Young people are reflection of their parents and the culture into which they are born. Maturity is a complex gradual biological and learning process. There are difference between physical, emotional, and intellectual maturity, both across age groups and individuals. The law draws a single line, if for no other reason, because it's easier that way.
By the logic of the comments so far, these kids would be better off being put to death. What I read here is that they should pay for their offenses. I see payment as pointless. My goal is that they not commit a crime again. Our system, as it stand now, serves only to warehouse and train hardened criminals.
My interpretation of "cruel and unusual," indeed any interpretation other than that of the courts', is irrelevant. But a life spent in prison seems more cruel than a life cut short through a quick execution. I wouldn't be surprised to find you agree a quick execution is preferable. And I wouldn't be surprised if a culture dominated by people with that view is a violent, criminal, and cruel one.
DLS
· 1 month ago
"21? The drinking age is 21. Maybe that is the new 'minor'. "
HA, HA, HA.
In the view of Nanci Pelosi and House lib-Dem health care "reformers," a "minor" is through the age of 27.
She reminded us all of that, in her post-vote press conference last night.
HA, HA, HA.
* * *
As for the subject of the thread: We know about maturation of the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex and of judgment. (Yet, lefties constantly demand lowering of the age for things like not only drinking, but also voting, down often at least to age sixteen. Why?)
That is not the only issue at stake. Also at issue is the nature of serious crimes committed, as well as the obvious fact about humanity, that after age 6-7 young people are expected to know the difference between right and wrong. Another item: murder is not the only crime that merits consideration for life imprisonment, or death, obviously. Nobody can claim with a straight face, or imply, that only murder is such a crime at issue here.
AustinRoth
· 1 month ago
It depends on what is classified as a minor. 17? 16? 18?
21? The drinking age is 21. Maybe that is the new 'minor'.
You can join the military at 17, but you cannot be a legal adult for the purpose of major felony sentencing?
And if life is not allowed, is a 99 year sentence? If not, what is the maximum sentence? Until they are a legal adult?
Rape, mutilate, and kill a 12 year old girl when you are 17 years, 11 months of age, and get off with time served by the time your trial is over, because you were a minor when you committed the crime?
Leonidas
· 1 month ago
via Wiki:
Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences, so a life sentence from a federal court will result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant, unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President.
I support this. I do not believe in parole. Commutation of sentence, is perfectly fine, but those on parole are actually still considered to be serving a sentence, I'd rather see them be locked up if their crimes merited a life sentence. If they have shown themselves to be truly reformed let a commutation of sentence or pardon be granted, not a parole.
JeffersonDavis
· 1 month ago
JWindish is correct in that our penal system is a joke. It does not punish and it does not rehabilitate. There are exceptions of course, but if rehabilitation is your aim, then why is the rate of repeat-offenders so high? If punishment and deterrence is your aim, then why make prison more comfortable than most American's homes, complete with cable, a gym, and free eduational opportunities?
Busting big rocks into little rocks for 20 years would keep the repeat-offender rate down. Make prison a bleak place to which no one wants to return. Then and only then, would I possibly drop my support of the death penalty.
JWindish
· 1 month ago
Sorry, Jeff, you're vision of what a prison is like bears no resemblance to those I have visited in four states. Maybe where you live they're country clubs; they're not where I live. A television with cable serving dozens of men does not a country club make.
What they are is staffed by under-payed and under-trained people (or at least people whose training is not informed by current research) where violent, predatory culture predominates, with only the most meager of rehabilitative efforts - though, admittedly, I very much admire those who work there and are making the effort.
In that place, the instinct to survive couples with a vengeful contempt for the society that put them there, and then releases them with no means to make it on the outside. And we're surprised that the recidivism rate is not Jeff's imagined low rate, but rather horrendously high?
We obviously use prisons for too many reasons, because we mix check-kiting people, and weed-smokers in with violent criminals (I know that there are different prisons, but the principle is the same). The biggest problem here is how can we effectively deal with reform and yet keep the costs down, since they're already the largest part of many state's budgets, and many of those states aren't close to meeting federal guidelines. I can offer a few suggestions, but it's still not enough: 1. Find alternatives for non-violent criminals. I'd prefer to decriminalize the vices, of course, but back in the real world, home detention has started to make a small difference here. 2. Work. It doesn't have to be pointless. Some states have used prisoners in place of employees, for instance, to man the tourism lines. The idea of discouraging crime by making prisons miserable places hasn't actually worked in any place, or at any time, that I know of. But work, in and of itself, seems to be an effective therapy. 3. Related back to work, if a prisoner can earn money, use part of it to pay back the victim (or the victim's family), and allow the prisoner to keep part of the income to get started with when they get out, at least if they're over 18.
Rudi
· 1 month ago
One of the youths in the SCOTUS case is 13. The "Why Florida" link has another link that 18% of minors in Florida prisons serving life are 13-15. Even China and Iran don't do this...
DLS
· 1 month ago
"Busting big rocks into little rocks for 20 years"
On the minds of many, no doubt, but lost in this discussion (in part because it is not central or essential) is that this is about the right time to use (20-25 years) for "long term" sentences, for various serious crimes. Aside from the practical coincidence that these sentences frequently would be given to youth, which would remove them from endangering society for the rest of their younger, more aggressive and violence-prone years, this is (as has been addressed to the extent people can find literature that manages to address this subject) about the right amount of time for any "long term" period, not only for removal of society for serious crime, but for things like long-term financial agreements (including the longest period of government bonds), of things like bankruptcies and criminal records for expungement later, and for the longest terms of elected offices in government.
