Written By Jada Smith L’28
Background
In 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in Miller v. Alabama (2012) that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders violate the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.[1] Yet, twenty-two states still permit juveniles to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and seventeen of those states, including Pennsylvania, actively have juvenile offenders serving life without parole sentences.[2] This means that seventeen states in the U.S. have people, who committed a crime as a juvenile, that are now set to die in prison.[3]
The Problem with JLWOP
- The Worldwide Norm
Internationally, the norm is to prohibit juvenile life without parole (JLWOP).[4] In 1989, most of the world made a historic commitment to juveniles by adopting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).[5] The CRC is an international human rights agreement that expresses the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of all juveniles in the world. The CRC expressly prohibits JLWOP by explicitly stating that “no child shall be subjected to…life imprisonment without the possibility of release.”[6] The CRC has been ratified by 195 out of 196 U.N. state parties, making it the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.[7] The only country that has not ratified the CRC is the United States.[8] As a result, the U.S. is the only country in the world that routinely sentences juveniles to life without the possibility of parole.[9] Permitting JLWOP, whether mandatory or discretionary, violates international law norms and paints the U.S. as an extreme outlier as it relates to children’s rights.[10]
2. Juveniles are Different
The Supreme Court of the United States views juveniles as “less culpable than adults” and therefore undeserving of the most severe punishments.[11] Juvenile’s developing frontal lobe leads them to impulsivity, recklessness, and careless risk-taking.[12] During the adolescent years, risk-taking behavior begins to increase.[13] Additionally, juveniles are more persuaded by rewards than adults, which can lead to irrational decision-making[14] For example, because juveniles are more sensitive to rewards, the reward that could come from an illegal act may be given unduly weight than its risk.[15] Although juveniles vary in how much of a grasp they have on risk-reward sensitivity, no juvenile has reached maturation before eighteen.[16]
Juveniles are also highly vulnerable to negative influences and have limited control over their environment that may produce or encourage criminal behavior.[17] Unlike an adult, a juvenile often does not have the legal, financial, or social power to extricate themselves from a “dysfunctional or criminogenic circumstance” that could contribute to criminal behavior.[18] This means that juveniles are more likely to be trapped in dangerous or criminogenic circumstances. This should be considered when sentencing a juvenile.[19] A juvenile who cannot remove themselves from dangerous or crime producing circumstances certainly should not be imprisoned for life for a crime committed while stuck in those circumstances.
Since the brain and character of a juvenile is still developing, juveniles are more easily rehabilitated than adults, and their poor choices and negative behaviors can likely be corrected.[20] The immaturities in the brains of juveniles that lead to increased risky behavior and sensitivity to reward, also suggest that juveniles are “amenable to rehabilitation”.[21]
With those factors in mind, it is illogical to force juveniles to remain in prison for their entire life without any opportunity at the chance of parole. Because juveniles have the power to be rehabilitated, their punishment should reflect that by not allowing juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole.
3. Childhood Experiences
Juveniles sentenced to life in prison are often victims of physical and sexual abuse.[22] They often come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and have been exposed to violence in their home and neighborhood.[23] The difficult upbringings that most juvenile lifers faced often contributes to why they ended up committing a crime.[24] Many juvenile lifers are exposed to violence, instability, and/or abuse from the start of their lives.[25] The traumatic childhood experiences that most juvenile lifers face supports the understanding that juvenile offenders sentenced to life are not inherently evil or incorrigible but are instead deeply traumatized individuals who can be rehabilitated with proper guidance and resources.[26]
4. Racial Disparities
Post Miller v. Alabama, the percentage of Black offenders sentenced to JLWOP has increased from 61% to 76.6%.[27] Black offenders are twice as likely to receive a JLWOP sentence compared to their white peers.[28] Black offenders who murder a white victim are more likely to be convicted of JLWOP than white offenders who murder a black victim.[29] Racial disparities exist broadly in the criminal justice system, not just when JLWOP sentences are enacted.[30] The racial disparities can in part be attributed to racial bias that exists in the criminal justice system, specifically in the prosecutorial and judicial phases.[31]
5. Wasting Taxpayer Dollars
In Pennsylvania, it costs over $67,000 to incarcerate one single person each year. This means that if a 15-year-old is incarcerated for life (often 50+ years), Pennsylvania will likely spend at least 3.3 million dollars on just one juvenile.[32] Alternatively, the millions spent incarcerating juveniles could be used to invest in resources that are correlated with decreased risk of a juvenile engaging in criminal acts.[33] For example, that money could be spent investing in early childhood education or effectively preventing child abuse and neglect.[34] Is incarcerating juveniles until they die really how Pennsylvania taxpayers want their dollars spent?
