Emily Simpson

The most recent court case is this 2021 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed that age must be considered in sentencing but allowed states flexibility in how they evaluate youth-related factors.

So the way I understood it was they say it's cruel and unusual punishment.

They also didn't, I believe in some of the earlier decisions, they didn't say whether it was retroactive or not.

So then they had to, the latest decision, I believe they did say it's retroactive.

So you can go back and reassess and re-sentence.

It's called permanent incorrigibility.

which is a very long word or a big word to, it refers to the legal yet highly debated concept that a juvenile offender is so deeply ingrained in criminal behavior that they are incapable of reform.

They were saying that was the standard of whether they deserve life without parole.

Right.

It has to be shown that they had permanent incorrigibility, meaning that no matter what rehabilitation, he's going to commit the crime again.

Right.

So that was the standard, and they let the states decide whether there's a showing of permanent incorrigibility.

They were 18 and 21, or 19 and 21 or something.

Well, here's the other thing too.

And this is what the judge said.

And this is why they were sentenced to life without parole is because he said also on these videos, they, they, and this evidence that they found, they also found a list of other

students at their high school that were like a hit list, a kill list.

But then on these videos that they found, they also found evidence of them stalking other girls in their class, like going to their house and watching them and making a video talking about they couldn't wait for them to be alone because the plan was, I believe, was to commit this type of crime multiple times.

And that's what the judge said.

Yeah.