Evidence-Based Reasons Efrén Paredes Jr. Should Receive Term-of-Year Sentence

by Necalli Ollin

Efrén Paredes Jr. is a 50-year-old Latinx man serving a life without parole (LWOP) sentence for a 1989 homicide and robbery that occurred in Berrien County, Michigan. He was arrested for the crime at age 15 and subsequently convicted by a Berrien County jury. To date he has spent 34 years (i.e., two-thirds of his life) behind bars.

Minors sentenced to LWOP are commonly referred to as "juvenile lifers."

In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory LWOP sentences for justice-involved children are unconstitutional and granted sentencing courts discretion to begin resentencing minors to term-of-year sentences or LWOP. A LWOP sentence was no longer the only default sentence minors could receive for a capital offense.

Each state responded differently to the high court's ruling and in Michigan minors became eligible for a term-of-year sentence with a minimum sentence ranging from 25-40 years and a maximum sentence of 60 years.

While LWOP was still an option the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the extreme sentences could only be imposed on minors who are irreparably corrupt or permanently incorrigible, meaning they must be incapable of change and rehabilitation for the remainder of their lives.

In 2021 Efrén was resentenced as a result of the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning mandatory LWOP sentences for minors. At his resentencing hearing Berrien County Trial Court Judge Charles LaSata resentenced Efrén to LWOP a second time despite compelling anecdotal and documented evidence of his capacity for change and rehabilitation.

On March 16, 2023 the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the LWOP sentence and remanded Efrén's case for resentencing for a third time. The court cited LaSata's abuse of discretion as one of the reasons for its ruling. August 18, 2022 the appellate court cited judicial abuse of discretion in another case involving a juvenile lifer which LaSata presided over as well (i.e., People v. Mark Abbatoy, MCOA Docket No. 357766). Resentencing was also ordered in that case for a third time.

After two sentencing hearings that have been vacated in Efrén's case during the past 34 years the question now is what common sense, evidence-based reasons exist that he should receive a term-of-year sentence.

In recent years the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and psychologists have administered a series of actuarial risk assessment instruments to Efrén to determine his risk of violence, recidivism, and supervision levels, if he were to be released.

In addition to participating in actuarial risk assessment instrument testing Efrén has also voluntarily participated in monthly therapy sessions with psychologists and licensed mental health social workers during the past thirteen years. He has interfaced with these professionals 156 times at the time of this writing.

All of Efrén's therapy session reports have consistently indicated that his mental health is good, he is continually working to better himself, and he is creating and adhering to positive, realistic goals he sets to improve his life. Half of all citizens will experience a mental health issue in their lives, but only 13% will seek professional help. Efrén's willingness to seek help reflects his ability to recognize personal struggles and address them in a responsible way.

In her academic article titled, "Punishing Risk," Erin Collins, University of Richmond School of Law assistant professor, writes:

"Actuarial risk assessment tools are surveys that guide the inquirer through a series of questions about the presence or absence of recidivism risk factors in the subject. The inquirer allocates the subject a certain number of points for each factor, each of which is weighted according to the strength of its correlation with recidivism. Based on the total score, the subject is identified as having a 'low,' 'moderate,' or 'high' risk of recidivism."

She adds, "Thus, in the context of the criminal justice system, actuarial risk assessment is the process of using characteristics that statistically correlate with recidivism to predict who will or will not behave criminally in the future." (Erin Collins, "Punishing Risk," 107 Geo. L.J. 57, 64 (2018)).

Actuarial risk assessment instruments have been found to outperform human judgment in virtually all decision-making situations. Research shows that 88% of releasing authorities nationally use risk assessment instruments and judges in several states are using them for sentencing as well. The practice of using actuarial risk assessment tools to guide sentencing decisions has come to be known as "actuarial sentencing" or "evidence-based sentencing."

One of the actuarial risk assessment instruments Efrén has been administered by an MDOC psychologist is the Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS). According to the test results Efrén's overall risk index is low. The results indicate that he has good mechanisms for regulating his behavior and managing anger, few treatment and supervision needs, and greater strengths and fewer risks/needs than 94% of prisoners. The test results also indicate he was honest and the results were valid.

