Age Weighted Life Sentences

[Ohsee]

This idea came to me a few days ago, within the first 5 minutes of being awake, the initial thought was this: "if an 18 year old commits a murder, he should serve 18 years." Now, I  had not been reading or thinking of prisons or the judicial system recently so I was caught off guard and decided to write and expand this idea a little in the notes app of my phone, and also have only talked to my wife about the idea, she agreed it was interesting. I hope this can be an open minded discussion. Here are my notes:

 

Imagine an age-weighted judicial system for violent crimes requiring life sentences. What if a life sentence was instead a “life-lived” sentence? In this system, the length of the sentence would correspond to the offender’s age at the time of the crime. For instance, if an 18 year old committed a crime warranting a life sentence, they would serve 18 years. Similarly, a 50 year old would serve 50 years.

Research in neuroscience shows that the human brain continues developing well into the mid-20s, with the prefrontal cortex—responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and risk assessment—being one of the last regions to mature. This underdevelopment in younger individuals, particularly teenagers, makes them more prone to impulsive actions and poor judgment, as their decision-making abilities are not yet fully formed.

This reflects the understanding that younger individuals, especially teenagers, have underdeveloped prefrontal cortices (responsible for impulse control and decision making), making them more prone to poor judgment and impulsive actions.

Such a system would recognize these developmental differences, offering younger offenders more leniency while holding older offenders to a higher standard. For example, an 18 year old sentenced under this model would have the opportunity to reflect, grow, and rehabilitate, knowing they would still have a life ahead of them upon release at age 36. This hope and motivation could encourage meaningful change during incarceration.

In contrast, a 45 year old committing a similarly serious crime would face a much harsher sentence, serving 45 years and being released at age 90—if at all. This approach would reflect the expectation that older individuals, with fully developed brains and more life experience, bear greater responsibility for their actions.

There are probably infinite variables when it comes to maturity levels, rehabilitation, and the nature of crimes committed that could all affect sentencing times and release dates. A board of review would be essential to add a layer of oversight and safeguards for those who are unable to re-enter society. 

A “life-lived” sentencing model could fundamentally reshape how we approach justice, accountability, and rehabilitation. By aligning punishment with developmental science and individual responsibility, such a system would balance fairness and public safety. It would provide younger offenders with the opportunity for redemption and personal growth while imposing stricter consequences on older individuals who should be more accountable for their actions. This approach acknowledges the complexities of human development and offers a path toward a more equitable and thoughtful justice system.