Life without Parole for Juveniles

[brierebecca 0]

I was just listening to Justice Talking on NPR, and they were having a debate about whether the US should continue to sentence juveniles without parole. These juveniles are not eligible for any high school education, and many are sentenced before the age of 16.

There were lots of scary stats on the program, but the one that sticks out is that we currently have 2000 juveniles serving life without parole in our criminal system, and the rest of the world has....12.

I was listening to the arguments back and forth, and the lady arguing for sentencing juveniles said that there are just some kinds who are too messed up, and we should be able to lock them away for life. However, she couldn't adequately respond to a counter-argument that we don't evaluate these teens as people enough to know how much psychological damage there really is, or even whether or not their crimes are premeditated. Her response was "I trust the system and our legislators to make these decisions." That's about when she lost my attention.

What does everyone think about this?

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[Nightingale 0]

I think we have juvenile courts for a reason. Young people are generally not as responsible for their actions as adults. That's why they're considered minors. If we believe they are not capable of making adult decisions in voting, medical, educational or residential situations, we need to acknowledge that they don't always make adult, appropriate decisions in criminal situations either, and they don't always understand the real, long term effects on the rest of their (and other people's) lives.

When someone is that young, there is alot of time and a lot of options for intervention. I think we need to try that first before declaring someone unredeemable.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

they don't always understand the real, long term effects on ... other people's) lives.

sorry for the hack job - the above is what's important only IMO. If the criminal will repeat offend a serious offense, then they are a danger to society and should be locked up. Age shouldn't be a consideration.

Giving more leeway to juveniles should only be done when their age can be convincingly used to demonstrate that they can learn to improve their behavior and not be a repeat offender. If not, then they are a threat to others regardless of age....

In essence, I agree with your post. But once we try to rehab a youth and fail, any additional effort is not in best interest of the rest of us. In otherwords, an arbitrary age cut off is kinda stupid. Anyone that can clearly show they won't be a repeat offender should be worked with - AND those that can't orwon't should have zero mercy. (and "can't' was used on purpose, because a danger to society doesn't care how it came about or if it's someone elses fault or a disease or bad environment, it's still a danger to the innocent)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ROK 0]

This is a sticky subject.

When is someone young enough to commit a capital crime, and be shown mercy?

We say that they shouldn't be held "as" responsible for their actions, but under what circumstances? Are children being incarcerated for life that do not have a history of criminal behavior?

I find the 2000/12 stats to be pretty interesting. Is it because foreign youths commit lesser crimes only, or is it that they are handled differently when they do?

[Nightingale 0]

Once we try to rehab a youth and fail, they're probably over age 18 and can then be tried as an adult.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Is it because foreign youths commit lesser crimes only, or is it that they are handled differently when they do?

or are the systems easier?
or can the youths get away with more crimes off the record?
or with their 'passports' can they move about the continent and not build up a series of similar crimes to establish a precedent?
or does excessive smoking and lack of bathing make them more meek?
Probably a bit of all these?

You'd think with the gun toting, cowboy, kill crazy americans, that we'd have fewer in jail and more in the ground? Should americans be given free shooting lessons to hit the target better? I think it's all the fatty foods americans eat, it makes it hard to hold a gun steady, even when leaning over a fatty forearm or resting on a beer belly. Of course fat people won't get healthy without good free healthcare and free housing and guaranteed jobs for life. But then, we'd have fewer criminals and juvenile criminals, so shooting straight won't be important. Thus the health care isn't really needed...... Excuse me-
.
.
.

Yes mother? Sorry, I'm on the net. OK, I'll come right down....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Once we try to rehab a youth and fail, they're probably over age 18 and can then be tried as an adult.

Sorry Kris - I was off on a digression. you're probably right

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

We say that they shouldn't be held "as" responsible for their actions, but under what circumstances? Are children being incarcerated for life that do not have a history of criminal behavior?

Yes. Another stat in the program was that something like 60 percent of the kids who were sentenced to life without parole were first time offenders. 70 percent of those were minorities, to make it even more interesting.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[Casurf1978 0]

The 2000/12 stat is interesting. I would like to know what type of crime these kids committed and if any of them have gang affiliations. My guess would that a good majority of those 2000 are gang members. I don't think most countries have the gang problem we have. There was a show a few days ago on MS13 and they interviewed a few members. These were kids 14-18 yo and some were already stone cold killers. In those instances they should be locked up for life. When you're that ingrained into a gang and that life style there's not much the system can do.