The IORNS is the only actuarial risk assessment instrument that assesses all three factors (i.e., static, dynamic, and protective factors) important to recidivism. It provides a more comprehensive risk assessment than is currently available through concomitant assessment. The instrument consists of four indexes, eight scales, 14 subscales, and two validity scales.

Another actuarial risk assessment instrument Efrén has been administered is the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS). The COMPAS test results indicate his risk of violence, recidivism, and supervision levels are all low.

COMPAS is a comprehensive risks and needs assessment instrument widely used by Corrections departments and sentencing bodies across the nation, which takes into account both static information (such as the prisoner's past criminal offenses) and dynamic data (such as the prisoner's evolving attitudes and mental condition). The software generates a score ranking the offender's statistical likelihood of violence, recidivism, success on parole, and other factors.

 The COMPAS is a fourth generation risk assessment tool. Fourth generation of risk assessments seeks to "[m]aximize the offender's ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioral treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender." (James Bonta & D. A. Andrews, "Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation" 1 Public Safety Canada (2007)).

MDOC case managers also formulate a Transition Accountability Plan (TAP) for each incarcerated person to assist her/his reentry into society, and to assist the Parole Board in rendering parole decisions. The TAP instrument analyzes the person's risk factors, sets goals to decrease those risks, and establishes a plan for the person to reach their goals. Efrén's TAP results also reflect that his risk of violence, recidivism, and supervision levels are all low.

In addition to the actuarial risk assessment instruments Efrén has been administered he has also been given the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) by an MDOC psychologist in recent years.

The MMPI-2 test results indicate Efrén has tendencies toward moralistic thinking, is sincere, and socially responsible. He prizes agreeableness, trust, and avoidance of conflict. The results also indicate he is receptive to treatment and wants to work on himself.

The MMPI-2 is, by far, the most common of all the psychological assessments employed, and can be a valuable tool in the assessment of those charged with or convicted of murder. (Kenneth S. Pope, Joyce Seelen & James Neal Butcher, "The MMPI-2, and the MMPI-A in Court: A Practical Guide for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys" 9 (2d ed. 1999)).

According to Dr. Richard Vickers, a licensed psychologist in private practice in New York who has administered and interpreted over 3,000 MMPI tests, the MMPI-2 is "highly reliable" and "well represented in the peer-reviewed literature, with approximately 250 MMPI-2 studies published per year" and its "Retest coefficients for 8 of the 10 basic scales surpass .80, and validity coefficients can approach 100%."

Juvenile lifers who have been released in Michigan also have an unprecedented less than one percent recidivism rate. This number ranks the lowest rate of all demographics of people released from prison. The national average recidivism rate for all people released from prison is 68%.

"In terms of risk to public safety, juvenile lifers can be considered low-impact releases." (Tarika Daftary-Kapur, Ph.D. & Tina M. Zottoli, Ph.D., "Re-sentencing of Juvenile Lifers: The Philadelphia Experience," 10, Montclair State University (2020)).

Efrén has been married ten years. He is also a proud and caring parent of two adult daughters and a school age daughter. During that time he has maintained a positive relationship with them and has actively assisted his wife foster a path of success for his youngest daughter's middle school educational experience.

The "association of marriage with lower crime among men has been widely reported in both quantitative and qualitative studies." (Nat'l Research Council of the Nat'l Acads., "Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration" 21 (2007)).

Research also shows that marriage and parenthood play a significant role in rehabilitation. "Marriage has the potential to radically change routine activities[.] ... [It] entails obligations that tend to reduce leisure activities outside of the family. ... Involvement in work and marriage reorders short-term situational inducements to crime and, over time, redirects long-term commitments to conformity." (John H. Laub & Robert J. Sampson, "Understanding Desistance from Crime," 28 Crime & Just. 1, 50-51 (2001)).

In her book titled, "When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry," author Joan Petersilia writes:

"Reviews of prisoners' family relationships yield two consistent findings: male prisoners who maintain strong family ties during imprisonment have higher rates of post-release success, and men who assume husband and parenting roles upon release have higher rates of success than those who do not."

Throughout the course of his incarceration Efrén has consistently yielded decades of anecdotal and documented evidence of change and rehabilitation. He has perpetually educated himself and completed every vocational, educational, and counseling programs available to him.

