Nearly everyone agrees that, when it comes to sentencing teens convicted of first-degree murder, Missouri's sentencing law is unconstitutional, because of a couple of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Existing state law sets the punishment for someone convicted of first-degree murder at either death, or life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In the 1990s, Sen. Bob Dixon, R-Springfield, noted Missouri changed the state law so those who are 16 years old or younger could not be executed, leaving only a mandatory life sentence without parole.
However, Dixon told the state Senate's Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence
Committee on Tuesday: "In the Miller v. Alabama case in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a mandatory sentence of life in prison, without the possibility for parole, for offenders who were under the age of 18 when they committed the offense, is unconstitutional.
"As a result, there is now no punishment under current Missouri law that is enforceable against offenders who were under the age of 18 when they committed murder in the first degree."
Dixon noted this is the third year he's proposed changing state law to resolve the issue.
His bill this year would require a 50-year sentence, or life without parole, for someone who was 16 or 17 years old at the time of the crime. For those under 16, Dixon's bill would require a prison sentence of at least 35 years, or life without parole.
"Currently, there are about 83 or 84 convicted juveniles who cannot be sentenced in this state," Dixon told the committee. "These are for very heinous crimes - barbaric crimes - committed by juveniles."
The senators also heard from Sen. Joe Keaveny, D-St. Louis, who's filed a different proposal.
He also cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings affecting states' sentencing laws, noting: "They believe that, for children under 18, there is some hope of rehabilitation."
Keaveny's bill would allow a judge to order a prison sentence between 14 and 30 years for a person who was 16 or 17 years old at the time they committed the murder, and between 12 and 30 years for a person who was under 16.
For both age groups, the judge also could impose a life sentence, with the possibility of parole in the future.
"That individual is going to have to earn that parole, so there is a possibility that he will, indeed, be in prison for the rest of his life," Keaveny said. "The feeling is that, at 14, 15, 16, 17, the mind is still developing.
"Children can be impulsive and do things that they probably (later) wish they never did, so we have to accommodate that.
"No one is trying to minimize the severity of the crime."
Attorney John William Simon of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers was the only person testifying against both bills, saying lawmakers should wait until the Missouri Supreme Court decides how far back the new sentences should be applied.
Most of the supporters favored Keaveny's bill.
However, Jasper County Prosecutor Dean Dankelson, representing the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, supported Dixon's bill and said "there are a lot of good things" in Keaveny's proposal, but said there were two reasons for opposing Keaveny's idea - there's not enough difference in the sentencing for convictions between first- and second-degree murder convictions, and Keaveny's bill would apply to previous cases while Dixon's would not.
Sarah Rossi, director of Policy and Advocacy for the ACLU of Missouri, was among those preferring Keaveny's bill.
"These two bills aren't just a juvenile justice issue for us," she said. "This is a mass incarceration issue for us.
"The prison population in the United States has gone up 400 percent since 1980, from about 500,000 to 2.5 million."
Rossi said it's "undeniable" that a lot of young people are in prison, and Keaveny's bill is better "not only because it creates a lower bar for minimum sentencing, but it takes into account the unique nature ... and the development of the brains of minors and juveniles," as the U.S. Supreme Court rulings require.
Rita Linhardt of the Missouri Catholic Conference also supported Keaveny's bill because its proposed sentences are better for young people.
"When you say 50 years or 35 years" as Dixon's bill proposes, she said, "that is a de facto death sentence for these people - and we really believe that is not in the spirit of what (the Miller ruling) intended."
The committee took no action on either measure Tuesday.