When the United Nations passed a resolution last December opposing the sentencing of children and teenagers to life in prison without parole, the vote was 185-1, with United States casting the only dissenting vote, the International Herald Tribune noted. U.S. opposition may have something to do with the 73 Americans serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as 13- and 14-year-olds.
Human rights groups such as the Equal Justice Initiative are asking that the policy be changed to allow cases to be reviewed as the years go by and considered for possible parole. “We’re not demanding that all these kids be released tomorrow,” said the group’s Bryan Stevenson. “I’m not even prepared to say that all of them will get to the point where they should be released. We’re asking for some review.”
Posted by Kristin Mehler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
125 Comments
With the Bush administration the only chance these kids can get health care is in the prison system.
Of course these cases should be reviewed periodically!! I can say that I am a markedly different person than the irritatingly punky, emo teen I was 10 years ago. People grow up and they change.
Now, if someone committed murder at 13 or 14, we should not just turn them free after a few years based on good behavior. There are some serious psychological problems that are present when someone does a horrible crime at such a young age. I think that we should evaluate periodically, and if the inmate shows signs of positive growth, then we should turn them over to a mental health facility to evaluate and rehabilitate them. They might spend the rest of their lives in a facility or they might be treated enough to reintegrate with society.
Tara was “emo” – surely not.
“Should U.S. be sentencing kids to life in prison?”
You’re damned right it should. I don’t care how much a kid matures and changes over the years– a murder victim is still dead.
You premeditatedly take a life, you should lose yours. And if execution isn’t an option, then life without parole is as good a proxy as any.
For the most part, if somebody is under 16, I would say no. Keep em locked up till they are 50 or so. If they are 16 then yes, life with no parole is totally desired for murders.
“”"Of course these cases should be reviewed periodically!! I can say that I am a markedly different person than the irritatingly punky, emo teen I was 10 years ago. People grow up and they change.”"”
True nuff BUT when I was a teen, I was a troubled teen. I did some small crimes, drugs and hung around with people that were as troubled as I was. But then I was locked up in the Sedgewick County Jail. Back then, there was no “youth detention center”. You went to the 8th floor of the jail. This was when I was only 14. I stayed in that jail for almost a month and then I was sent to Lake Afton Boys Ranch for the remainder of the school year. As angry as I was, it never crossed my mind that it was OK to take a gun and kill another person. Ditto for my friends. None of us carried firearms. Of all the people I was in jail with, there was only ONE that was in there for murder- a kid who killed his parents with an ax who was sent to adult court (think his name was Greg Shaddy or something like that). Nobody else was in there for anything like that. We all knew better. People have to pay for their crimes and, if you are 16, you know right from wrong. If you choose to kill, you too will give up your life.
I just wish we could take a few steps back and look at the nature of crime and offences against society.
Yup, murder is bad. But it’s always seemed to me that *attempted* murder is just as bad. Why should a perp get a break simply because the victim didn’t have the common decency to die?
Rape is probably worse than murder, since the victim has to live with the crime. I’ve been burglarized a couple of times and it’s a dreadful invasion of personal space and perceived security. Just because it’s personal, I’d probably sentence those burglars to life in prison before I’d send some 13-year-old off forever just because he killed his abusive father.
There are heinous crimes which, if it were up to me, I’d take the perp out into the street and shoot him like the mad dog he is. But I find a bit of consolation knowing that the Consitution of the United States of America doesn’t permit me to carry off such a personal vendetta.
One of the Court TV shows profiled the case of a 16-year-old cheerleader in Oklahoma who was murdered after a night of drinking and drugs and sex. It’s pretty evident that the guy who did the actual murder is a psychopath, and the two other guys involved were along for the ride. I think, perhaps, the two other guys might possibly be worthy of parole in a decade or two, but the letter of the law puts them in the same category as the guy who pulled the shotgun trigger.
We’ve got this distorted perspective. If a guy adapts to life in prison, is he *really* a candidate for parole? Seems like that’s precisely the guy who shouldn’t be set free.
Maybe we should execute *every* criminal. Shoplift a pack of gum? BANG! You’re dead. Break the speed limit? BANG! You’re dead. Smoke a cigarette in a blues bar? BANG! You’re dead.
Just what is justice, anyway?
I have a hard time reconciling many laws in this country.
