FAIRHURST, C.J.
*813¶1 Under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA), the third time a person is convicted of a "most serious offense," they must be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
*814RCW 9.94A.030(38)(a), .570. This statute is colloquially known as the "three strikes and you're *611out" law. State v. Thorne, 129 Wash.2d 736, 746, 921 P.2d 514 (1996). These three cases each ask whether it is constitutional to apply the POAA to people who were in their 30s or 40s when they committed their third strike but were young adults when they committed their first strike.
¶2 We hold that it is constitutional. Article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution does not require a categorical bar on sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for fully developed adult offenders who committed one of their prior strikes as young adults. We also hold that the sentences in these cases are not grossly disproportionate to the crimes.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Anthony Allen Moretti
¶3 Anthony Allen Moretti was born on April 22, 1983. When he was 20 years old, he was charged with breaking into a vacant home and setting fire to it. He pleaded guilty to arson in the first degree and was sentenced to 28 months in prison.
¶4 When he was 26 years old, he was driving while intoxicated and caused an accident in which someone was injured. He pleaded guilty to vehicular assault causing substantial bodily harm to another while under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to 13 months in prison.
¶5 At age 32, Moretti assaulted and robbed two men at a boat launch. One of his victims, Michael Knapp, had recently won $1,250 at a local casino. Knapp and his friend, Tyson Ball, wanted to use some of the money to buy methamphetamine. Ball arranged to meet a woman at a boat launch in order to buy the drugs, but instead of completing their purchase, Ball and Knapp were assaulted by two men, later identified as Moretti and Sam Hill. Hill assaulted Ball while Moretti beat Knapp with a bat, demanding that he *815give them the money. Moretti and Hill left after Knapp complied. Moretti and Hill were both later identified and arrested. Moretti proceeded to trial and was convicted of first degree robbery of Knapp and second degree assault of Ball. Because Moretti had previously been convicted of two separate most serious offenses,1 he was labeled a "persistent offender" under RCW 9.94A.570 and was given the mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
¶6 Moretti appealed, arguing, among other things, that his mandatory life without parole sentence was a violation of article I, section 14 of our constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He claimed that this sentence was cruel because the judge was not permitted to consider his youth at the time of his prior strike offenses. Division Two of the Court of Appeals, by a majority, affirmed on this issue. State v. Moretti , No. 47868-4-II, slip op. at 19, 2017 WL 4899567 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2017) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047868-4-II%20Unpublished%200pinion.pdf.
B. Hung Van Nguyen
¶7 Hung Van Nguyen was born on July 30, 1973. He grew up in Vietnam and moved to the United States in 1990. He did not receive any formal education in Vietnam or in the United States. Psychological evaluations have suggested that he may suffer from some cognitive difficulties. When he was 20 years old, he was convicted of first degree burglary and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The facts underlying the burglary are not in the record.
¶8 When he was 39 years old, Nguyen pleaded guilty to second degree assault by strangulation after he put his hands around his sister's throat during an argument, in *816front of her 6 year old son. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison. He does not argue that he was a young adult when he committed this strike.
¶9 At age 41, Nguyen was staying with his friend Thu Nguyen.2 She had asked him to *612leave more than once, but he refused. She called the police repeatedly over the course of 10 days in order to force him to leave, but the police were not helpful, so she eventually locked him outside while he was speaking to police officers. The next day, Thu Nguyen was taking a nap with her 4 year old grandson. She woke up to Nguyen walking out of her bedroom closet, holding a knife. He told her that he was going to kill her and then stabbed her 10 times, repeatedly catching her as she tried to escape. At that moment, Thu Nguyen's friend Linh Truong arrived for a visit. Truong knocked on the door, and Thu Nguyen's grandson opened the door to let her in. Truong saw Nguyen on top of Thu Nguyen and threw a chair at him to get him off her. The chair missed, but Nguyen turned and stabbed Truong, giving Thu Nguyen the chance to escape. Both victims were able to make it outside, and Truong called 911. Nguyen was arrested and was found competent to stand trial after a psychological evaluation. The jury convicted him of first and second degree assault, i both while armed with a deadly weapon.
¶10 Because Nguyen had previously been convicted of two separate most serious offenses, he was labeled a "persistent offender" under RCW 9.94A.570 and was given the mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Nguyen appealed, and Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence. State v. Hung Van Nguyen, No. 74962-5-1, slip op. at 7-8, 2018 WL 417969 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2018) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/749625.pdf.
*817C. Frederick Del Orr
¶11 Frederick Del Orr was born on April 8, 1974. When he was 19 years old, a police report alleges that he approached a one-legged man in downtown Spokane and demanded money. The man gave him $6 in cash and some change. Orr became angry at the low amount and demanded the man's bank card. The man refused. Orr struck him in the face with a broken beer bottle, grabbed the crutch that the man used to walk, struck him again, and then left. Orr did not remember committing the crime, but he entered an Alford3 plea of guilty to second degree of robbery and was sentenced to 6 months in the county jail.
¶12 When he was 21 years old, Orr was charged with first degree robbery. The statement of probable cause alleges that he was drinking beer at a man's apartment when he started acting strangely and was asked to leave. Orr hit the man, and the man hit him back. Orr then grabbed a paring knife and threatened to kill the man and his roommate before eventually leaving with the man's Toshiba portable stereo. The man tried to stop him from taking the stereo, but Orr raised the knife and chased him down the hallway. Orr entered an Alford plea of guilty to first degree robbery and was sentenced to 50 months in prison.
¶13 At age 41, Orr was living on the streets of Spokane. An acquaintance had allegedly told him that a man named Sasquatch was holding children against their will at a house in the area and was sexually abusing them. Orr was abused as a child | i himself and had heard sex offenders discuss their abuse of children while he was in prison. He became deeply upset and decided to investigate. He went to the house in question carrying a large metal pipe. He investigated and eventually decided to break in. The owner of the house was inside with her 2 year old child. She saw Orr searching around. When he saw her, he left the house *818and sat down on the porch. Meanwhile, a neighbor had seen what had happened and went to confront Orr. The neighbor had a gun. An argument ensued, and Orr swung the pipe at the neighbor's head several times, telling the neighbor to shoot him. Orr eventually acknowledged that he had the wrong house and dropped the metal pipe. He was arrested and was later convicted of first degree burglary and second degree assault, both with a deadly weapon.
¶14 Because Orr had previously been convicted of two separate most serious offenses, he was labeled a "persistent offender" under *613RCW 9.94A.570 and was given the mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Orr appealed, and Division Three of the Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence. State v. Orr, No. 34729-0-III, slip op. at 9-10, 2018 WL 1960197 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/347290_unp.pdf.
¶15 Moretti, Nguyen, and Orr each sought review of the constitutionality of their sentences in this court. We accepted review and consolidated these cases.
II. ANALYSIS
¶16 We have repeatedly upheld sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for adults who commit a third most serious offense after having been convicted of most serious offenses on two separate prior occasions. We now hold that it is not categorically cruel under article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution to impose mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole under the POAA on adult offenders who committed one of their prior most serious offenses as young adults. The petitioners in these cases have not shown a national consensus against this sentencing practice, and in our own independent judgment, the concerns applicable to sentencing juveniles do not apply to adults who continue to reoffend after their brains have fully developed. Because we *819have previously held that article I, section 14 offers more protection than the federal constitution in the context of sentencing both recidivists and juveniles, we do not address the petitioners' argument that this punishment is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
¶17 We also hold that the sentences in these cases are not grossly disproportionate to the offenses under the four Fain factors: "(1) the nature of the offense; (2) the i legislative purpose behind the habitual criminal statute; (3) the punishment defendant would have received in other jurisdictions for the same offense; and (4) the punishment meted out for other offenses in the same jurisdiction." State v. Fain, 94 Wash.2d 387, 397, 617 P.2d 720 (1980).
A. History of the POAA
¶18 In 1993, 76 percent of the voters in Washington State approved the passage of the POAA. Under the POAA, "persistent offenders" must be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. RCW 9.94A.570. A "persistent offender" is a person who commits a third most serious offense after having been convicted on two separate prior occasions of most serious offenses or their out-of-state equivalents. RCW 9.94A.030(38). "Most serious offense" means any class A felony or certain class B felonies that are violent, sexual, or dangerous.4 See RCW 9.94A.030(33). The age of majority in Washington State is 18 years old, RCW 26.28.010, and juvenile adjudications are not included as strikes under the POAA. Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 748, 921 P.2d 514 ; RCW 9.94A.030(35).
*820¶19 We have continually upheld sentences imposed under the POAA as constitutional and not cruel under article I, section 14. See, e.g., State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wash.2d 875, 889, 329 P.3d 888 (2014) ; State v. Magers , 164 Wash.2d 174, 193, 189 P.3d 126 (2008) (plurality opinion); State v. Manussier, 129 Wash.2d 652, 667, 921 P.2d 473 (1996) ; State v. Rivers , 129 Wash.2d 697, 715, 921 P.2d 495 (1996) ; Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 772-73, 921 P.2d 514 ; see also State v. Davis, 133 Wash.2d 187, 190, 943 P.2d 283 (1997) (agreeing that the offenders' crimes are not distinguishable from Manussier, Rivers, and Thorne and, therefore, that a challenge arguing that the sentences were cruel would be frivolous).
*614B. Sentencing an older adult recidivist who committed a prior crime as a young adult to life in prison without parole is not categorically unconstitutional
¶20 Moretti, Nguyen, and Orr each challenge their POAA sentences, claiming that imposing a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole on a person who committed at least one, but not all, of their strike offenses as a young adult categorically violates article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have previously held that article I, section 14 is more protective than the Eighth Amendment when evaluating both the proportionality of the POAA, Witherspoon, 180 Wash.2d at 887, 329 P.3d 888, and juvenile sentencing, State v. Bassett, 192 Wash.2d 67, 82, 428 P.3d 343 (2018). Therefore, if it is not cruel under article I, section 14 to apply the POAA to offenders who committed a prior strike offense as a young adult, then it is necessarily not cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. "We review a statute's constitutionality, like questions of law, de novo." Id. at 77, 428 P.3d 343.
*8211. There is no evidence of a national consensus against using a crime committed as a young adult to enhance the sentence of an adult who continues to offend
¶21 "The first step in the categorical bar analysis is to determine whether there is a national consensus against" the sentencing practice at issue. Id. at 85, 428 P.3d 343. To determine this, we consider " 'objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice.' " Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 61, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010) ). " 'It is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change.' " Id. at 86, 428 P.3d 343 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 315, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002) ). The United States Supreme Court has stated that the burden is on the offender to show that a national consensus exists. See Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 373, 109 S. Ct. 2969, 106 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1989), overruled on other grounds by Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 574, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2005) ; cf. Bassett, 192 Wash.2d at 86, 428 P.3d 343 (explaining that the offender was "correct" that the direction of change was in his favor).
¶22 None of the petitioners have provided information about whether other states allow the use of a crime committed as a young adult to enhance a sentence imposed on an offender who commits a third strike as an older adult. In his amended supplemental brief, Nguyen argues that "states overwhelmingly prohibit the use of juvenile offenses to drastically enhance later sentences under recidivist schemes." Am. Suppl. Br. of Pet'r Nguyen at 9 (emphasis added). But the POAA already prohibits counting a juvenile adjudication as a strike offense. RCW 9.94A.030(35).5
*822¶23 A review of the case law shows that many state courts have held that when sentencing an adult recidivist, it is not cruel and unusual to consider strike offenses committed when the offender was not just a young adult, but a juvenile. See, e.g., Counts v. State, 2014 WY 151, 338 P.3d 902 (holding that it was constitutional to sentence an adult to life in prison as a habitual offender even though one of his prior qualifying felony convictions was committed at age 16); State v. Green, 412 S.C. 65, 85-87, 770 S.E.2d 424 (Ct. App. 2015) (holding that it was constitutional to impose a life without parole sentence on adult recidivist whose prior strike was committed at age 17). Similarly, federal courts have routinely found that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment to impose mandatory minimum sentences on adult recidivists whose prior crimes were committed not just as young adults, but as juveniles. See, e.g., United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2013) ("Nothing in Miller[6 ] suggests that an adult offender who has *615committed prior crimes as a juvenile should not receive a mandatory life sentence as an adult, after committing a further crime as an adult." (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009, 1018 (8th Cir. 2010) ("Scott was twenty-five years old at the time he committed the conspiracy offense in this case [and was sentenced to a mandatory term of life without parole]. ... The [Supreme] Court in Graham did not call into question the constitutionality of using prior convictions, juvenile or otherwise, to enhance the sentence of a convicted adult."); United States v. Mays, 466 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming a mandatory sentence of life without parole imposed on an adult recidivist who committed his first strike offense at age 17 and explaining that "[t]here is not a national consensus that a sentencing enhancement to life imprisonment *823based, in part, upon a juvenile conviction contravenes modern standards of decency").
¶24 We see no evidence of a national consensus against applying recidivist statutes to adults who committed prior strike offenses as young adults. This step of the inquiry weighs against a categorical bar. But "[c]ommunity consensus, while 'entitled to great weight,' is not itself determinative of whether a punishment is cruel." Graham, 560 U.S. at 67, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 434, 128 S. Ct. 2641, 171 L. Ed. 2d 525 (2008) ).
2. Independent judgment shows that the concerns raised by our new understanding of adolescent brain development are not present here
¶25 The second step in the categorical bar analysis requires us to exercise our independent judgment. Bassett, 192 Wash.2d at 87, 428 P.3d 343. We consider " 'the culpability of the offenders at issue in light of their crimes and characteristics, along! with the severity of the punishment in question' " and " 'whether the challenged sentencing practice serves legitimate penological goals.' " Id. (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 67, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ).
a. There has been no showing of reduced culpability here
¶26 First, we must assess the culpability of these petitioners in light of their crimes and characteristics. We now understand that "children are less criminally culpable than adults." Id. Petitioners rely on cases and "psychological and neurological studies showing that the 'parts of the brain involved in behavior control' continue to develop well into a person's 20s" to argue that they are less culpable than other POAA offenders. State v. O'Dell, 183 Wash.2d 680, 691-92, 358 P.3d 359 (2015) (footnote omitted) (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 472, 132 S.Ct. 2455 ); see also MIT Young Adult Development Project: Brain Changes, MASS. INST. OF TECH. , https://hr.mit.edu/static/worklife/youngadult/brain.html *824[https://perma.cc/C9B8-MWDU] ("The brain isn't fully mature at ... 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car."). "These studies reveal fundamental differences between adolescent and mature brains in the areas of risk and consequence assessment, impulse control, tendency toward antisocial behaviors, and susceptibility to peer pressure." O'Dell, 183 Wash.2d at 692, 358 P.3d 359 (footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court has relied on this science to hold that "[b]ecause juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform, ... 'they are less deserving of the most severe punishments.' " Miller, 567 U.S. at 471, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 68, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ).
¶27 It is true that our new understanding of juvenile brains "establish[es] a clear connection between youth and decreased moral culpability for criminal conduct." O'Dell, 183 Wash.2d at 695, 358 P.3d 359. And in O'Dell, we recognized that "age may well mitigate a defendant's culpability, even if that defendant is over the age of 18." Id. But "age is not a per se mitigating factor automatically entitling every youthful defendant to an exceptional sentence." Id. Instead, we held that trial courts are statutorily allowed to consider evidence that a "youth in fact diminished [the young adult] defendant's culpability."
*616Id. at 689, 358 P.3d 359. Moretti, Nguyen, and Orr have not produced any evidence that their youth contributed to the commission of the instant offenses, or even that youth contributed to their prior offenses. They have not suggested that the brains of 32 or 41 year old men are not fully mature. Nothing in this record suggests that they are any less culpable than any other adult offender.
¶28 Many of the cases exempting juveniles from harsh sentencing practices have relied on the strong prospects of juveniles for change.7 For example, in Bassett, we explained *825that a life without parole sentence is inappropriate for juveniles in part because it means that " 'good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the child], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.' " 192 Wash.2d at 88, 428 P.3d 343 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 70, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ). In Bassett, we also noted that a life without parole sentence "is 'especially harsh' for children, who will 'on average serve more years and a greater percentage of [their] li[ves] in prison than an adult offender.' " Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 70, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ). This is not the case here. These petitioners are fully developed adults who were repeatedly given opportunities to prove they could change. Moretti, Nguyen, and Orr each committed a most serious offense, were sentenced and released, then committed another most serious offense, were sentenced and released, and then chose to commit yet another most serious offense.8 It was their decisions to commit their third most serious offenses that triggered the mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole. The POAA gives offenders a chance to show that they can be reformed, but the petitioners failed to do so. *826¶29 The petitioners' argument depends on the assumption that these sentences punish them for crimes they committed as young adults. But these sentences are for the most serious offenses they committed at either age 32 (Moretti) or age 41 (Nguyen and Orr), well into adulthood. These POAA sentences are not punishment for the crimes the petitioners committed as young adults because recidivist statutes do not impose "cumulative punishment for prior crimes. The repetition of criminal conduct aggravates the guilt of the last conviction and justifies a heavier penalty for the crime." State v. Lee, 87 Wash.2d 932, 937, 558 P.2d 236 (1976) ; see also State v. Le Pitre, 54 Wash. 166, 168, 103 P. 27 (1909) (The habitual criminal statute did not "inflict a cruel or unusual punishment, or impose a penalty for crimes committed outside of the state. It merely provide[d] an increased punishment for the last offense."). The United States Supreme Court has explained that
an offense committed by a repeat offender is often thought to reflect greater culpability and thus to merit greater punishment. Similarly, a second or subsequent offense is often regarded as more serious because it portends greater future danger and therefore warrants an increased sentence *617for purposes of deterrence and incapacitation.
United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377, 385, 128 S. Ct. 1783, 170 L. Ed. 2d 719 (2008). "[The] state is justified in punishing a recidivist more severely than it punishes a first offender." Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 772, 921 P.2d 514.
¶30 Because; the petitioners have made no showing that the factors that lessen the culpability of juveniles apply to offenders well into adulthood, they have not shown that they are less culpable than any other POAA offender.
b. The goals of punishment justify this sentence
¶31 The next question is "whether the penological goals of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are served by this sentence." Bassett, 192 Wash.2d at 88, 428 P.3d 343. A sentence of life without the possibility of parole will *827never serve the goal of rehabilitation because sentencing someone to spend the rest of their life in prison " 'forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal.' " Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 473, 132 S.Ct. 2455 ). However, these sentences do serve the other goals of punishment.
¶32 In Bassett, we recognized that "the case for retribution is weakened for children because ' "[t]he heart of the retribution rationale" relates to an offender's blameworthiness' and children have diminished culpability." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 472, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 71-74, 130 S.Ct. 2011 )). But these petitioners were each well into adulthood when they committed the instant offenses. They have not shown that they are less blameworthy than other adults for these choices. It is true that the case for retribution against the petitioners is less strong than, for example, someone who committed multiple aggravated murders. But each of the crimes before us did involve violence or attempted violence. The people of Washington are entitled to condemn adults who chose to commit serious crimes after having twice been given a chance to reform themselves. Retribution may not be sufficient to support the sentences in and of itself, but it does not detract from their constitutionality. Cf. Graham, 560 U.S. at 71, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ("Society is entitled to impose severe sanctions on a juvenile nonhomicide offender to express its condemnation of the crime and to seek restoration of the moral imbalance caused by the offense.").
¶33 The main purposes of the POAA are " 'deterrence of criminals who commit three "most serious offenses" and the segregation of those criminals from the rest of society.' " Witherspoon, 180 Wash.2d at 888, 329 P.3d 888 (quoting Rivers, 129 Wash.2d at 712, 921 P.2d 495 ); Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 775, 921 P.2d 514 ; cf. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29, 123 S. Ct. 1179, 155 L. Ed. 2d 108 (2003) (plurality opinion) (finding that these are goals of recidivist statutes in general); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284, 100 S. Ct. 1133, 63 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1980) (same). In Bassett, we explained that deterrence cannot justify life *828without parole sentences for juveniles because " 'the same characteristics that render juveniles less culpable than adults-their immaturity, recklessness, and impetuosity-make them less likely to consider potential punishment.' " 192 Wash.2d at 88, 428 P.3d 343 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 472, 132 S.Ct. 2455 ). But, again, the petitioners have made no showing that their youth at the time of their prior offenses made them less culpable than a typical POAA offender. The POAA makes it clear that every offender who commits a third most serious offense will be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Each of these petitioners had been imprisoned twice before for committing most serious offenses. There is no evidence before us that adults in their 30s or 40s are less likely than any other adult to consider the consequences of choosing to reoffend.
¶34 Incapacitation is a particularly strong justification in this context. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, "[r]ecidivism is a serious risk to public safety, and so incapacitation is an important goal." Graham, 560 U.S. at 72, 130 S.Ct. 2011. In passing the POAA, the voters explained, *618"Community protection from persistent offenders is a priority," and by passing this law, "the people intend[ed] to ... [i]mprove public safety." RCW 9.94A.555.
¶35 In Bassett, we explained that incapacitation could not justify sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole because this "sentence 'makes an irrevocable judgment about that person[ ]' that is at odds with what we know about children's capacity for change." 192 Wash.2d at 89, 428 P.3d 343 (alteration in original) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 74, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ). We noted that "children have 'diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.' " Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ramos, 187 Wash.2d 420, 444, 387 P.3d 650 (2017) ). Similarly, in Miller, the Supreme Court held that "[d]eciding that a 'juvenile offender forever will be a danger to society' would require 'mak[ing] a judgment that [he] is incorrigible'-but 'incorrigibility *829is inconsistent with youth.' " 567 U.S. at 472-73, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (second and third alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 72-73, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ); see also Montgomery v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 718, 733, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016) ("The need for incapacitation is lessened, too, because ordinary adolescent development diminishes the likelihood that a juvenile offender 'forever will be a danger to society.' " (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 472, 132 S.Ct. 2455 )). Montgomery clarified that life without the possibility of parole was an unconstitutional sentence for all juvenile offenders "whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth." 136 S. Ct. at 734. These judgments relied on the principle that most juveniles are capable of change and will not continue to recidivate into adulthood. As we noted in Bassett, " 'It is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.' " 192 Wash.2d at 89, 428 P.3d 343 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 573, 125 S.Ct. 1183 ).
¶36 But the petitioners are neither juveniles nor young adults. We do not have to guess whether they will continue committing crimes into adulthood because they already have. Moretti was the youngest of the petitioners when he chose to commit his third most serious offense, but even he was 32 years old. This is well past the age when courts have recognized that youth may mitigate criminal culpability. See O'Dell, 183 Wash.2d at 692 n.5, 358 P.3d 359 (citing reports that the brain may not fully mature until age 25). Because Moretti, Nguyen, and Orr each committed their third most serious offense as adults in their 30s and 40s, they have shown that they are part of this rare group of offenders who are "simply unable to bring [their] conduct within the social norms prescribed by the criminal law." Rummel, 445 U.S. at 284, 100 S.Ct. 1133. It was rational for the people to decide that offenders like the petitioners must be incarcerated in order to protect the public.
*830¶37 Regardless of any personal opinions as to the wisdom of this statute, we have "long deferred to the legislative judgment that repeat offenders may face an enhanced penalty because of their recidivism." Fain, 94 Wash.2d at 390-91, 402, 617 P.2d 720 (explaining that a challenge to the constitutionality of the habitual criminal statute would have failed based on this deference because "we must and do defer to the legislative decision to impose an enhanced penalty on recidivists"). The petitioners have failed to establish a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue here and our own independent judgment confirms that these sentences are supported by legitimate penological goals. We hold that article I, section 14 does not categorically prohibit imposing a life without parole sentence on a fully developed adult offender who committed one of their prior strike offenses as a young adult.
C. These sentences are proportional under the Fain factors
¶38 A sentence may also be cruel under article I, section 14 if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense. When conducting a proportionality analysis, we consider " '(1) the nature of the offense, (2) the legislative purpose behind the statute, (3) the *619punishment the defendant would have received in other jurisdictions, and (4) the punishment meted out for other offenses in the same jurisdiction.' " Witherspoon , 180 Wash.2d at 887, 329 P.3d 888 (quoting Rivers, 129 Wash.2d at 713, 921 P.2d 495 (citing Fain, 94 Wash.2d at 397, 617 P.2d 720 )). Under the Fain factors, these sentences are not grossly disproportionate to the offenses.
¶39 The first factor is the nature of the offense. Moretti was convicted of first degree robbery and second degree assault; Nguyen was convicted of first and second degree assault with a deadly weapon; and Orr was convicted of first degree burglary and second degree assault, both with a deadly weapon. Each of the petitioners was convicted of two most serious offenses, one of which was a class A felony.
*831Under RCW 9A.20.021, class A felonies are punishable by a maximum of life in prison even for people who are not persistent offenders.9
¶40 The instant offenses were serious, violent crimes. Moretti beat a man with a bat in order to rob him, breaking the bat against the victim's arms as he struggled to defend himself. Moretti and his companion also attacked a second man, splitting open his forehead, the back of his head, and his ear. Nguyen told Thu Nguyen that he was going to kill her and then stabbed her 10 times in front of her four year old grandson. His knife penetrated and partially broke her skull, narrowly missing her brain. His victim only escaped because a friend stopped by the house and was able to intervene, but the friend did not escape unscathed. Nguyen stabbed her in the side when she attempted to rescue Thu Nguyen. Orr's crime was the least violent, but he too assaulted another person. Orr broke into a woman's house while she was there with her child, intending to beat up a man who he had heard was inside, and then swung a large metal pipe at the head of a neighbor several times. These crimes are each more violent than those that we held supported a POAA sentence in Witherspoon, 180 Wash.2d at 888, 329 P.3d 888, and in Rivers, 129 Wash.2d at 713, 921 P.2d 495. Each offender here either injured another person or attempted to do so. These crimes are therefore "far more serious offense[s] than the second degree theft" found to be disproportionate in Fain . Id.
*832¶41 As the State recognized in oral argument, this factor demands consideration of not only the nature of the crime but also the culpability of the offender who committed it. The petitioners in these cases argue that their sentences are disproportionate because they were either 19 or 20 years old when they committed their first strike offense and their relative youth therefore made them less culpable.10 But our proportionality review focuses on the nature of the current offense, not the nature of past offenses. Moretti was 32 when he committed the instant offense, and both Nguyen and Orr were 41. None of the petitioners have shown that their culpability was reduced when they committed the instant offenses. Far from showing that "as the years go by ... [their] 'deficiencies will be reformed,' " the petitioners have continued to recidivate after their brains were fully *620developed and have shown " 'entrenched patterns of problem behavior.' " Miller , 567 U.S. at 472-73, 471, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 68, 130 S.Ct. 2011 ; Roper, 543 U.S. at 570, 125 S.Ct. 1183 ). This factor indicates that these sentences are not grossly disproportionate.
¶42 The second factor is the legislative purpose of the statute. We have previously recognized that the purpose of the POAA is to deter criminals who commit three most serious offenses and to incapacitate them by segregating them from the rest of society. See Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 774-75, 921 P.2d 514. As discussed above, supra, Section B.2.b, these goals are served by these sentences. Moretti, Nguyen, and Orr all committed dangerous felonies time and time again. They have shown that they are unwilling to stop endangering the *833public. This factor also suggests that these sentences are not grossly disproportionate.
¶43 The third factor is the punishment that the offenders would have received in other jurisdictions. The petitioners did not address this factor in their briefing. According to the State's brief from Spokane County, it appears as though 13 other states impose mandatory sentences of life without parole on offenders who continue to recidivate.11 Am. Suppl. Br. of Resp't, Attach. A. A total of 34 states appear to have some sort of habitual offender statute, many of which allow or require imposing life sentences. Id. Because each state has a different threshold for what qualifies as a strike offense, it is unclear exactly how each of the petitioners would have fared in other jurisdictions. But even if they would have received shorter sentences in some other jurisdictions, "this factor alone is not dispositive." Witherspoon, 180 Wash.2d at 888, 329 P.3d 888.
¶44 The fourth and final Fain factor is the punishment the offenders would have received for a different crime in the same jurisdiction. Mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole is the harshest sentence currently available in Washington. See State v. Gregory, 192 Wash.2d 1, 5, 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (plurality opinion) (abolishing the death penalty as currently applied). But, "[i]n Washington, all adult offenders convicted of three 'most serious offenses' are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release *834under the POAA." Witherspoon, 180 Wash.2d at 888, 329 P.3d 888. These petitioners would have received the same sentence if they had committed any other most serious offenses. This final factor supports the constitutionality of these sentences.
¶45 Therefore, these sentences are not grossly disproportionate to the offenses.
III. CONCLUSION
¶46 Petitioners argued that sentencing adult offenders to mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole under the POAA when one of their prior strike offenses was committed as young adults is either cruel, in violation of article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution, or cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States constitution. We hold that it is not.
¶47 The petitioners have not shown a national consensus against this sentencing practice, and our own independent judgment confirms that there is nothing to suggest that these petitioners are less culpable than other POAA offenders. The sentences in these cases do! not categorically violate the Washington *621Constitution. Because our constitution is more protective than the federal constitution in this context, we need not analyze this question under the Eighth Amendment. Finally, we hold that these sentences are not grossly disproportionate to the offenses under the Fain factors.
¶48 We affirm the Court of Appeals.
WE CONCUR:
Johnson, J.
Madsen, J.
Owens, J.
Stephens, J.
Wiggins, J.
Gordon McCloud, J.