Rewriting the Sentences of Wisconsin's Children

A closer look at SB 801/AB 845 and juvenile sentencing reform in Wisconsin, legislation that could offer a pathway to freedom for Brendan Dassey.

For more than a decade, courts across the United States have been re-examining a fundamental question: how should the justice system sentence children who commit serious crimes? This reassessment has not emerged from sentimentality, but from law. In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. In Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), the Court made that ruling retroactive, requiring states to revisit how such sentences are imposed.

The Court’s reasoning was clear. Children are not simply smaller adults. They are more impulsive, more influenced by peers, and crucially, more capable of change, a fact supported by decades of adolescent brain development research. Constitutional protections, the Court held, must reflect those differences. But the Court did not prescribe a single solution. Instead, it left states to decide how their laws should evolve within these constitutional boundaries.

In Wisconsin, this responsibility has proven difficult to resolve.

During the 2023–24 legislative session, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 801 and Assembly Bill 845, companion bills aimed at ending life‑without‑parole sentences for people who committed crimes as children and creating a process for reviewing those sentences. The bills would have eliminated juvenile life without parole, replacing it with a sentence adjustment procedure that would allow individuals to petition a court to reconsider long sentences after significant time served.

Under the proposed framework, someone convicted as a juvenile could become eligible to petition after serving 15 years for most non-homicide offenses and 20 years for homicide-related crimes. Judges would weigh factors such as age at the time of the offense, maturity, conduct in custody, rehabilitation, and public safety. While release was not automatic, the bills offered a structured path to review, creating a mechanism currently unavailable under Wisconsin law.

The legislation was introduced with bipartisan sponsorship. In the Assembly, the bill was authored by Rep. Todd Novak of Dodgeville. In the Senate, it was introduced by Sen. Jesse James of the 23rd District, alongside co-authors from both parties. This level of bipartisan alignment is rare in criminal justice reform. Supporters argued the bills would align Wisconsin law with Supreme Court precedent and modern neuroscience showing that youth brains continue developing into early adulthood.

More than 100 people in Wisconsin are currently serving life sentences for crimes they committed as minors. This includes individuals as young as 13 at the time of their offense. By contrast, at least 28 states have already banned juvenile life without parole or created review mechanisms.

One of the most widely known cases connected to this discussion is that of Brendan Dassey, While his case is not the only one affected, it exemplifies how the justice system can impose permanent punishment on juveniles whose intellectual development and decision-making capacities were still evolving.

Despite bipartisan support, Senate Bill 801 and Assembly Bill 845 did not advance to final passage before the end of the 2023–24 session and therefore did not become law. As is customary in Wisconsin’s legislature, the bill expired when that session ended.

So where does juvenile sentencing reform stand as of early 2026?

Lawmakers supporting the proposal have continued discussions into the 2025–26 legislative session. The bill is anticipated to be reintroduced once updated data is provided by the Department of Corrections on how many incarcerated individuals would be eligible to apply for sentence review if the legislation is passed. Advocacy groups estimate the number of people affected could exceed 100. Sponsors have indicated they are preparing for reintroduction, though no formal reintroduction or enactment has yet occurred.

This process may include further revisions, committee hearings, and floor votes. It reflects the slow and iterative nature of state law-making and reform. Even with bipartisan co-authors, a bill must secure committee consideration, passage in both chambers, and approval by the governor to become law. In the previous session, the bill did not receive a Senate floor vote after referral to committee.

The challenge is not unique to this issue. Criminal justice reforms often encounter procedural and political hurdles, particularly when they intersect with deeply held views on punishment, public safety, and accountability. Yet the core question before lawmakers is not whether to excuse serious wrongdoing. It is whether sentences imposed on children should remain immune from reconsideration, even decades later.

If redemption means anything, it must include every child, including the innocent.

Without legislative action, Wisconsin courts remain limited in their ability to reassess decades-old juvenile sentences, even as constitutional standards and scientific understanding continue to evolve. The current law offers only narrow pathways for relief. How Wisconsin responds will reflect the values the state is truly prepared to uphold and whether it protects children or sustains a system that condemns them to permanent punishment.

Free Brendan Dassey.