in 2004, 15-year-old brett jones stabbed and killed his grandfather during an altercation. during trial, his legal team argued self-defense, but he was convicted him of murder and received a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. the supreme court in 2012 ruled that such a sentence violated the eighth amendment. mr. jones' legal team filed for post-conviction relief, and a new sentencing hearing was ordered. the court ruled against him, and he filed an appeal to the state's court of appeals. as the case pended, the supreme court ruled that the eight amendment prohibited life without parole sentences "for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility."

in 2004, 15-year-old brett jones stabbed and killed his grandfather during an altercation. during trial, his legal team argued self-defense, but he was convicted him of murder and received a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. the supreme court in 2012 ruled that such a sentence violated the eighth amendment. mr. jones' legal team filed for post-conviction relief, and a new sentencing hearing was ordered. the court ruled against him, and he filed an appeal to the state's court of appeals. as the case pended, the supreme court ruled that the eight amendment prohibited life without parole sentences "for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility." -- only those or permanently and cordial may be sentenced to life without parole. in montgomery about formal fact-finding has created confusion. but it cannot mean that no determination of permanent incorrigibility whatsoever is required, because that would obliterate the crux of the decision. any rule of law requires deciding if the defendant fits within the

the court should enforce the law by remanding for an answer to the decisive question -- is brett jones who committed a crime just weeks after turning 15 permanently incorrigible? having aapiro, i'm little trouble figuring out what exactly it is you are looking for. we know it cannot be a formal finding which you indicated because miller and montgomery's statements and obviously, you want more than just a hearing in which you have an opportunity to raise the arguments but what is it in the middle there? is it just a statement on the record at some point during a hearing? is it some kind of informal finding? what exactly do you need? >> on the most fundamental level, your honor, what we need is a sentencing judge who understands that permanent in cords ability is the dispositive rule and determines whether did just the defendant fits within that rule. there are any number of ways that it could be done. one is through words, not magic words but words that convey in substance the idea that the defendant is permanently incorrigible, going to met more crimes, going to recidivate, etc. one ot

being with us, senior writer at mother jones and author of "give us the ballot: the modern struggle for voting rights in america." we will into your piece "brett kavanaugh lays out a plan to help trump steal the election." when we come back, we will look more at how good techs roll under the election is that republicans accused social media companies and favoring democrats and democrats also took on the ceos but is that true? stay with us. ♪ [music break] amy: "somos mas americanos" by mana. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the quarantine report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. just days ahead of election day, chief executives of facebook, google, and twitter were grilled on capitol hill about how they moderate hate speech, extremist content, and election disinformation, including tweets from president trump. the senate commerce committee hearing was officially about "how best to preserve the internet as a forum for open discourse" and whether to change a decades-old law known as section 230 that protects internet companies from legal liability for content generated by its users. but most republican senators focused on allegation