who committed an intentional, brutal, senseless, grotesque, reprehensible murder of a 13-year-old innocent stranger.
First, we hold that sentencing a 14-year-old to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for committing intentional homicide is not categorically unconstitutional. We arrive at our holding by applying the two-step approach employed by the United States Supreme Court, most recently in Graham, 130 S. Ct. 2011. First, we conclude that Ninham has failed to demonstrate that there is a national consensus against sentencing a 14-year-old to life imprisonment without parole when the crime is intentional homicide. Second, we conclude in the exercise of our own independent judgment that the punishment is not categorically unconstitutional.
In regard to Ninham’s second argument, we conclude that his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is not unduly harsh and excessive. Under the circumstances of this case, Ninham’s punishment is severe, but it is not disproportionately so.
Third, we conclude that Ninham has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the scientific research on adolescent brain development to which he refers constitutes a “new factor.” While the studies themselves may not have been in existence at the time of Ninham’s sentencing, the conclusions they reached were widely reported.
Fourth, we conclude that Ninham has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the circuit court actually relied upon the religious beliefs of Vang’s family when imposing Ninham’s sentence. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.
The Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment issue before this court is easy to state and difficult to decide. The question before the court is the constitutionality of imposing a death-in-prison sentence on a 14-year-old juvenile boy who committed an intentional, brutal, senseless, grotesque, reprehensible murder of a 13-year-old innocent stranger.
In Wisconsin, both the adult offender and the juvenile offender (10 years old or older) who have committed first-degree intentional homicide are treated the same: the maximum penalty is a death-in-prison sentence, that is, life in prison without the possibility of parole. The circuit court need not impose this maximum sentence. It did in the present case.
A death-in-prison sentence is the most severe penalty authorized in Wisconsin. This penalty means that “whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of the young juvenile, he will remain in prison for the rest of his days. A death-in-prison sentence is an especially severe punishment, made harsher for a young juvenile 14 years old or younger because of the increased time and proportion of life that the juvenile will serve in prison.