According to our laws, a person is not mature enough to buy cigarettes until they are 18 or alcohol until they are 21.
A person does not reach the age of majority to ratify a contract until (generally) they are 16. A person cannot marry without parental consent (or a few other special circumstances) until they are 18. A person cannot buy a rifle until they are 18 and a handgun until they are 21.
However, we allow people to decide on their own to join the Army at 17 and serve in combat at 18.
We allow people as young as 13 and 14 to be sentenced to serve in prison for the rest of their lives for decisions they make. We allow 16 and 17 year olds to regularly be tried as adults for crimes they decide to commit.
How can we reasonably, as a society, say that a young person is able to make a decision that carries consequences of life in prison when they are 17 or younger, but they are unable to make a decision to smoke a cigarette, drink a beer, get married, or sign a loan contract?
I do not believe kids should be put on death row, ever. I am definately not the same person I was years ago.
When the vote is 185 to 1
And you are the 1
You gotta start thinking you are wrong or crazy or both.
“When the vote is 185 to 1And you are the 1You gotta start thinking you are wrong or crazy or both.Posted by: J R | October 22, 2007 at 08:27 AM”
Unfortunately, the current administration comes from the viewpoint of 185 to 1 means unquestioningly that everone else is wrong.
Yes, we must go along with whatever the rest of the world tells the US to do.
Listen to the UN. Hand over control of the USA to the UN.
Wonder what the UN will tell US what to do next?
Max,
HA HA HA HA! Black helicopters landing in your backyard there, Max?
Anyone know how much crime in the US is committed by 14-17 year olds?
Remember when you were that age? Didn’t you think you were an adult? Didn’t you know better then to rob, rape, stab, shoot, and kill people?
Should we just open the prison gates and let all these murdering rapists and child molesters go free because they were not 18 when they did the crime – and now they should not have to do the time?
BS!
You people want to let them out of jail, just make sure they move into YOUR neighborhood.
Black helicopters?
The question was UN control of the US, CF.
There’s no US Constitutional Authority given to the UN.
Last I checked, this was still the United States of America.
And CF, you want to let the juvenile murderers, rapists, and gang bangers out of jail, let them out in your neighborhood.
In fact, take a few of them into your spare room.
Your wife will love that.
“because they were not 18 when they did the crime – and now they should not have to do the time?
BS!
Posted by: Max | October 22, 2007 at 09:39 AM ”
So Max, do you support lowering the drinking age, tobacco purchase age, marriage age, and age of contractual majority to the same age that you feel someone is responsible enough to make a decision that should land them in jail for life?
What would that age be 13?
“The question was UN control of the US, CF.
There’s no US Constitutional Authority given to the UN.
Last I checked, this was still the United States of America.Posted by: Max | October 22, 2007 at 09:43 AM”
No, the question was not about UN authority over the US.
The question was, should the US reexamine its own policy when it is the only one out of 186 countries that thinks it is OK to sentence minors to life in prison.
Max,
Like I said–Black Helicopters. Those obsessive, paranoid fantasies of your appear to be an issue. Might want to get that checked out.
As for juvenile offenders, there’s a REAONS they’re called ‘juvenile.’ Brain chemistry and impulse control aren’t the same in kids–that’s 14-17 years olds, Max–as they are in adults.
Knowledge should drive policy–not fear and hyperbole.
Maybe Max agrees with bobon huy that kids should be able to marry at 14?
Hell, drafting them at that age would sure solve the cannon fodder problem.
“Knowledge should drive policy–not fear and hyperbole.”
heheheheheheheehehehehheeheheh….
When the experience of knowing someone who is raped and killed by a 15 year old gets added to your knowledge CF, then maybe you’ll change your mind on this issue.
So Max does fear and prejudice of personal experience override your reasoning,
or do you have valid reasons that there should be a differing level of personal responsibility assigned to the capability of a youth to make decisions about crimes committed versus the ability to make decisions like drinking, smoking, marrying, or signing contracts?
NO
So Max, do you support lowering the drinking age, tobacco purchase age, marriage age, and age of contractual majority to the same age that you feel someone is responsible enough to make a decision that should land them in jail for life?
