Adolescent Brain Development - the Youth Advocacy Division

Adolescent Brain Development
Quick Reference Relevant Cases
GRAHAM v. FLORIDA (2010)
In Graham, the Supreme Court declared life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenders under age 18
unconstitutional. This decision marked the first time that the court declared a non-capital punishment to be cruel and
unusual for an entire category of offenders. Although the holding of Graham arguably does not apply directly in
Massachusetts, much of the language is broad enough that it can apply to juveniles who committed homicides as well as
other offenses. Notably, there is language indicating that life without parole sentences may not be appropriate for
juveniles who “did not kill or intend to kill”, Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op. at 18, 560 U.S. __ (2010), as well
as other language noting that “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offender” Id. at 17
(quoting Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 853 (1988)) and that “[a]n offender’s age is relevant to the 8 th amendment, and
criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would be flawed.” Id. at 25. The
court also noted that “[b]ecause ‘[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between
childhood and adulthood,’ those who were below that age when the offense was committed may not be sentenced to life
without parole for a nonhomicide crime.” Id. at 24 (quoting Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. at 574 (2005))
ROPER v SIMMONS (2005)
The March 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Roper finally outlawed the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Though the
majority opinion did not specifically mention recent scientific studies regarding differences between the adolescent brain
and the adult brain, the American Psychological Association (APA) submitted a brief to the court in regards to the recent
developments. Significantly, the scientific evidence presented by the APA was not challenged by either side, something
that had been done in prior decisions regarding the juvenile death penalty.
ATKINS v VIRGINIA (2002)
Atkins was the Supreme Court case that outlawed the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders, and set in motion the
ruling that was decided in Roper. Atkins is perhaps the most relevant case toward adolescent brain development
specifically, as it the practice of executing mentally retarded offenders was declared unconstitutional under the Eighth
Amendment (Cruel & Unusual Punishment). Justice Stevens delivered the Court’s Opinion, specifically noting that
“because of [mentally retarded persons’] disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses,
however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.”
With adolescent brain development studies demonstrating that most adolescents do not fully develop the parts of the brain
that deal specifically with reasoning, weighing of long-term goals, and instead tend to use the part of the brain responsible
for making “gut reactions,” the Atkins case has significant implications.
PATTERSON v TEXAS (2002)
In the case of Patterson v Texas, the Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D. was submitted in appeals to bolster the argument
that the defendant, a juvenile at the time of the accused crime, did not have a fully developed brain, and therefore was less
culpable. The decision stated in part that “the evidence is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s
in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other
characteristics that make people morally culpable.” Dr. Gur’s findings were reiterated in the petition for writ of certiorari.
The ruling on Patterson was held however, and the accused was executed by the State of Texas in August, 2002.
THOMPSON v OKLAHOMA (1988)
Thompson was the Supreme Court case where the age limit for the death penalty was officially moved up to 16. Although
MRI technology was unavailable to demonstrate scientific reasoning for different brain development, the Thompson case
is still vital as the court differentiated the culpability of a 15-year old from that of an adult in the context of a “heinous
crime.” The decision on Thompson played a critical role as precedent for the findings in Roper.