[brierebecca 0]

In many cases, the sentencing judges have no choice about whether they can send these children to jail for life (according to the program). This is because many of them commit murder, rape, or arson, and many of these crimes have mandatory minimum statutes without age limits.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

What does everyone think about this?

it's better than these sacks of animal feces being free to ruin another person's life. Good riddance, and don't drop the soap, Billy.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Tink1717 2]

If they do an adult crime, they should do adult time. Period. I am a s liberal as the day is long, but there needs to be a firm line established. If we tolerate violent behavior due to the youth of an offender, then we are left with the prospect of even more violence from these offenders when they mature. I am not willing to take that risk. Besides, if they don't have severe mental and/or developmental issues when they enter the juvenile justice system, they absolutely will when they exit. We, as a people, can't afford that. You can rehab some, but not all.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I think we have juvenile courts for a reason. Young people are generally not as responsible for their actions as adults. That's why they're considered minors. If we believe they are not capable of making adult decisions in voting, medical, educational or residential situations, we need to acknowledge that they don't always make adult, appropriate decisions in criminal situations either, and they don't always understand the real, long term effects on the rest of their (and other people's) lives.

When someone is that young, there is alot of time and a lot of options for intervention. I think we need to try that first before declaring someone unredeemable.

Sure, and if the case stays in juvi court, there are minimal maximums. What they do is to trabsfer to adult court and then adult jeopardy can be sentenced. I think it's wrong too....

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If they do an adult crime, they should do adult time.

Great, please define "adult crime"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If they do an adult crime, they should do adult time. Period. I am a s liberal as the day is long, but there needs to be a firm line established. If we tolerate violent behavior due to the youth of an offender, then we are left with the prospect of even more violence from these offenders when they mature. I am not willing to take that risk. Besides, if they don't have severe mental and/or developmental issues when they enter the juvenile justice system, they absolutely will when they exit. We, as a people, can't afford that. You can rehab some, but not all.

Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse. With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse. With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it?

Well, that is quite easy really. When it comes to violence kids know what they are doing, when it comes to sex, they obviously have no clue. Just look at american entertainment. Violence is abundent, but god forbid a boobie makes it on tv.

[Nightingale 0]

I don't think we should be able to try minors as adults. We have a juvenile court system for a reason.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think we should be able to try minors as adults. We have a juvenile court system for a reason.

One that pretty much has to let these kids free with no record when they get older. That was clearly lacking, hence the push to a different tact,

As for the 12 minors in the entire world....sure, whatever. Just imagine the number of conscious lies being made in that statement.

[Richards 0]

Young offenders status in courts does have validity, in that we do recognise that minors do have less of a grasp on the consequences of their actions. I would be more inclined to try to reform a 14 year old who has been convicted of criminal activity (drugs, B&E, Auto-theft...etc) since there is still a chance of creating a contributing member of society. But with respect to violent crimes I take a harder line. One time offender I think their age should be taken into consideration but these teenagers that are already hardenned thug gangsters are probably irredeemable so it would be better to just stick them in adult court for adult sentences.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Nightingale 0]

If they're not mature enough to vote, they're not mature enough to be tried as an adult. We don't trust them to make adult choices about drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, choosing medical care, or choosing their governmental representatives, but we expect them to make adult choices about crime. That makes no sense.

I do agree that the juvenile system could use some revamping. I don't think records should be sealed. There are problems with the juvenile justice system, but putting children into the adult system is not the solution.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If they're not mature enough to vote, they're not mature enough to be tried as an adult. We don't trust them to make adult choices about drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, choosing medical care, or choosing their governmental representatives, but we expect them to make adult choices about crime. That makes no sense.

If you want a testing basis to granting voting priviledges at an age earlier than 18, I'm all for it. Not sure how it could be done, but it would be a positive step.

OTOH, when you've killed someone, you've passed one test of adulthood, and shown yourself to be lacking. A 17 yo old killer isn't any less culpable than an 18 yo old who was born 2 weeks earlier. How far down the age line to go is a fair question, but it's certainly >= 2 years.

[Tink1717 2]

Murder, Rape (non statutory ), Armed robbery, Aggravated Arson (arson with a fatality), Motor vehicle manslaughter, Gang affiliated conspiracy (and the associated crimes), Aggravated assault/battery, Use of a weapon in commission of a crime, etc...

Get it?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Johnnysgirly 0]

Great, please define "adult crime"
***

Only reason I would have absolute mandatory sentences would be violent rape and murder.

Alyssa

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse.

Girls aren't the perpetrators of statutory rape, the men are.

Quote

With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it?

Kids are much more savvy now than they were years ago. Kids know the difference between petty crimes and big trouble. They know they can usually skate due to their age. That must stop.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Just look at american entertainment. Violence is abundent, but god forbid a boobie makes it on tv.

This is part of the problem. Violence is a marketing tool to draw kids towards certian products. The best selling video games consist of robbery, rape and murder. Pound this kind of garbage into the heads of children for x number of years and some of them will react as if life is just that, a video game. Same goes with kids engaging in sex on certian primetime television shows. It is often shown that these are the "cool kids", the in crowd. It is also in music. Gangbanger mentality blast the airwaves. Children emulate what they see and hear. The worst it gets the more society and children will pay.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young