Efrén has also helped transform the lives of others inside and outside of prison. He has used the knowledge and skills he has acquired to assist both incarcerated peers and citizens in society use critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and conflict resolution to empower themselves to become better human beings and sound consequential thinkers.

In 2021 the Michigan Court of Appeals stated, "In the usual sense, 'rehabilitation' involves the successful completion of vocational, educational, OR counseling programs designed to enable a prisoner to lead a useful life, free from crime, when released." (emphasis added) (People v. Bennett, 335 Mich. App. 409, 426 (2021)). The evidence of Efrén's body of accomplishments support that he has achieved rehabilitation according to this standard.

In the same ruling the Michigan Court of Appeals stated that trial courts must "consider whether the defendant 'was and would remain WHOLLY incapable of rehabilitation for THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE [i.e., permanently incorrigible or irreparably corrupt.]'" (quoting People v. Garay, 320 Mich. App. 29, 49 (2017)) (Bennett, 335 Mich. at 418).

It added, "'Irreparable corruption,' is the ONLY ground [the U.S. Supreme Court] specifically identified for imposing a life-without-parole sentence [for a juvenile]. See [Miller v. Alabama], 567 U.S. at 479." (emphasis added) (Bennett, 335 Mich. App. at 420). ... "'[C]ourts are not allowed to sentence juveniles who are not irreparably corrupt to life without parole.'" (People v. Skinner, 502 Mich 89, 125 (2018)) (Bennett, 335 Mich. App. at 434).

A year later in July 2022 the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that sentencing courts must now begin their analysis of juvenile lifer cases from the premise that the person before them, like most children, has engaged in criminality because of transient immaturity, not irreparable corruption.

The state's high court added that when a prosecutor seeks to impose a LWOP sentence on a person for a crime committed when s/he was a minor, the prosecutor bears the burden to rebut a presumption that LWOP is a disproportionate sentence. The standard for the rebuttal is clear and convincing evidence.

The court concluded by stating, "If the prosecutor cannot shoulder [the] burden [of proof that LWOP is a disproportionate sentence for a minor] BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, the trial court MUST sentence the defendant to a term of years." (emphasis added) (People v. Taylor, Mich. Sup. Ct. No. 154994, Decided July 28, 2022, slip op., at 20-21).

Efrén is not a candidate to receive a LWOP sentence according to well-established court precedent. His robust body of accomplishments spanning decades, lived experience as a husband and father, outpouring of support he has from a broad network of family members and friends, and actuarial risk assessment results that reflect his low risk of violence and recidivism, comprise substantial and compelling evidence-based reasons to conclude Efrén can be safely reintegrated back into society. He would not be a menace to society nor would he pose a danger or risk to public safety.

For all the aforementioned reasons Efrén should be resentenced to a term of years which will allow him to be afforded meaningful, realistic, and attainable release consideration by the Michigan Parole Board at some point in the future.

[To view a list of Efrén's accomplishments during his incarceration visit https://EfrensWords.home.blog/Efrens-Accomplishments/. You can also learn more about Efrén by visiting http://fb.com/Free.Efren.]

Mich. Appellate Courts Curb Death in Prison Sentences for Minors

by Efrén Paredes, Jr.

A decade after the U.S. Supreme Court banned mandatory life without parole (LWOP) sentences for justice-involved children under age 18 ("juvenile lifers"), Michigan appellate courts are course-correcting years of arbitrary sentencing outcomes which have been an affront to the rule of law.

LWOP sentences are often referred to as a "death in prison" or "death by incarceration" sentences because a person who receives the extreme punishment is condemned to die in prison unless her/his sentence is commuted by the Governor which is unlikely to occur in most cases.

In multiple rulings during December 2022 the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) vacated the LWOP sentences of ten juvenile lifers and remanded them back to the trial court for resentencing. The MSC rulings stated in relevant part:

"A court may not impose a sentence of life without parole on a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of his crime unless the prosecution has overcome its burden to rebut the presumption, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, that life without parole is a disproportionate sentence." (emphasis in original text)

The MSC's "clear and convincing evidence" statement is a reference to a precedent-setting decision it issued in the summer of 2022 in the case of People v. Robert Taylor. [1]

The number of minors resentenced to LWOP in Michigan continues to decline as trial court judges overwhelmingly reject death in prison sentences. It is also declining because the small percentage of extreme sentences that are imposed by sentencing bodies are being vacated by appellate courts.