6. Nationwide Change
66% of states in the U.S. have either banned JLWOP and/or do not have anyone actively serving a JLWOP sentence.[35] By both permitting JLWOP and actively having juvenile offenders serve life without parole sentences, Pennsylvania, and any other state that allows JLWOP, fail to align with the way the majority of states in the U.S. view children’s rights.[36]
Pennsylvania’s Unique Situation
In Pennsylvania, juvenile offenders convicted of first-degree murder after June 24, 2012, can be sentenced (or resentenced) to life without the possibility of parole.[37] In determining whether to impose a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile, the court must consider the following factors:
- Impact of the offense on each victim, including oral and written victim impact statements
- Impact of the offense on the community
- Threat to the safety of the public or any individual posed by the defendant
- Nature and circumstances of the offense
- Degree of the defendant’s culpability
- Guidelines for sentencing and resentencing adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing
- Age-related characteristics of the defendant, including: age, mental capacity, maturity, degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the defendant, nature and extent of any prior delinquent or criminal history, probation or institutional reports, other relevant factors.[38]
Prior to Miller, Pennsylvania had the most juveniles in the United States serving life without parole sentences.[39] Pennsylvania has since resentenced many of its juvenile lifers, but the Commonwealth still has some juvenile offenders serving life sentences and within the past decade, it has continued to resentence juveniles to LWOP.[40] As of 2026, Pennsylvania has a juvenile lifer population of 523, with 501 of those lifers having already been resentenced and fourteen awaiting resentencing.[41] A study published by Kutztown University, found that as of 2024, six Pennsylvania cases have resulted in resentencing a juvenile to JLWOP.[42]
Much of the rationale used to justify JLWOP in five out of six resentencing cases was related to how close the offender was to age eighteen.[43] Much of the research done on adolescence cognitive immaturity shows that a juvenile’s brain doesn’t significantly mature from age seventeen to eighteen.[44] Long-term research shows that juvenile brains do not mature until age twenty five.[45] With that in mind, the rationales that apply to juveniles’ brain immaturity still apply even if a juvenile is months away from eighteen.[46] It is not as if as soon as a seventeen-year-old turns eighteen that their brain fully develops.[47]
Finally, empirical evidence on former Pennsylvania juvenile lifers indicates that recidivism is quite low for those sentenced to long sentences which points to the ideas that 1) juveniles can be rehabilitated and 2) permanently incarcerating juveniles does not greatly increase public safety.[48]
Recommendation
During the 2023-2024 legislation session, Senator Sharif Street created SB 135 in an attempt to abolish “death by incarceration” by eliminating life without parole.[49] This bill would allow juveniles over fifteen with a first-degree conviction to be parole eligible after 35 years and it would allow anyone previously convicted of two crimes of violence to have the opportunity of parole.[50] Interestingly, this bill included the abolition of LWOP sentences for both adults and juveniles. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has repeatedly signaled that it sees juveniles as easily susceptible to bad influences and capable of rehabilitation, so it is possible that SB 135 may have a better shot at passing if it excludes adults and instead is specific to juveniles.[51]
To align with international law, the U.S. Constitution, and promote children’s rights, Pennsylvania must eliminate life without parole sentences for juveniles.[52] Pennsylvania should grant juvenile offenders a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a parole board after they have served a mandated twenty to thirty years. Such a law would not guarantee that juvenile offenders will be released, but it simply gives juvenile offenders a second chance at life outside of prison if they have been rehabilitated. Juvenile offenders, in all states and all countries, deserve the possibility of a second chance at life outside of prison by requiring the possibility of parole.
No juvenile is incorrigible. All juveniles are amenable and the criminal justice system should reflect that. It is time for Pennsylvania to give juveniles a second chance by abolishing life without parole sentences for juveniles.
[1] Miller v Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 489 (2012).
[2] See Illustration of U.S. Map with States that have Abolished JLWOP, the campaign for the fair sentencing of youth (last visited June 6, 2026), https://cfsy.org.
[3] See id.
[4] See The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child, congressional research service, 1 (July 27, 2015), https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R40484/R40484.25.pdf; Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 37(a), Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
[5] See The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child, supra note 4.
[6] Id. See Convention on the Rights of the Child art 37(a).
[7] See The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child, supra note 4.
[8] See Illustration of World Map Ratification Status on Convention on the Rights of the Child, in United Nations Human Rights Office of the high commissioner, (last updated 21 Feb 2023), https://indicators.ohchr.org.
