The Depravity Standard and individualized assessment: A case study modality for Miller resentencing cases

Area of Science:

• Forensic Psychology
• Criminology
• Legal Psychology

Background:

• Supreme Court decisions (Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana, Jones v. Mississippi) abolished mandatory life sentencing for juveniles.
• Individualized assessment of juvenile homicide offenders is now legally required.
• Limited actuarial tools exist for juvenile risk assessment in sentencing.

Purpose of the Study:

• To apply the Depravity Standard, a 25-item inventory, to codefendants in the Miller case.
• To assess the tool's validity and reliability in differentiating aggravating and mitigating factors in adolescent homicide.
• To demonstrate a methodology for informing individualized sentencing in resentencing cases.

Main Methods:

• Case study applying the Depravity Standard to juvenile homicide codefendants Evan Miller and Colby Smith.
• Operationalization of heinous, cruel, and depraved features of the offense and offender.
• Quantitative and qualitative substantiation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Main Results:

• Significant differential evidence of depravity was found between the codefendants within the same criminal episode.
• The Depravity Standard successfully distinguished between aggravating factors (Miller) and mitigating factors (Smith).
• The tool provided a valid and reliable method for assessing adolescents who perpetrate homicide.

Conclusions:

• The Depravity Standard is a valuable tool for informing individualized assessments in juvenile sentencing.
• It offers a quantitative and qualitative approach to substantiating aggravation and mitigation in adolescent homicide cases.
• This methodology supports the judicial requirement for individualized assessment following landmark Supreme Court rulings.