U.S. SUPREME COURT STEPS IN

In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court banned mandatory LWOP sentences for minors under age 18 in its landmark Miller v. Alabama ruling. [2] The court reached its conclusion based on a robust body of social sciences and neurodevelopmental research which confirm that the human brain doesn't fully develop until the mid-20's and people's character and identity formation continues to change throughout their lives.

Researchers have found that the areas of the adolescent brain that are underdeveloped are responsible for impulse control, problem solving, resisting peer-pressure, and conducting a cost-benefit analysis of risky behavior. Teenagers focus on short-term consequences. They also lack the cognitive and psychosocial development to accurately predict future outcomes. Individually or collectively these traits can lead to engaging in criminal misdeeds.

In reaching its decision the U.S. Supreme Court replaced the mandatory component of sentencing children convicted of homicide crimes with a discretionary option. The change provides sentencing bodies discretion to impose term-of-year or LWOP sentences.

Term-of-year sentences allow people to be released one day if they are able to survive decades of incarceration.

The U.S. Supreme Court made it emphatically clear, however, that only minors who are "irreparably corrupt" (i.e., forever incapable of change and rehabilitation for the remainder of their lives) are candidates to receive a death in prison sentence. Any child who demonstrates the capacity for change and rehabilitation must be sentenced to a term of years.

It would be four more years before the U.S. Supreme Court would make the Miller ruling retroactive in 2016 in the case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, [3] making it applicable to all cases including those which had previously exhausted their direct appeals.

WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW

Since 2016 when juvenile lifer resentencing hearings began 287 of the total 363 Michigan juvenile lifers have received term-of-year sentences. The minimum sentence allowed ranges from a substantial 25 to 40 years. The maximum portion of the sentence is a mandatory 60 years (e.g., 25-60 years, 30-60 years, 40-60 years, etc.).

The average term-of-year sentence received has been 32.5 years and the average person has been nearly 45-years-old at the time of resentencing.

Seventy-six people still await having their LWOP sentences reviewed for resentencing consideration. There are also currently 11 remaining Michigan juvenile lifers originally sentenced to death in prison who received the sentence for a second time after their cases were considered for resentencing.

The latter individuals await an appeals court to vacate their sentences so they can be properly resentenced for a third time to a term of years.

Despite 79% of Michigan juvenile lifers who committed crimes between ages 14-17 being resentenced thus far Michigan has the shameful distinction of leading the nation as the state with the highest number of minors sentenced to LWOP.

A VIEW FROM THE INSIDE

As a soon to be 50-year-old juvenile lifer who has been incarcerated in Michigan since age 15 I've observed the enormous capacity for transformative change and rehabilitation incarcerated people possess. I know this not only through the prism of my own lived experiences as a husband and parent, but also through my personal interactions with thousands of other incarcerated people during the nearly 34 years I have spent behind bars.

Whether it's successfully completing self-help or rehabilitative educational, vocational, or counseling programs during their time caged in carceral exile, juvenile lifers are constantly evolving. Some more than others, and some quicker than others.

During times they struggle with their transformation it often occurs when they lack support, connection with the outside world, and/or struggle to find purpose and hope amid recurring thoughts of being condemned to breathe their last gasp of air alone behind prison walls.

Some of their beliefs have been reinforced by the painful reality that since 2012 seven juvenile lifers have died in prison while awaiting the opportunity to be released. Two of them died after being resentenced to a term of years.

Sentencing minors to death in prison is divorced from the reality that people can and do change. No adult is the same person they were in their teenage years. According to Mihailis E. Diamantis, author of the article, "Limiting Identity in Criminal Law:"

"Identity development never ceases: the persons adolescents will become are not the persons they will remain. The process of self-identification and redefinition lasts a lifetime." [4]

I've come to learn it's important not to define people by a single event in the spectrum of life -- neither by their worst mistake nor greatest success. Human beings are a culmination of their lived experiences. It makes more sense to measure people by the totality of their choices and experiences rather than a snapshot in time.