What would that age be 13?Posted by: brian | October 22, 2007 at 09:47 AM
What does punishing someone less then 18 years old for a serious crime have to do with the legal adult status for drinking, driving, ability to enter into contracts, serving the military, etc…?
We don’t legally allow certain activities before certain ages, but a few juveniles break these laws and they are punished.
Underage drinking is punishable by law.
Underage drinking and driving is punishable by law.Underage driving is punishable by law.Underage rape is punishable by law.Underage murder is punishable by law.
A 15 year old who rapes and murders someone, should not get a free pass out of jail because of their age in committing such a gruesome crime.
Bad decision at a young age, and that’s a terrible thing when they have ruined their own life, but their young age does not provide any consolation to the victims, whose lives have been ruined and/or taken from them.
Most juveniles don’t commit these kind of serious crimes, we are talking about the worst of the worst, and they should be locked away. They want to commit the adult crime, then they should get the adult time behind bars.
Some will make-up 1,001 excuses for these younger criminals, but none would let these criminals come out of prison and move to their own neighborhoods. If you won’t take them in, then how can you say that someone else should?
Max
“but none would let these criminals come out of prison and move to their own neighborhoods. If you won’t take them in, then how can you say that someone else should?”
I hope you’re not holding your breath, waiting for anyone to give you a serious answer to that one.
Max,
If I’m a decent person, such a travesty should have NO effect on my thinking about age-appropriate retribution.
When you talk, Max, all I hear is a certain gleefulness on your part at getting to villify some group you perceive as having gotten away with something.
As for the NIMBY question, it is indeed a problem about where and how to house offenders who have been released back into society. This isn’t a problem that’s limited to juveniles.
But it also isn’t a problem that’s solved when somebody tries to argue that because you wouldn’t want one of THEM living next to you, that you therefore want to or have to lock them up and throw away the key.
In other words, Max, arguing such generalities gets you nowhere.
When you talk, Max, all I hear is a certain gleefulness on your part at getting to villify some group you perceive as having gotten away with something.
Posted by: CF2K | October 22, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Only when I’m mocking you CF.
Elitists like you always want to solve problems by making someone else pay for it, or having someone else do the work, or having someone else live next door to the recently paroled convicted rapist/murderer.
Cosmos wants someone else to solve global warming.
The ‘glee’ I take is pointing out the hypocracy of those like you who take the elitist approach, accepting no responsibility themselves, while proposing that others solve the problems of the world.
Ok UN lovers:
I will accept the “world” position on the death penalty and juvenile prison terms.
Libs, however, must then accept the “world” position on abortion.
No other country in the world is as wide-open on late-term abortions as the United States.—–Be consistent, my liberal friends.
If world opinion matters on one issue, how can you ignore it on other issues?
Max,
‘Elite?’ Whatever. It’s the only thing that allows a high-income Repuke like you to claim to be one of the common folk. Measured by income or assets, I’m a long, long way from ‘elite.’
I’m more than willing to bear my share of the collective social burden. Seems to me that you’re the one who wants to shirk his, what with your ‘individualist’ posturing and your theological objections to paying one’s fair share in taxes for the benefits one enjoys. Want something for nothing, Max? Seems to be your way.
Finally, you have literally NO IDEA of how much responsibility I do or don’t accept. So don’t assume–it makes an ass out of you and not me.
One’s fair share of taxes, now that’s a good topic CF.
The Top 1% of income tax payers already pays 39% of the total income tax.
How much is their fair share?
The bottom 50% of all income tax filers only pay 3.07% of all taxes.
……………Income …Tax Share
Top 1%___>$364,657___39.38%Top 5%___>$145,283___59.67%Top 10%__>$103,912___70.30%Top 25%__> $62,068___85.99%Top 50%__> $30,881___96.93%Bottom50%______< $30,881____3.07%
CF
A “bad decision” is getting in a fight and punching or kicking someone too hard resulting in their death.
A “bad decision” might be getting mixed up with a bunch of petty criminals and end up as an accomplice to an armed robbery were someone gets killed.
A person who does a rape-murder did NOT make a “bad decision”. They took a deliberate action that exhibits a character flaw that likely cannot be fixed. As such they should never be forced back on the law abiding public. Unless it’s across the street from YOUR house.
Well said Heckler.
