About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


38 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol'y 17 (2012)
Juvenile Justice after Graham v. Florida: Keeping Due Process, Autonomy, and Paternalism in Balance

handle is hein.journals/wajlp38 and id is 19 raw text is: Juvenile Justice After Graham v. Florida: Keeping Due Process, Autonomy, and Paternalism in Balance Kristin Henning* Legal disputes involving children invariably evoke a complex matrix of issues such as child and adolescent capacity, individual rights and autonomy, parental authority, and in the criminal justice context-diminished culpability for a minor's actions. While it is difficult to identify a clear and cohesive jurisprudence regarding the balance between children's autonomy and children's vulnerability across Supreme Court cases, a series of cases over the last decade, including Roper v. Simmons,' Graham v. Florida,2 and J.D.B. v. North Carolina,3 offer a more consistent view of children as vulnerable, malleable, and in need of protection, at least in the criminal and delinquency context. In each of these cases, the Court solidly reaffirms the view that youth lack maturity and are more susceptible to negative influences.4 In Graham, the focus of this Symposium, the Court relied on this view of adolescence to conclude that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles who are not as well formed and therefore less responsible than adults for their conduct.! This holding is undoubtedly a win for youth and youth advocates concerned about the increasingly harsh legal responses to adolescent criminal * Kristin Henning, Professor of Law, Co-Director, Juvenile Justice Clinic, Georgetown Law. Special thanks to Lauren Dollar for invaluable research assistance and to Wallace Mlyniec for reading an early draft of this Essay. 1. 543 U.S. 551, 578 (2005) (finding that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles). 2. 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2034 (2010) (finding that life without parole for non-homicide offenses is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles). 3. 131 S. Ct. 2394, 2408 (2011) (finding that age must be considered in the custody analysis for purposes of Miranda). 4. Graham, 130 S. Ct. at 2026; Roper, 543 U.S. at 569; see also JDB., 131 S. Ct. at 2403. 5. Graham, 130 S. Ct. at 2026 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 569-70). 17