Supreme Court's Ruling on Mandatory Life Sentences for Juveniles

Which statement identifies the central idea of the text?

• The Supreme Court has determined that juvenile offenders, even those that commit murder, shouldn't be held accountable for their actions due to their impulsive nature.

• The Supreme court ruled that sentencing juveniles to mandatory life in prison without parole doesn't allow judges to consider individual situations and sentence juvenile offenders appropriately.

• The Supreme Court's ruling on mandatory life sentences for juveniles will likely result in chaos in prisons, as juvenile offenders fight for resentencing.

• In the past, sentencing juveniles to mandatory life in prison without parole was the best option because the rehabilitation tools we have today weren't available.

Which detail from the text best supports the answer to Part A?

• "The other, Evan Miller, and an older youth beat a 52-year-old neighbor in Alabama in 2003 after the three had spent the evening smoking marijuana and playing drinking games. The youths then set fire to his home, and the neighbor died of smoke inhalation." (Paragraph 9)

• "Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences..." (Paragraph 11)

• "But he added that the resentencing must be initiated by the inmates, that many lacked the resources to pay for a lawyer, and that the Supreme Court had said prisoners seeking new hearings have no constitutional right to counsel." (Paragraph 13)

• "Even a 17-year-old who sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teachers is a 'child' and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society,' he wrote of the consequences of the majority ruling." (Paragraph 21)

How do paragraphs 18-21 contribute to the authors' discussion about the Supreme Court's ruling against mandatory life sentences for juveniles?

• They show why the Supreme Court's decision was likely the wrong one.

• They highlight the dangers that freed juvenile offenders present to society.

• They suggest that the Supreme Court justices need to come to a compromise on juvenile offenders.

• They reveal the reasoning behind why some Supreme Court justices didn't agree with the decision.

What connection do the authors draw between the nature of juvenile offenders' crimes and their sentencing?

• They reveal that judges often don't consider the nature of a juvenile offender's crime when they sentence them.

• They emphasize how a juvenile's history shouldn't be considered when they are being sentenced for a crime like murder.

• They suggest that the adults that directly influenced juvenile offenders should be primarily held accountable for their actions and sentenced.

• They show how juvenile offenders are influenced by various factors that need to be considered when they are sentenced.

How do the differing viewpoints within the U.S. Supreme Court on juvenile sentencing align with the ongoing national discussion about the appropriate approach to juvenile justice, and what could this mean for the future of the juvenile justice system in the United States?

What does implicit mean?

• Clearly stated

• Often stated

• Sometimes stated

• Not directly stated