Strong arguments for second-look sentencing reforms from SCOTUS concurrences

My chief gripe with all LWOP sentences as a policy matter, especially now that modern presidents and governors have largely refused to give serious consideration to nearly all prison commutation requests, is that these sentences essentially pronounce and encrust a final fate for a defendant at the time of initial sentencing.  Though good arguments can and have been made for "truth-in-sentencing" reforms that restrict the authority of a parole board or other institution to change significantly a sentence initially imposed by a judge, I think it folly to assume or even expect that "first-look" sentencing determinations (by prosecutors and/or judges and/or juries) will always be correct and thus should always be final.

The opinion for the Court in Graham speaks to these concerns when it notes that an LWOP sentence is akin to a death sentence in that "the sentence alters the offender’s life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable." And, of course, the Court goes on not only to note that LWOP "is an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile," but also to hold that such a sentence is unconstitutional for all juveniles convicted only of nonhomicide offenses.  But I found some of the "second look" ideas expressed by the Graham concurrences to speak more generally to my own affinity for second-look sentencing reforms.

The brief concurrence by Justice Stevens (which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor), for example, makes these points:

Society changes.  Knowledge accumulates.  We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time....

Though articulated here principally to justify Justice Stevens' concept of an evolving Eighth Amendment, I am inclined to give these insights a policy spin in tough budget times by replacing the phrase "cruel and unusual" with "ineffectual and unduly expensive."  Whatever one thinks about LWOP and constitutional interpretation, as a policy matter I just think it a bad idea for jurisdictions to preordain that certain offenders will always take up prison space given that our societal crime and punishment needs and knowledge is always changing.

Similarly, Chief Justice Roberts has these astute comments at the close of his Graham concurrence (my emphasis added):

The Court is of course correct that judges will never have perfect foresight — or perfect wisdom — in making sentencing decisions.  But this is true when they sentence adults no less than when they sentence juveniles. It is also true when they sentence juveniles who commit murder no less than when they sentence juveniles who commit other crimes.

I have added the emphasis here because I read the Chief Justice to be asserting — rightly, in my view — that all judges are severely limited in their ability predict and prescribe just and effective outcomes during "first-look" sentencing determinations.  In my view, recognizing that humans are necessarily imperfect in this context makes the the argument for second-look sentencing reforms especially compelling.