Sentencing Children to Life?

[celtic_crippler]

Age is not the real issue. The issue that must be considered is does the person that commited the crime know it was wrong.

There are minors that commit crimes knowing, or at least thinking they know, that the repercussions will be minor (no pun intended) because they are minors because the laws are more lenient towards them. Gangs recruit kids because of this.

Regardless of age, you knowingly commit a crime then you should do the time.

...and I appreciate the mother of the victim and admire her ability to forgive, but when you take a life you take away everything that person has and everything they're ever going to have... What would you suggest as an apt punishment for that...regardless of age?

 

[CoryKS]

"They locked me up and threw away the keys," Lotts, now 23, said from prison. "They took away all hope for the future."

Michael Barton was unavailable for comment.

 

[shesulsa]

Like Arnisador, I have problems with it but no easy answers.

I can't think of too many teen boys who haven't actually verbalized when frustrated or angry, "Man, I just wanna KILL somebody!" Yet how many actually would?

How easy is it for a situation such as the one described to escalate to the point of a mis-understood, heat-of-the-moment life-or-death struggle?

I'd say it's very easy, especially during the teen years. Yes, they are old enough to "know better." Yes, they are old enough to logically process the difference between right and wrong. But the passion of the moment has driven youngsters - hell, even oldsters - to do irrational, illogical, very wrong things.

It's no excuse, but I think to toss the notion that age has nothing to do with it out the door and treat all who do a wrong thing with the same brush is misguided.

However - what, exactly, should happen to this young man? I can't think that Murder I was appropriate and it smacks of message-sending bureaucracy rather than justice, nor can I think that release and therapy would be appropriate either, though he seems to have done more time than some and if parole worked the way it were supposed to, perhaps he could have a second chance at things, though the case Bill pointed out causes pause.

:idunno:

 

[Gordon Nore]

"They locked me up and threw away the keys," Lotts, now 23, said from prison. "They took away all hope for the future."

What Lotts said is essentially a statement of fact. It's a natural consequence of being locked, so I'm not having a huge reaction to his having said. Most people sentenced to life -- I would imagine -- might say quite the same thing. In actuality, according to the article...

2,225: Inmates serving life without parole for crimes committed as minors

That's adult inmates, presumably representing a range of age, currently serving life for violent crimes committed as youths. Doesn't sound like an epidemic to me.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Like Arnisador, I have problems with it but no easy answers.

I can't think of too many teen boys who haven't actually verbalized when frustrated or angry, "Man, I just wanna KILL somebody!" Yet how many actually would?

How easy is it for a situation such as the one described to escalate to the point of a mis-understood, heat-of-the-moment life-or-death struggle?

I'd say it's very easy, especially during the teen years. Yes, they are old enough to "know better." Yes, they are old enough to logically process the difference between right and wrong. But the passion of the moment has driven youngsters - hell, even oldsters - to do irrational, illogical, very wrong things.

It's no excuse, but I think to toss the notion that age has nothing to do with it out the door and treat all who do a wrong thing with the same brush is misguided.

However - what, exactly, should happen to this young man? I can't think that Murder I was appropriate and it smacks of message-sending bureaucracy rather than justice, nor can I think that release and therapy would be appropriate either, though he seems to have done more time than some and if parole worked the way it were supposed to, perhaps he could have a second chance at things, though the case Bill pointed out causes pause.

:idunno:

Having been a teenage boy once, perhaps I can shed some light.

You said it yourself: Everyone, regardless of age, can succumb to emotion over rational thought but that is never an excuse for commiting murder.

Even so, courts take into account the circumstances of the crime. To get Life in prison I'd say the evidence had to be pretty substantial that it was a malicious crime to say the least. (I know there are a few cases that demonstrate the holes in the Justice System, but for the most part it works...sometimes..lol)

True, time can teach us wisdom and help us deal with this, but when I was young it was a healthy fear of what my mother would do to me if I got in trouble that helped to keep me straight!!

A teen knows right from wrong regardless of parental involvement. At the very least, they know murder is wrong. They can get that from watching TV!

The youth today is more street-wise than you think. We live in the information age. They are perfectly aware that juvenille laws are extremely lenient and many try to take advantage of it. The "age of innocence" is fast becoming an antiquated idea if it's not extinct already.