Ok,I was trying to debate how our society says a youth has enough mental and emotional capacity to have to serve the rest of their entire life in prison due to the affect of their decision(s) but we do not give our youths enough respect to decide many issues for themselves.
Anyone want to talk about that?
In other words, we say youths are not mature (read: adult) enough to make decisions about drinking, smoking, responsibly owning a gun, getting married, etc., but then when they make a decision to committ a crime, we hold them to the adult standard of decision making.
How can these things be reconciled?
They can’t.
Not a perfect world.
You want to set criminals who commit serious crimes free because of their age?
“They took a deliberate action that exhibits a character flaw that likely cannot be fixed. As such they should never be forced back on the law abiding public. Unless it’s across the street from YOUR house.
Posted by: Heckler | October 22, 2007 at 11:59 AM ”
So are you saying that a person whom does certain things cannot be rehabilitated and should be locked away from society indefinitely?
1. Who should pay for that?2. How is that different from giving them the death penalty? (They will not be living in prison with their guilt because if they had guilt they could be rehabilitated)
Max,
And the top 1% controls more than 1/3 of the total worth. Seems like their proportion of taxes paid is in line with the percentage of wealth they control.
Heckler,
So, 14 year-olds are capable of “deliberate action,” eh? Ever heard of the distinction between minority and majority? It’s predicated on precisely the inability of minors to exercise what you’re calling “deliberate action.”
Like I said above, Heckler: all I hear is a certain gleefulness on your part at getting to villify some group you perceive as having gotten away with something.
“You want to set criminals who commit serious crimes free because of their age?
Posted by: Max | October 22, 2007 at 12:15 PM ”
Not until they are ready to be set free.
It is clear that youths do not have mental or emotional maturity enough to make good decisions.
They should be separated from society until they can be
1. educated about right and wrong and grow into the mental and emotional maturity of a ‘normal’ adult,
or2. deemed mentally incapable of ever maturing to a level where they can understand right vs wrong and put into a mental health facility.
Max,
And the top 1% controls more than 1/3 of the total worth. Seems like their proportion of taxes paid is in line with the percentage of wealth they control.
CF, you saying the Top 1% get’s its wealth from the Government?
What ‘benefit’ does that 1% derive from Government more so then what others derive?
Brian
I think that you need to take a look at the types of crime for which we sentence minors to life in prison.
We’re not sentencing them to life for driving drunk and causing a vehicular manslaughter. We’re sentencing them to life for things like brutal premeditated murder.
As I pointed out to CF above. A Rape-Murder is not what one classifies as a “bad decision” by someone who does not understand what a terrible thing they’ve done. It’s an exhibition of sociopathic behavior that is unacceptable by ANYone of ANY age.
The US uses the majority of the world’s electrical energy, has the majority of the worlds liquid wealth (current assets), but only has 5% of the world’s population.
SFW?
I would like to know the amount of money the US taxpayers pay to keep these juveniles in prison for the rest of their lives without parole?
Surely there is some way we could review their sentences periodically to see if any of these kids could be released or perhaps serve their sentences in a less regulated place such as a prison.
Second, I agree with the poster about back in his days kids did not carry guns like they do today. This gun stuff has gotten out of hand and we need to get a grip on that problem before anything constructive will ever be seen in the way our prison populations are exploding.
Thirdly, where are the families of these kids? Did they come from a home life where prison is a better environment? Is that why the kid landed in prison in the first place?
We need to get a handle on the social impact our policies are having on the average American. It makes no sense to me to spend billions of dollars on the Iraq War, when we have juvenile kids ending in prison because of their poor choices.
As for social impact, I am not interested in the rantings of the Christian Right trying to tell everyone else what God to worship or what sexual relations you can have. By social impact, I am talking about basic family needs of having the chance to get a secure job with a living wage and accesss to health care.
Heckler,Again, I would ask:
“So are you saying that a person whom does certain things cannot be rehabilitated and should be locked away from society indefinitely?
1. Who should pay for that?2. How is that different from giving them the death penalty? (They will not be living in prison with their guilt because if they had guilt they could be rehabilitated)
Posted by: brian | October 22, 2007 at 12:16 PM “
CF
“a certain gleefulness on your part at getting to villify some group you perceive as having gotten away with something”
Wrong.
What you hear is a complete disdain for people like you who would turn incurable sociopaths loose on society to prey on my children, and then pat yourself on the back for being all compassionate and enlightened.
brian
I support the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, regardless of age.