THE LIVES OF FREED JUVENILE LIFERS

Five months ago the MSC stated, "A steady line of precedent from the Supreme Court could not be clearer -- persons under 18, as a group, are less culpable than adults, more prone to outside influence, and more likely to be rehabilitated. For these reasons and others, juveniles are 'less deserving of the most severe punishments.'" [5]

When we examine the lives of the 172 juvenile lifers who have been released from prison their recidivism rate ranks the lowest of any demographic released from Michigan prison at less than 1%. The national recidivism rate for all people released from prison is 68%. [6]

According to Preston Shipp, Senior Policy Counsel at the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, "Nationwide, 935 formerly life-sentenced children and counting have been released back to society based on changes in the law." He adds, "They are now home, thriving, raising families, working, mentoring at-risk youth, and finding creative, imaginative ways to serve their communities."

This can be attributed not only to their capacity for change and rehabilitation, but also to the fact that in each instance it is the first time they will be afforded the opportunity to experience freedom for the first time in their adult lives.

They acknowledge the mercy bestowed upon them. They also bear the emotional and psychological scars of spending decades of their lives condemned to die in prison. To eschew returning to this horrific life they commit to becoming a better version of themselves by making prosocial choices and striving to become thoughtful, sound consequential thinkers.

A 2022 report titled, "White Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys, and Policy Makers," found "[i]t is currently not possible to reliably predict an individual adolescent's future developmental trajectory based upon current presentation and past history." Additionally, "It is also currently scientifically impossible to reliably predict how much or how quickly an individual will change with age based on their presumed brain development, history, or current behavioral profiles." [7]

Juvenile lifers have repeatedly proven this research to be true. They have demonstrated they can change and do better if afforded the opportunity, even when sentencing courts originally misjudge them and make erroneous predictions that they will be forever irredeemable.

DISPARATE CONSEQUENCES OF EXTREME YOUTH SENTENCES

Twenty-five states across the country and the District of Columbia have banned death in prison sentences for justice-involved children. Nine other states have no one serving the sentence who was convicted as a minor. [8] This leaves Michigan among the 16 outliers who still impose the sentences.

Glaring racial sentencing disparities also exist between children of color and their white counterparts.

Prior to the landmark 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning mandatory LWOP sentences for minors, though children of color comprised 27% of the child population in Michigan they were 71% of the children sentenced to death-by-incarceration. [9] Since that time eleven of the new juvenile lifers sentenced to LWOP in Michigan -- or 73% -- have been children of color, reflecting no regard for decreasing racial sentencing disparities.

As a directly impacted person of color I know this all too well. As of December 29, 2022 I am the only Latino of the 11 remaining juvenile lifers resentenced to death in prison in Michigan who awaits being resentenced to a term of years.

Discriminatory sentences for similarly situated people violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions [10] and offend internationally recognized human rights treaties. Racialized harms committed by the criminal legal system against people of color are also largely responsible for fueling the scourge of mass incarceration.

A two-tiered legal system produces inequitable results by othering members of out-groups from marginalized and underserved communities. "The only surefire way to eliminate racial bias and arbitrariness in [Miller v. Alabama] sentencing is for states to ... eliminate life without parole for children[,]" according to Kathryn E. Miller, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School. [11]

RECOGNIZING CHILDREN AREN'T ADULTS

July 28, 2022 the MSC issued a ruling in People v. Parks, Docket No. 162086, which raised the age of minors entitled to the protections afforded in Miller v. Alabama to include persons 18 years of age. The high court is also asking the Michigan Court of Appeals to consider whether the state should raise the age to include late-adolescents up to 21-years-old which is widely supported by evolving brain science. [12]

The recent move by the MSC is an indicator that the high court is breaking away from decades-old beliefs about human evolution and making decisions informed by a dearth of evidence-based, twenty-first century scientific results.

Children receive a panoply of legal protections because society widely recognizes they are too developmentally immature to make the same responsible decisions as adults (e.g., purchase alcohol, vote, join the military, etc.). Their protections shouldn't abruptly end when they make irresponsible mistakes.

It is a universally recognized unmistakable fact that children are not adults. They are also a product of their environment they are typically unable to extricate themselves from no matter how pernicious it may be to them.