Ever watch "Gang Land"? That's just one source, but I've seen and read several pieces of documentation where the "kid" said he shot and killed somebody becuase he knew (or thought) he'd be out of prison by 18 and his status in the gang would be greater.

Does a 3 year old playing with Daddy's pistol get life when it goes off and kills someon? No...again the circumstances dictate how it's handled, but a 13 year old that makes a concious decision to take a life...deserves LIFE at the very least. IMHO

 

[Stac3y]

I am of two minds in this - on the one hand, I agree that someone who murders someone else deserves to have his/her future taken away; on the other hand, it is common for defendants with money to hire better lawyers and get better deals. Should 2 defendants, equal in all respects except their access to money, get different punishments? This is a fundamental flaw in our legal system, and there are no easy answers to it.

I certainly agree that this flaw exists, but I'd sure rather have some murderers put away than none of them. I've actually heard people say that it's not fair that a poor person who killed someone got life and a rich person got off, so the poor person should be released! What a crock.

By the age of 12, according to Piaget (a psychologist famous for his study of child development), a child has a fully developed conscience. So a 14 year old should definitely know right from wrong, though he may still have trouble curbing his impulses and may have pretty lousy judgment. And I think stabbing someone to death is a pretty deliberate act--it's not like this kid gave the other one a shove and accidentally killed him.

IMO, the horrific background of these kids, while it certainly engenders pity, is a better argument for continued detention than for release. Ideally, people who have psychological problems should go into residential treatment rather than prison, but that is largely impractical in the US due to lack of available "beds." So lots of people who should be hospitalized end up in prison; this problem is also exacerbated by the trend toward deinstitutionalization that began in the Reagan years.

 

[MJS]

I certainly agree that this flaw exists, but I'd sure rather have some murderers put away than none of them. I've actually heard people say that it's not fair that a poor person who killed someone got life and a rich person got off, so the poor person should be released! What a crock.

By the age of 12, according to Piaget (a psychologist famous for his study of child development), a child has a fully developed conscience. So a 14 year old should definitely know right from wrong, though he may still have trouble curbing his impulses and may have pretty lousy judgment. And I think stabbing someone to death is a pretty deliberate act--it's not like this kid gave the other one a shove and accidentally killed him.

IMO, the horrific background of these kids, while it certainly engenders pity, is a better argument for continued detention than for release. Ideally, people who have psychological problems should go into residential treatment rather than prison, but that is largely impractical in the US due to lack of available "beds." So lots of people who should be hospitalized end up in prison; this problem is also exacerbated by the trend toward deinstitutionalization that began in the Reagan years.

Key part in bold. I agree 100% with what you're saying. Sad part is, the kid isn't going to know anything, if the parents are not teaching them. The kids will learn what they live, and if they're not living right, they're not going to learn right either.

 

[Stac3y]

...and I appreciate the mother of the victim and admire her ability to forgive, but when you take a life you take away everything that person has and everything they're ever going to have... What would you suggest as an apt punishment for that...regardless of age?

I don't appreciate her at all. She created that murderous kid: the article says he was a crack baby, physically and sexually abused, etc. I figure she "forgives" him because it's easier than owning up to her own horridness. She and her husband, remember, had left the two boys alone for several days to go smoke crack when the murder occurred.

 

[arnisador]

IMO, the horrific background of these kids, while it certainly engenders pity, is a better argument for continued detention than for release.

A sad but unavoidable fact. It gets to a point where whether it's their "fault" or not is immaterial to the public safety.

 

[punisher73]

It must be remembered that sentencing laws for crimes are to serve a threefold process.

1) Punishment to the offender
2) Protect society from the offender
3) Deterence from others doing the same thing.

I think that many people forget #2 and #3 in the scheme of things (granted, I don't think #3 applies too much here). If you are 14 yrs old and you don't have the control of yourself and kill somebody, then yes, you should be punished but ALSO I don't want you around anymore to hurt anyone else.

I know it's not PC to say this, but I'm sure the others who have worked in the juvenile system and LE can attest to this...there are some evil kids out there (not saying that's the case here) that are going to create a path of hurt and destruction throughout their life if they are not put away. I don't care WHAT their age is, if you show yourself to be a danger to society (violent crimes) and can't "help it", that's ok...we'll help for you and put you away from every that you might hurt.