By Michael Welner , Matt DeLisi , Heather M. Knous-Westfall , David Salsberg , Theresa Janusewski

Highlights

• The United States Supreme Court in Jones (2021) reinforced the Miller decision to allow sentencing judges the discretion to determine whether convicted killers under age 18 warrant a life sentence.

• The Miller decision dictates individualized sentencing, citing psychosocial disadvantages, immaturity, potential evolving risk, and how these qualities differ for each defendant.

• The expressions of immaturity in crime are not; however, accounted for in the same way that expressions of major mental illness reference years of crime-specific research and diagnostic standardization. For this reason, forensic assessments in this emerging area remain unguided and vulnerable to bias.

• A complete assessment of the offender should include questions in the following domains: developmental, scholastic/vocational, social, interpersonal, traumas, antisocial history, and psychiatric/medical.

• We present questions to more fully and accurately inform the individualized sentencing requirement in Miller cases.

Forensic Science International: Mind and Law(4): 2023.

By Chelsea Parsons, Maggie Thompson, Eugenio Weigend and Giovanni Rocco

On February 14, 2018, 14 students and three staff members were murdered at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, by a single shooter armed with an assault rifle. This horrific massacre galvanized the nation’s attention to the issue of gun violence, particularly as it affects young people in this country. However, the scope of gun violence as it affects America’s youth is much vaster than this most recent mass shooting. Gunfire has officially overtaken car accidents as one of the leading killers of young people in the United States. As of publication time, since the beginning of 2018, 820 teens ages 12 to 17 have been killed or injured with a gun. As mass shootings become more common and more deadly, a staggering 57 percent of teenagers now fear a school shooting. The epidemic of gun violence against America’s youth is more than just a disturbing data point. For each bullet fired, there are multiple stories of lives changed forever. When he was just 6 years old, Missouri State Rep. Bruce Franks Jr. saw his brother shot in front of their neighbor’s home. Nevada activist Mariam El-Haj witnessed the shooting of her mother by her estranged father, who then turned the gun on Mariam. Oregon youth mentor Jes Phillip’s siblings have all had close calls—she has three younger sisters who were present at the Reynolds High School shooting in Troutdale, Oregon, and two bullets landed next to her brother’s bed when they came through her family’s apartment wall during a neighborhood shooting. Nineteen year-old student Eli Saldana, a member of the Native American community living in Chicago, was shot on his walk home from work. These stories of gun violence are all too common among young Americans. The United States’ gun violence epidemic disproportionately ravages young people, particularly young people of color. In short, gun violence is shattering a generation.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2018. 25p.

By Jesse Jannetta; Rod Martinez; Paige Thompson; Janine M. Zweig; Lily Robin; Leigh Courtney; Lindsey Cramer; Storm Ervin; Andreea Matei; Krista White

The recommended strategies are derived from research on the impact of various efforts to reduce shootings and homicides committed by youth between the ages of 10 and 25 in gangs/groups and with the use of guns. Research indicates that a common feature of the most effective efforts involves collaborations among law enforcement agencies, local government agencies, and community organizations in designing, implementing, and testing policies and practices designed to prevent and respond to violence committed by youth gangs/groups. Recommendations are divided into two sections. Those in the first section address how to build anti-violence infrastructure to ensure planned efforts span the entire jurisdiction, have multiple components, are adaptable to variable circumstances, are sustainable over time, and are targeted at violence committed by youth gangs/groups. The second section focuses on how to develop effective programs and interventions that operate within and benefit from the existing infrastructure. Nine actions needed to develop an anti-violence infrastructure are discussed. There are some common titles given workers and types of work done by those employed in these antiviolence efforts outside of traditional justice agencies. Throughout this guide, four common job titles in such work are a “case manager,” “credible messenger.” ”outreach worker,” and a “violence interrupter.” The guide describes the functions of each of these jobs in the context of what research has indicated to be an effective infrastructure for countering youth gang/group violence. Some examples are provided of U.S. cities that have an established infrastructure for addressing violence by youth gangs/groups.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 99p.