Opinion: Life without parole for Oxford shooter not supported by science
On November 30, 2021, the then 15-year-old Oxford High School shooter entered the school, shot and killed four students and injured seven others.
The teen was arrested and, despite not yet being old enough to drive a car, vote, or sign a contract, charged as an adult for the crimes of murder, assault with intent to murder and terrorism in connection with the shooting. He pleaded guilty to all charges on October 24, 2022. The Oxford High School shooting and the tragic loss of these young lives sparked horror and grief for the families of the victims and the larger community of Oxford, Michigan.
Tomorrow, a judge is scheduled to decide whether Crumbley can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, essentially condemned to die in prison. As neuroscientists and psychologists who study adolescent brain development and decision-making, the scientific evidence demonstrates that life without parole is an unjustifiable sentence for any person so young. Assigning adult status to an adolescent and condemning them to death behind bars would be ignoring substantial evidence that teenagers are different from adults. Youth have a unique capacity for positive transformation, and we should not ignore the possibility of such transformation in sentencing.
Charging a youth as an adult and giving a youth a life without the possibility of parole sentence ignores significant developmental changes that the courts and state Legislatures have acknowledged for years. For example, our laws acknowledge that teenagers are different than adults in areas ranging from legal driving age to the ability to vote, to what courts youth should be adjudicated in.
Further, in the U.S. Supreme Court opinions of Roper, 2005 and Miller, 2012 (and upheld in Jones, 2021), the Court acknowledged that youth are different than adults in their decisions to abolish the death penalty and disallow an automatic life without parole sentence for youth under 18 for any crime, including murder. These laws and decisions are in place because of important developmental differences between youth and adults.
Sentencing youth to life without parole is rooted in the “superpredator” myth from the 1990s, a faulty premise that some kids are permanently incorrigible and incapable of rehabilitation. Yet an extensive body of scientific evidence contradicts these arguments and demonstrates significant changes in brain, behavior, and personality throughout the life course, especially during adolescence. Importantly, these developmental changes have been demonstrated even in adolescents who engage in extreme and violent behavior. A careful understanding of the developmental science makes it clear why juvenile life without parole sentences are unscientific and inhumane, even for youth who commit murder.
The brain has the capacity for change throughout the life course, especially during the first few decades. During this period, nonessential connections between brain cells are removed and essential connections are strengthened. Together, these changes increase speed and efficiency of communication among networks of brain cells that contribute to improvements in decision-making, the capacity to regulate emotions, and neurocognitive functioning more characteristic of adulthood. These changes in brain and neurocognitive functioning are not fully developed by 18, the age demarcation of adulthood for criminal responsibility in most U.S. states, but extend into the twenties; and most crucially, beyond 15.
Adolescents and adults significantly differ in their cognitive functioning, especially in emotionally charged situations.
Adolescents compared to adults show a lesser capacity for mature judgment and fail to consider the future consequences of their decisions and actions. Adolescents compared to adults also show an increase in sensation seeking, risk taking, and vulnerability to negative external influences. These differences have been shown to extend well beyond 18 but the peak difference is evident during adolescence.
Personality traits are not stable but reflect significant change during adolescence and throughout the life course too. Changes in personality later in life, beyond 18, include increases in conscientiousness, emotional stability, and social maturity — all traits that are indicators of the potential to grow and become a productive and contributing member of society.
Importantly, adolescents with callous disregard for others and who engage in extreme and violent behavior also show developmental change. Even without intervention, the majority of these youth begin to show a decline in criminal activity by late adolescence into adulthood. With youth-centered interventions, this decline is even greater. Moreover, one of the longest-standing and most reliable patterns in criminology based on the age-crime curve (a plot of the relationship between age and crime) documents that while criminal behavior peaks during the extended period of adolescence, the vast majority of these juveniles eventually desist from such activity as they mature into adulthood.
Ethan Crumbley may never be rehabilitated and never recommended for release by a parole board at any point in his life. But precluding the chance that this change is possible for a now 17-year-old would be to ignore everything we know about adolescent development and what we’ve seen is possible in others.
The science is clear. There are distinct biological, psychological, and behavioral differences between adolescents and adults.
Pretending that youth are just as culpable and should be subject to the same harsh punishments as adults defies the decades of science and the acknowledgement by society of these differences in countless other contexts. Sentences of life without parole for juveniles ignore the significant potential for change over the life course and for reform that has been demonstrated even in youth who engage in extreme and violent behavior.
The science clearly shows the potential for change for all people, and we should acknowledge this possibility at sentencing in all cases.
BJ Casey is the Christina L. Williams professor of Neuroscience at Barnard College in Columbia University. Arielle Baskin-Sommers is an associate professor of Psychology, Psychiatry and Law at Yale University. They are both members of the Justice Collaboratory of Yale Law School.