Footnotes (82)



Miller v. Alabama and the (Past and) Future of Juvenile Justice Policy

Elizabeth S. Scott

Columbia University - Law School

February 15, 2013

Minnesota Journal of Law and Inequality, Forthcoming
Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 13-328

This essay was the keynote address for a symposium on Miller v Alabama, the 2012 Supreme Court opinion holding unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment a statute imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide. The essay argues that Miller embodies a way of thinking about juvenile crime that has taken hold in the early 21st century — an approach that emphasizes the importance for legal policy of developmental differences between juveniles and adults. This emerging trend contrasts sharply with the regulatory approach of the 1990s when moral panics over juvenile crime fueled punitive law reforms that transformed juvenile justice policy. The essay describes this period of moral panic and the factors that have contributed to a more deliberative pragmatic response to youth crime in recent years. Finally it proposes strategies aimed at limiting the harmful impact of moral panics that inevitably will arise in the future — and reinforcing the current policy direction.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 26

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: February 16, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Scott, Elizabeth S., Miller v. Alabama and the (Past and) Future of Juvenile Justice Policy (February 15, 2013). Minnesota Journal of Law and Inequality, Forthcoming; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 13-328. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2218734

Contact Information

Elizabeth S. Scott (Contact Author)
Columbia University - Law School ( email )
435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States
(212) 854-9758 (Phone)
(212) 854-7946 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 553
Downloads: 155
Download Rank: 144,642
Footnotes:  82
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. 'Children are Different:' Constitutional Values and Justice Policy
By Elizabeth Scott