In the interest of public safety children rightly deserve to be held accountable for the harm they commit. However, the penalty should be proportional and developmentally aligned to their diminished culpability and still unformed character.

The criminal legal system should never treat minors as though they are miniature adults nor should children be subjected to the harshest punishments adult offenders are eligible to receive.

FORWARD-THINKING CONSIDERATIONS

Weaponizing public fear to demonize children and justify harsh sentencing policies has proven to be an ineffective approach to deter people from committing crime. This is especially true as it relates to young people.

Society should invest more money and resources dealing with the root of the crime problem than on its symptoms if we are serious about preventing harm. Investments in education and community-based programs such as counseling, mentorships, and after-school programs provide far greater preventive measures against crime the earlier they are made available than the threat of warehousing bodies in cages.

In a 2017 Harvard Law Review article President Barack Obama wrote:

"How we treat citizens who make mistakes (even serious mistakes), pay their debt to society, and deserve a second chance reflects who we are as a people and reveals a lot about our character and commitment to our founding principles. ... [It] speaks to who we are as a society and is a statement about our values -- about our dedication to fairness, equality, and justice, and about how to protect our families and communities from harm, heal after loss and trauma, and lift back up those among us who have earned a chance at redemption." [13]

We would do well to meet this moment by utilizing the wisdom of President Obama as a torch to lead us out of a benighted era of extreme sentencing policies against justice-involved children into an enlightened era that recognizes "youth matters in sentencing." [14]

Archaic policies that eternally banish people to cages for youthful mistakes or bad behavior are antithetical to decency and human dignity. Promoting justice for minors means choosing life-affirming options like healing and restoration over destructive forces like hate and vengeance.

The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that only minors who demonstrate they are irreparably corrupt (i.e., forever incapable of change and rehabilitation) are candidates to receive death in prison sentences. However, asking sentencing judges to predict who is forever incapable of change and rehabilitation is an impossible task, as stated earlier.

Rather than ask sentencing bodies to engage in conjecture that will yield capricious results I invite the Michigan legislature to abolish death behind bars sentences for justice-involved children and join the majority of U.S. states which have replaced it with term-of-year sentencing options.

This humane policy change will provide minors with a meaningful, realistic, and achievable opportunity for release consideration later in their adult lives based on demonstrated change and rehabilitation. It's a common sense approach to justice for children that acknowledges all stakeholders in the legal process by creating space for both accountability and the possibility of redemption.

Most importantly it promotes equity, a hallmark of our criminal legal system we should strive to uphold each day.

(Efrén Paredes, Jr. is Co-Chair of the Michigan Poor People's Campaign. He is also a social justice changemaker who works at the intersection of decarceration, racial justice, and conflict resolution. You can read more of his writings or listen to his interviews by visiting http://fb.com/Free.Efren.)

______________________________________

Notes

[1] - People v. Robert Taylor, MSC Docket No. 154994, decided July 28, 2022.

[2] - Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).

[3] - Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016).

[4] - Mihailis E. Diamantis, "Limiting Identity in Criminal Law," 60 B.C. L. Rev. 2011, 2077 (2019).

[5] - People v. Robert Taylor, supra note 1, slip op at 17.

[6] - J.J. Prescott, Benjamin Pyle & Sonja Starr, "Understanding Violent-Crime Recidivism," 95 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1643, 1667 (2020).

[7] - Catherine Insel & Stephanie Tabashneck, "White Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys, and Policy Makers" 39, Ctr. for Law, Brain, & Behavior (2022), https://bit.ly/3JLArOR.

[8] - Josh Rovner, "Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview," The Sentencing Project, (May 24, 2021), https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/.

[9] - Connie de la Vega & Michelle Leighton, "Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice," 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 983, 994 (2008).

[10] - Avery Katz, "'Black First, Children Second': Why Juvenile Life Without Parole Violates the Equal Protection Clause," 106 Minn. L. Rev. 2693, 2733-2737 (2022).

[11] - Kathryn E. Miller, "Resurrecting Arbitrariness," 107 Cornell L. Rev. 1319, 1357 (2022).

[12] - Insel & Tabashneck , supra note 7, at 7.

[13] - Barack Obama, "The President's Role in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform," 130 Harv. L. Rev. 811, 812, 866 (2017).

[14] - Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307, 1314-16 (2020).