[9] See Illustration of World Map Ratification Status on Convention on the Rights of the Child, in United Nations Human Rights Office of the high commissioner, (last updated 21 Feb 2023), https://indicators.ohchr.org; Emily Hanson & Joanna Lampe, Juvenile Life Without Parole: In Brief, Congress.gov (June 13, 2022), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47158; UN expert slams US as only nation to imprison kids for life without parole, the campaign for the fair sentencing of youth (March 9, 2015), https://cfsy.org/un-expert-slams-us-as-only-nation-to-imprison-kids-for-life-without-parole/.
[10] Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP), juvenile law center (last visited June 6, 2026), https://jlc.org/issues/juvenile-life-without.
[11] Miller, 567 U.S. at 471.
[12] Id.
[13] Colleen Sbeglia, et al., Life after life: Recidivism among individuals formerly sentenced to mandatory juvenile life without parole, J. of Rsch. on Adolescence, (2025), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11758475/.
[14] See id.; Beatriz Luna, The Relevance of Immaturities in the Juvenile Brain to Culpability and Rehabilitation, UC L.J., (2012), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5662008/.
[15] See Sbeglia, supra note 14.
[16] See id.
[17] Miller, 567 U.S. at 471; Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2001).
[18] See Sbeglia, supra note 14.
[19] See Sbeglia, supra note 14.
[20] See Luna, supra note 15.
[21] See id.
[22] See Joshua Rovner, Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview, the sentencing project (April 7, 2023), https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/juvenile-life-without-parole-an-overview/.
[23] See id.
[24] See id.
[25] See id.
[26] See Rovner, supra note 23; See Sbeglia, supra note 14; See Luna, supra note 15.
[27] Sentencing Children to Life Without Parole: National Numbers, the campaign for the fair sentencing of youth, https://cfsy.org/sentencing-children-to-life-without-parole-national-numbers/ (last visited Sep. 12, 2026).
[28] See Why do we lock juveniles up for life and throw away the key? Race plays a big part, the prison policy initiative, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2016/09/15/juvenile_lwop/ (Sep. 15, 2016).
[29] See Rovner, supra note 23.
[30] See Why do we lock juveniles up for life?, supra note 29.
[31] See id.
[32] See Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 2025-26 Budget Testimony, commonwealth of pennsylvania, https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/cor/documents/about-us/statistics/budget-documents/budget-testimony-2025-26.pdf; Still Life: America’s Increasing Use of Life and Long-Term Sentences, the sentencing project (May 3, 2017), https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/still-life-americaos-increasing-use-of-life-and-long-term-sentences/.
[33] See id.
[34] See Five Things About Youth and Delinquency, juvenile five things about youth and delinquency (July 30, 2024), https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-youth-and-delinquency; Jorge L. García, et al., Early Childhood Education and Crime, Infant Mental Health J., (2019), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6344026/.
[35] See Illustration of U.S. Map with States that have Abolished JLWOP, in the campaign for the fair sentencing of youth (last visited June 6, 2026), https://cfsy.org.
[36] See id.
[37] 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1(a)
[38] Id.
[39] See Juvenile Life Without Parole in Pennsylvania, juvenile law center (last visited Sep. 12, 2026), https://jlc.org/juvenile-life-without-parole-jlwop-pennsylvania.
[40] Margaret E. Leigey and Marco Granston, Juvenile Life Without Parole in Pennsylvania: Age, Cognitive Immaturity, and Culpability, J. of Crim. Just. And L., May 31, 2024, at 43, https://research.library.kutztown.edu/jcjl/vol7/iss2/3.
[41] See Juvenile Lifer Statistics, commonwealth of pennsylvania (March 31, 2026), https://www.pa.gov/agencies/parole/resources/statistics.
[42] See Leigey, supra note 41, at 43.
[43] See id at 46-47.
[44] See Mariam Arain, et al., Maturation of the adolescent brain, Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment (Apr. 3, 2013), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3621648/.
[45] See Leigey, supra note 41, at 47-48.
[46] See Arain, supra note 45.
[47] See id.
[48] See Sbeglia, supra note 14.
[49] SB Bill 135 | Parole eligibility for lifers, aclu pennsylvania, https://www.aclupa.org/legislation/sb-135-parole-eligibility-lifers/ (last updated Feb. 6, 2023).
[50] Id.
[51] See Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410, 456-58 (Pa. 2017) (finding a presumption against juvenile incorrigibility); Commonwealth v. Felder, 269 A.3d 1232, 1246-49 (Pa. 2022) (finding age and attendant circumstances should be considered when sentencing juveniles).
[52] See Illustration of U.S. Map with States that have Abolished JLWOP, in the campaign for the fair sentencing of youth (last visited June 6, 2026), https://cfsy.org; Convention on the Rights of the Child art 37(a).