* * *
Rudi: Common sense and sound judgment should prevail. Age 6-7 is the "age of reason" and expectation of distinguishing between right and wrong, but we don't expect to execute or imprison for life anybody that young (this isn't old England, hanging little pickpockets or shoplifters). Age 12 or onward is where serious crimes merit serious sentences, or around the pre-teen or pre-pubescent to pubescent threshold. From there on, just as rights and privileges grow, so should responsibilities and penalties for crime -- obviously.
Kenneth Young: Profile of a Florida Juvenile Sentenced to Life without Parole for Non-Homicide Kenneth Young,25 now 24 years old, is serving four life without parole sentences for three armed robberies which occurred within a month’s time in the year 2000 in and around Tampa, Florida. During this period Kenneth turned 15 years old. When Kenneth was 14 years old, his mother’s 25 year-old drug dealer, Jacques Bethea, told him that his mother owed a three thousand dollar drug debt. This drug dealer threatened Kenneth that if he did not participate in these robberies his mother would be harmed. Kenneth’s part in these robberies was to take the money and the surveillance tapes, while the drug dealer held a gun on the clerk and made the demands. No shots were ever fired. Kenneth did not have a prior criminal history. The 25 year-old drug dealer had an extensive criminal history. The drug dealer received one life without parole sentence; in contrast, Kenneth received four life without parole sentences.
No previous criminal record and he didn't use the gun...
All Comments
By the logic of the comments so far, these kids would be better off being put to death. What I read here is that they should pay for their offenses. I see payment as pointless. My goal is that they not commit a crime again. Our system, as it stand now, serves only to warehouse and train hardened criminals.
My interpretation of "cruel and unusual," indeed any interpretation other than that of the courts', is irrelevant. But a life spent in prison seems more cruel than a life cut short through a quick execution. I wouldn't be surprised to find you agree a quick execution is preferable. And I wouldn't be surprised if a culture dominated by people with that view is a violent, criminal, and cruel one.
HA, HA, HA.
In the view of Nanci Pelosi and House lib-Dem health care "reformers," a "minor" is through the age of 27.
She reminded us all of that, in her post-vote press conference last night.
HA, HA, HA.
* * *
As for the subject of the thread: We know about maturation of the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex and of judgment. (Yet, lefties constantly demand lowering of the age for things like not only drinking, but also voting, down often at least to age sixteen. Why?)
That is not the only issue at stake. Also at issue is the nature of serious crimes committed, as well as the obvious fact about humanity, that after age 6-7 young people are expected to know the difference between right and wrong. Another item: murder is not the only crime that merits consideration for life imprisonment, or death, obviously. Nobody can claim with a straight face, or imply, that only murder is such a crime at issue here.
21? The drinking age is 21. Maybe that is the new 'minor'.
You can join the military at 17, but you cannot be a legal adult for the purpose of major felony sentencing?
And if life is not allowed, is a 99 year sentence? If not, what is the maximum sentence? Until they are a legal adult?
Rape, mutilate, and kill a 12 year old girl when you are 17 years, 11 months of age, and get off with time served by the time your trial is over, because you were a minor when you committed the crime?
I support this. I do not believe in parole. Commutation of sentence, is perfectly fine, but those on parole are actually still considered to be serving a sentence, I'd rather see them be locked up if their crimes merited a life sentence. If they have shown themselves to be truly reformed let a commutation of sentence or pardon be granted, not a parole.
Busting big rocks into little rocks for 20 years would keep the repeat-offender rate down. Make prison a bleak place to which no one wants to return. Then and only then, would I possibly drop my support of the death penalty.
What they are is staffed by under-payed and under-trained people (or at least people whose training is not informed by current research) where violent, predatory culture predominates, with only the most meager of rehabilitative efforts - though, admittedly, I very much admire those who work there and are making the effort.
In that place, the instinct to survive couples with a vengeful contempt for the society that put them there, and then releases them with no means to make it on the outside. And we're surprised that the recidivism rate is not Jeff's imagined low rate, but rather horrendously high?
Read it and weep.
1. Find alternatives for non-violent criminals. I'd prefer to decriminalize the vices, of course, but back in the real world, home detention has started to make a small difference here.
2. Work. It doesn't have to be pointless. Some states have used prisoners in place of employees, for instance, to man the tourism lines. The idea of discouraging crime by making prisons miserable places hasn't actually worked in any place, or at any time, that I know of. But work, in and of itself, seems to be an effective therapy.
3. Related back to work, if a prisoner can earn money, use part of it to pay back the victim (or the victim's family), and allow the prisoner to keep part of the income to get started with when they get out, at least if they're over 18.
The "Why Florida" link has another link that 18% of minors in Florida prisons serving life are 13-15. Even China and Iran don't do this...
On the minds of many, no doubt, but lost in this discussion (in part because it is not central or essential) is that this is about the right time to use (20-25 years) for "long term" sentences, for various serious crimes. Aside from the practical coincidence that these sentences frequently would be given to youth, which would remove them from endangering society for the rest of their younger, more aggressive and violence-prone years, this is (as has been addressed to the extent people can find literature that manages to address this subject) about the right amount of time for any "long term" period, not only for removal of society for serious crime, but for things like long-term financial agreements (including the longest period of government bonds), of things like bankruptcies and criminal records for expungement later, and for the longest terms of elected offices in government.
* * *
Rudi: Common sense and sound judgment should prevail. Age 6-7 is the "age of reason" and expectation of distinguishing between right and wrong, but we don't expect to execute or imprison for life anybody that young (this isn't old England, hanging little pickpockets or shoplifters). Age 12 or onward is where serious crimes merit serious sentences, or around the pre-teen or pre-pubescent to pubescent threshold. From there on, just as rights and privileges grow, so should responsibilities and penalties for crime -- obviously.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/profiles/annino/...
No previous criminal record and he didn't use the gun...