group and several academic commentators charge that the hearings system advantages middle class parents, that it is expensive, that it is futile, and that it is unmanageable. Some critics would abandon individual rights to a hearing and review in favor of bureaucratic enforcement or administrative mechanisms that do not include the right to an individual hearing before a neutral decision maker. This Article defends the right to a due process hearing. It contends that some criticisms of hearing rights are simply erroneous, and …

Review For Release: Juvenile Offenders, State Parole Practices, And The Eighth Amendment, Sarah F. Russell

Indiana Law Journal

State parole boards have historically operated free from constitutional constraints when making decisions about whether to release prisoners. Recent Supreme Court decisions subject states to a new constitutional requirement to provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” for at least some categories of juvenile offenders. Using original data collected through a survey, this Article provides the first comprehensive description of existing parole board release procedures nationwide and explores whether these practices comply with the Court’s Eighth Amendment mandate.

The Court’s recent decisions in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama prohibit sentences of life without the possibility of release (LWOP) …