In August of 2004, Brett Jones, who was at the time 15 years old, fatally stabbed his grandfather. A circuit court sentenced him to life without parole, and when appealed, the appellate court reaffirmed his sentence (Smith, 2020). In post-conviction relief, where a defendant may bring up more issues or evidence in criminal court, the Mississippi Supreme Court decided for Jones to be reconsidered for parole (Jones v. Mississippi, 2021). This case was brought up to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the court looked at what needs to be considered for a juvenile to be given a life sentence without parole.
Neuroscience is at its core interdisciplinary, informing us about how we should understand people. When law asks why people act the way they do and how to judge that, neuroscience directly aids in adding context. A key aspect of how neuroscience informs legal understanding of people is when the legal system tackles distinctions between juvenile and adult defendants. In the context of the law, how do we draw lines and formalities to create such distinctions? What does maturity actually mean?
In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court declared two juvenile life sentences as unconstitutional, considering culpability and likelihood to reform. According to Colon-Fuentes in 2019, the Court was heavily influenced in this decision by the American Psychological Association (APA), stating “[an] ever-growing body of research in developmental psychology and neuroscience continues to confirm and strengthen the Court's conclusions” (2019). The Court considered, according to the Brief for American Psychological Association (2012), how adolescents are less developed in brain regions “related to higher-order executive functions, such as impulse control, planning ahead, and risk avoidance.” The majority opinion insisted that a sentencing must take these factors into account for juvenile cases.
Miller v. Alabama represents the needed practice of science-informed law, with the APA’s contribution aiding in this effort. As science operates in its own realm concurrently, the law should change to adapt to it and understand how we can better be informed about legal practices. It was in this same vein that capital punishment for juveniles was deemed unconstitutional in Roper v. Simmons (2005). Although Roper v. Simmons did not directly cite neurological evidence, it used the same framework of legal values as Miller v. Alabama, such as likelihood to reform and restorative justice, and backed it by the scientific idea that juveniles are fundamentally biologically distinct from adults. However, this progress has backslid, due to the case of Brett Jones.
In 2021, the Supreme Court decided that Brett Jones’ sentence did not need to be reconsidered. Rather, it instead set up the standard that permanent incorrigibility, or lack of capacity to reform, does not need to be found in order to give a juvenile a mandatory life sentence. Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion for Jones v. Mississippi (2021) that the proper sentence “raises profound questions of morality and social policy” due to differences in social opinion on capital punishment, and these, in his view, should be answered by states. Thus, the federal courts cannot force restrictions on how the Eighth Amendment applies. However, Justice Sotomayor dissented, stating that the majority opinion disregarded the sentiments in Miller v. Alabama (2012), implicitly overturning it: “[even] if a court considers a child’s age before sentencing him or her to a lifetime of prison, that sentence still violates the Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects ‘unfortunate yet transient immaturity.’”
Despite an important legal history of the effects of neuroscience on the law, Jones v. Mississippi shows again how science falls victim to the politics of constitutional interpretation and differences in opinion. The APA published a piece on how Jones v. Mississippi shifted a landscape previously relying on child development research, calling it a “troubling reversal” (LaFortune, 2021). Instead of scientific background being treated as evidence to use to progress the law, science is left up to the interpretation and opinions of each state, the direct opposite of how the science was intended to be considered. Neuroscience in law is a burgeoning field, but until there is more discussion and work done regarding maturity and neurological distinctions, progress can easily be overturned.
About the Author
Shruti Gautam is a sophomore at Harvard College pursuing a joint concentration in History of Science and Neuroscience.
References
Neuroscience is at its core interdisciplinary, informing us about how we should understand people. When law asks why people act the way they do and how to judge that, neuroscience directly aids in adding context. A key aspect of how neuroscience informs legal understanding of people is when the legal system tackles distinctions between juvenile and adult defendants. In the context of the law, how do we draw lines and formalities to create such distinctions? What does maturity actually mean?
In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court declared two juvenile life sentences as unconstitutional, considering culpability and likelihood to reform. According to Colon-Fuentes in 2019, the Court was heavily influenced in this decision by the American Psychological Association (APA), stating “[an] ever-growing body of research in developmental psychology and neuroscience continues to confirm and strengthen the Court's conclusions” (2019). The Court considered, according to the Brief for American Psychological Association (2012), how adolescents are less developed in brain regions “related to higher-order executive functions, such as impulse control, planning ahead, and risk avoidance.” The majority opinion insisted that a sentencing must take these factors into account for juvenile cases.
Miller v. Alabama represents the needed practice of science-informed law, with the APA’s contribution aiding in this effort. As science operates in its own realm concurrently, the law should change to adapt to it and understand how we can better be informed about legal practices. It was in this same vein that capital punishment for juveniles was deemed unconstitutional in Roper v. Simmons (2005). Although Roper v. Simmons did not directly cite neurological evidence, it used the same framework of legal values as Miller v. Alabama, such as likelihood to reform and restorative justice, and backed it by the scientific idea that juveniles are fundamentally biologically distinct from adults. However, this progress has backslid, due to the case of Brett Jones.
In 2021, the Supreme Court decided that Brett Jones’ sentence did not need to be reconsidered. Rather, it instead set up the standard that permanent incorrigibility, or lack of capacity to reform, does not need to be found in order to give a juvenile a mandatory life sentence. Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion for Jones v. Mississippi (2021) that the proper sentence “raises profound questions of morality and social policy” due to differences in social opinion on capital punishment, and these, in his view, should be answered by states. Thus, the federal courts cannot force restrictions on how the Eighth Amendment applies. However, Justice Sotomayor dissented, stating that the majority opinion disregarded the sentiments in Miller v. Alabama (2012), implicitly overturning it: “[even] if a court considers a child’s age before sentencing him or her to a lifetime of prison, that sentence still violates the Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects ‘unfortunate yet transient immaturity.’”
Despite an important legal history of the effects of neuroscience on the law, Jones v. Mississippi shows again how science falls victim to the politics of constitutional interpretation and differences in opinion. The APA published a piece on how Jones v. Mississippi shifted a landscape previously relying on child development research, calling it a “troubling reversal” (LaFortune, 2021). Instead of scientific background being treated as evidence to use to progress the law, science is left up to the interpretation and opinions of each state, the direct opposite of how the science was intended to be considered. Neuroscience in law is a burgeoning field, but until there is more discussion and work done regarding maturity and neurological distinctions, progress can easily be overturned.
About the Author
Shruti Gautam is a sophomore at Harvard College pursuing a joint concentration in History of Science and Neuroscience.
References
- Colon-Fuentes, G. M. (2019). Teenage Brain Development: Its Impact on Criminal Activity and Trial Sentencing. Rev. Jur. UPR, 88, 1062.
- Jones v. Mississippi (2021). Oyez.
- LaFortune, K. A (2021). A step back in juvenile sentencing. Monitor on Psychology, 52(7). U.S.
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Library of Congress.
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep543551/.
- Smith, S. L. (2020). Mississippi man's case could affect fate of hundreds of juvenile lifers. Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting.