Juvenile Offenders - What say you?

[Serve em Up]

From ABCNEWS:
Supreme Court justices struggled Monday with whether the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment should apply to juvenile offenders serving sentences of life without parole

Lawyers for two men sentenced as teenagers to spend the rest of their lives behind bars in Florida argued that the justices should abolish such sentences for non-homicide offenses committed by teenagers.

Brian Stevenson, a lawyer for Joe Harris Sullivan, who was put away at age 13 for raping an elderly (73 y.o) woman, said, "To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel. And we believe that the Constitution prohibits that kind of punishment."

The justices also heard the case of Terrance Jamar Graham, who was sentenced at 17 for armed robbery while on parole. The justices grappled with whether they should draw a bright-line rule at a particular age.

This is a tough call. A firm age gives younger offenders of really heinous crimes a pass. Leaving it to a judge opens the ability for liberal judges to ley out dangerous criminals. Remember, the 17 year old was out on parole when he committed armed robbery. When do we adit they are a bad egg and throw aqay the key?

[El Diablo]

I don't think you give someone a "pass" by telling a 17 year old that he'll be eligible for parole in, say, 40 years. Age usually dampens aggression, and it may be that very long, but not endless, sentences are called for in some cases. I understand there are now about 2500 juveniles in this country serving life without parole.

[LuckyR]

If you believe in the Juvenile justice system being seperate from the adult system, then I think you should not sentance a minor to life w/o parole for a non-lethal offense.

[raiden031]

I agree that if a juvenile offender commits a non-fatal crime (under maybe age 16), then the parole option should be available.

[RD 7]

"One May morning in 1989, Sullivan, then 13, and two older teens, Nathan McCants, 17, and Michael Gulley, 15, burglarized a home in Pensacola, Fla. They left with jewelry and coins. Later that day, someone returned to the house and found a 72-year-old woman, threw a black slip over her head, made her lie on her bed, and [bleep bleeped] her—so brutally that she had to have corrective surgery."

Not a very nice 13 year old.

[LuckyR]

Originally Posted by RD 7

"One May morning in 1989, Sullivan, then 13, and two older teens, Nathan McCants, 17, and Michael Gulley, 15, burglarized a home in Pensacola, Fla. They left with jewelry and coins. Later that day, someone returned to the house and found a 72-year-old woman, threw a black slip over her head, made her lie on her bed, and [bleep bleeped] her—so brutally that she had to have corrective surgery."

Not a very nice 13 year old.

True, but the prisons are full on not very nice people, they are not routinely killed.

[nereis]

For these sort of violent crimes, I say lock the trash up and throw away the key. They won't ever go to college, they'll likely spend their misbegotten lives either doing drugs on social security or as a career criminal, obviously had little to no parenting AND it's too late at this point, no point in letting them out.

[chess9]

A lot of these teenagers are savage beasts. I'm not sure the problem is any worse now than it has always been, with the exception of the ready availability of guns.

Here's my view:

For violent crimes, including death and ****, I'd make 18-21 year olds eligible for life without parole. Unless they are mass murderers, no death penalty.

For those under 18, life without parole should not be an option, even in cases of death and ****.

Many of these kids are mentally ill, but the legal system is 200 years behind in accepting mental illness as a defense. In fact, our prisons are full of mentally ill defendants. (I spent a summer working on a prison reform project, much to my horror, and never met so many completly 'whacked' men in one place before. Very strong stuff for a young man to digest.)

We need more tools than incarceration to deal with these issues, IMHO.

-Robert

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Part of the problem is a Victorian attitude towards "children" that treats them like innocent angels, though they may be remorseless psychopaths. Women used to be protected in the same way.
While I don't claim children aren't still forming into functioning adults, hopefully, the idea that a certain select few shouldn't be locked away (for life) to protect the sheep of society from the wolves that prey on them, is dangerous and just another example how p.c. thinking gets people killed.

[Puma]

Originally Posted by chess9

A lot of these teenagers are savage beasts. I'm not sure the problem is any worse now than it has always been, with the exception of the ready availability of guns.

Here's my view:

For violent crimes, including death and ****, I'd make 18-21 year olds eligible for life without parole. Unless they are mass murderers, no death penalty.

For those under 18, life without parole should not be an option, even in cases of death and ****.

Many of these kids are mentally ill, but the legal system is 200 years behind in accepting mental illness as a defense. In fact, our prisons are full of mentally ill defendants. (I spent a summer working on a prison reform project, much to my horror, and never met so many completly 'whacked' men in one place before. Very strong stuff for a young man to digest.)

We need more tools than incarceration to deal with these issues, IMHO.

-Robert

Chess,

I am aware of the metal illness problem. But, don't you think that in order to satisfy saftey conerns for the public, should'nt the needed programs go into effect before any law changes that would allow a convicted person of violent crime out on the streets?

Also, in regards to same type of violent crime, how does age, in this case less than 18, make a person less responsible for his or her actions?

[LuckyR]

Originally Posted by Puma

Chess,

I am aware of the metal illness problem. But, don't you think that in order to satisfy saftey conerns for the public, should'nt the needed programs go into effect before any law changes that would allow a convicted person of violent crime out on the streets?

Also, in regards to same type of violent crime, how does age, in this case less than 18, make a person less responsible for his or her actions?

You imply a great question: should there be a seperate juvenile system from the adult justice system? Great theoretical question, but here in reality, there is such a difference.

[chess9]

Originally Posted by Puma

Chess,

I am aware of the metal illness problem. But, don't you think that in order to satisfy saftey conerns for the public, should'nt the needed programs go into effect before any law changes that would allow a convicted person of violent crime out on the streets?

Also, in regards to same type of violent crime, how does age, in this case less than 18, make a person less responsible for his or her actions?

The age is necessarily arbitrary. I know plenty of 70 year olds who shouldn't walk and chew gum, and plenty of 30 year olds who shouldn't have a driver's license. But, essentially, you must age limit any law. Some people think the age for life without parole should be 21. There's nothing magic about 21 either.

We aren't ever going to have any programs to help the mentally ill. Where did you get that idea? I'm serious. We can't afford those programs any more than we can afford to lock 2% of the population up for long periods of time. California is releasing prisoners as we 'speak'. And conservatives won't vote for mental health care, particularly for the criminally insane.

This problem is extremely difficult and ties into some of the oldest religious values and myths held by humans, such as an "eye for an eye".

-Robert

[Puma]

Originally Posted by chess9

The age is necessarily arbitrary. I know plenty of 70 year olds who shouldn't walk and chew gum, and plenty of 30 year olds who shouldn't have a driver's license. But, essentially, you must age limit any law. Some people think the age for life without parole should be 21. There's nothing magic about 21 either.

We aren't ever going to have any programs to help the mentally ill. Where did you get that idea? I'm serious. We can't afford those programs any more than we can afford to lock 2% of the population up for long periods of time. California is releasing prisoners as we 'speak'. And conservatives won't vote for mental health care, particularly for the criminally insane.

This problem is extremely difficult and ties into some of the oldest religious values and myths held by humans, such as an "eye for an eye".

-Robert

Good reply.

My doubles partner is a counselor for addiction issues. He has told me over and over again what a trecherous path it is for the addicted. This is especially true once there is a conviction.

Many petty offenders who gain parole are not ready for it. That is, they haven't dealt with the addiction problems. They may have been without thier poison of choice, but that doesn't make them healed.

I will admit though, that I have some harsher views on punishment for violent offenders. But, thats another story...

[hb_hound]

Violent acts committed at any age deserve just punishment. Part of our problem in the U.S. is protecting the criminal and forgetting to protect the innocent citizen. Once convicted of a violent act towards another human, that person, no matter what age, should be permanently removed from an active role in society.

[Serve em Up]

Originally Posted by chess9

We need more tools than incarceration to deal with these issues, IMHO.

-Robert

Give them counseling, meds as needed, a college eduction, and a law degree. They the get a full public education and become lawyers, or wall street bankers making BIG BUCKS. Still ruthless, but rich!

That would be great except for the fact that there are millions of good law abiding kids that really want the means to get an education and an opportunity yet can't. What do we tell them? Go r*p* or murder some one and you'll be eligible for a free eduction?

[chess9]

One of the reasons why we don't use tools other than incarceration is because those tools have proven to be imperfect. Drugs must be taken on a schedule, and in the right doses and not with alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, or heroin, by way of example. Counseling must be done consistently and regularly, particularly early on in interventions. Surprisingly, education, if possible, is fairly effective.

Regardless, recidivism rates are very high, though the conditions in prison aggravate criminality and raise the recidivism rates.

As I said, these problems are intractable.

When you get sued, be sure to hire a really sweet lawyer, and skip the ruthless one.

-Robert

[Serve em Up]

Originally Posted by chess9

One of the reasons why we don't use tools other than incarceration is because those tools have proven to be imperfect. Drugs must be taken on a schedule, and in the right doses and not with alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, or heroin, by way of example. Counseling must be done consistently and regularly, particularly early on in interventions. Surprisingly, education, if possible, is fairly effective.

Regardless, recidivism rates are very high, though the conditions in prison aggravate criminality and raise the recidivism rates.

As I said, these problems are intractable.

When you get sued, be sure to hire a really sweet lawyer, and skip the ruthless one.

-Robert

I agree to "intractable"

[ubermeyer]

The people who commit horrific crimes at young ages are often the most psychopathic. Can you imagine a 50, or 25 year old murderer? Sadly, there have been many. Now, can you imagine a 10 year old murderer? You really have to be evil to do something like that at that age -- but there have been (very few) people like that.

[Joe Pike]

Originally Posted by Serve em Up

...

The justices also heard the case of Terrance Jamar Graham, who was sentenced at 17 for armed robbery while on parole. The justices grappled with whether they should draw a bright-line rule at a particular age.[/i]

This is a tough call. A firm age gives younger offenders of really heinous crimes a pass. Leaving it to a judge opens the ability for liberal judges to ley out dangerous criminals. Remember, the 17 year old was out on parole when he committed armed robbery. When do we adit they are a bad egg and throw aqay the key?

Do you REALLY want to say it is remotely sane to give a 17-year-old a life sentence because of a ROBBERY????????????????????

[chess9]

Originally Posted by Joe Pike

Do you REALLY want to say it is remotely sane to give a 17-year-old a life sentence because of a ROBBERY????????????????????

Well, it was an ARMED ROBBERY. I assume he had two arms and a gun. He's probably 6-2, and 220 lbs of muscle as well. Some of these cases are very very tough because the defendants are often like feral beasts. Imagine Mike Tyson at 17....and he's still that way!

-Robert