Malvo Case Focuses on Juvenile LWOP:  The U.S. Supreme Court's hearing in Mathena v. Malvo, scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, has intensified the debate between those who want to end life without parole (LWOP) sentencing of murderers under 18, and prosecutors and victims groups who maintain that LWOP is appropriate in some cases.  R.J. Vogt of Law 360 reports that  the court will be deciding if its earlier rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, which placed limits on LWOP sentences for under 18 murderers, should be expanded to partially or completely eliminate the sentence, or should be narrowly construed.  Malvo was 17 in 2002 when he and John Allen Mohammad carried out a 20-day spree of random sniper attacks in the DC area,  murdering 10 people and injuring 3 others.  Since Miller and Montgomery were handed down, 23 states have abolished LWOP for juvenile murderers while 22 others have kept it.  Proponents of abolishment argue that the brains of 17 year-olds are undeveloped and often unable to control behavior.  An attorney representing another juvenile murderer told reporters, "it serves no purpose to condemn him to die in prison for his actions as a child."  But the families of those murdered by these "children" feel differently.  "Many victims would like to see Malvo in prison for the rest of his life," said CJLF Attorney Kymberlee Stapleton, who authored the Foundation's brief in the case.  Another victim's advocate put it this way:  "There are some people who are damaged and completely unable to be safe among society."  While this case is under review, abolitionists are seeking state legislation to reduce LWOP sentences for murderers up to age 25.