Almost 12,000 people in the United States are serving life sentences for crimes that occurred when they were children. For most of these people, a parole board will determine how long they will actually spend in prison. Recent Supreme Court decisions have endorsed parole as a mechanism to ensure that people who committed crimes as children are serving constitutionally proportionate sentences with a meaningful opportunity for release. Yet, in many states across the country, parole is an opaque process with few guarantees. Parole decisions are considered \u201cacts of grace\u201d often left to the unreviewable discretion of the parole board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This Article suggests a way to bring the current reality of parole closer to the Court\u2019s promise that parole can render life sentences constitutional. This Article considers how the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Graham<\/em>, Miller<\/em>, and Montgomery <\/em>work to constitutionalize parole and change the conventional understanding of the board\u2019s determination. The Article also details the current standards of judicial review of parole board decisions. Because parole is now operating to make constitutional the sentences of people who were children at the time of the offense, the Eighth Amendment task placed on parole boards\u2019 shoulders necessitates substantive standards for the parole board, as well as judicial scrutiny of the board\u2019s determinations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Article proposes two essential reforms: first, a presumption of release on parole for people who were children at the time of the crime, absent a determination by clear and convincing evidence that they have not rehabilitated; and second, independent judicial review of the parole board decision to determine if the evidence supports defeating the presumption that life in prison is disproportionate for the vast majority of people who committed crimes as children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n