I don't know quite how i feel about this. I have a lot of sympathy for their position, but I don't get the argument for including religious arguments in an amicus brief like this. The argument is that it violates key religious provisions (ideas like mercy and compassion) to give a juvenile a life-without-parole sentence for a non-homicide offense. Part of the argument rests on the notion that the values of rehabilitation, mercy, and hope are universal across religious traditions -- those sorts of claims always make me a little skeptical.

I have sympathy for their position. However, I also think it's entirely irrelevant and inappropriate to try to bring it into a secular court proceeding. There's this little thing called the First Amendment, y'know?