You’re too concerned about the price society pays in dollars to lock away violent offenders. You should be more concerned about the price their victims(past and potentialy future)and their victims families pay.
YES!!!
So Heckler,Is it correct that you support giving the death penalty to the 15 year old that raped and killed someone Max know?
Would you wait until the kid is 18 to do the lethal injection or be more in favor of doing it swiftly as soon as their trial and appeal process is over, maybe around 17 in that case?
I guess if they are sociopaths they should be locked up for life, but if they are just confused, abused, they should be rehabilitated, and re-socialized at some point.
Heckler,
The disdain is mutual, if for no other reason than for your decision to impute to me certain straw man ideas and intentions without having bothered to ask what I really do think.
Honestly. CF2K lives in society, too, where he is subject to whatever policies he supports. He, too, has a built-in disincentive to turn ’sociopaths loose on society.’ To suggest otherwise is, frankly, dishonest.
And if someone who is 14 commits a rape and a murder, chances are they have a screw loose, so that what we’re talking about becomes a mental health issue rather than a narrowly criminal justice one. Heckler’s reliance on an unreconstructed notion of ‘character’ shows how unable he is to deal with questions of culpability or imputability.
Nobody is saying society doesn’t have a right to protect itself. To claim this is MY view is dishonest. Of course society has such a right. But the issues involved are much more tricky than simple appeals to ‘character’ can address, particularly when we ARE talking about 14 year olds, who are subject to all sorts of developmental and neurochemical factors that adults are not.
Your moral self-congratulationism, Heckler, is every bit as objectionable as would be my self-congratulation over being ‘compassionate’ and ‘enlightened’–if these even were my reasons for holding the views I hold, which they aren’t.
brian
While I support the death penalty it’s not really a big issue with me as long as the “life in prison” part is bullet proof.
As soon as the appeals process is over. That would be fine.
Max if you don’t think the top 1% have their interest covered by the politicians, I’d like to know what country you’re living in.
“Max if you don’t think the top 1% have their interest covered by the politicians, I’d like to know what country you’re living in.
Posted by: The Phantom | October 22, 2007 at 12:43 PM”
Anyone want to tell the crowd who the majority of Bush’s tax cuts were directly targeted to affected (capital gains anyone)?
He is taking a ‘wide-stance’ on the issues
I’m not the one wanting to let the rapists out of jail so they can have their way with your wife and kids or with yourself.
CF
My, CF certainly thinks highly of himself. He sounds like one of those lefwingers in control of a big city like Philly or DC who think that restricting the rights of the law abiding is a more effective means of fighting crime than say, oh, locking violent criminals up for as long as possible.
“we ARE talking about 14 year olds, who are subject to all sorts of developmental and neurochemical factors that adults are not.”
Now we get to the meat of the matter!!
So let’s say some 14 year old kidnaps, rapes, and murders my 6 year old daughter. Some folks say “well he really didnt understand what he was doing” or “he’s mentally ill, he has a chemical imbalance in his brain, but with chemicals and councelling we can fix him.”
Are you going to honestly be able to look me in the eye and say “he’s fixed, we can let him out now.”???
I just wish we could take a few steps back and look at the nature of crime and offences against society.
Yup, murder is bad. But it’s always seemed to me that *attempted* murder is just as bad. Why should a perp get a break simply because the victim didn’t have the common decency to die?
Rape is probably worse than murder, since the victim has to live with the crime. I’ve been burglarized a couple of times and it’s a dreadful invasion of personal space and perceived security. Just because it’s personal, I’d probably sentence those burglars to life in prison before I’d send some 13-year-old off forever just because he killed his abusive father.
There are heinous crimes which, if it were up to me, I’d take the perp out into the street and shoot him like the mad dog he is. But I find a bit of consolation knowing that the Consitution of the United States of America doesn’t permit me to carry off such a personal vendetta.
One of the Court TV shows profiled the case of a 16-year-old cheerleader in Oklahoma who was murdered after a night of drinking and drugs and sex. It’s pretty evident that the guy who did the actual murder is a psychopath, and the two other guys involved were along for the ride. I think, perhaps, the two other guys might possibly be worthy of parole in a decade or two, but the letter of the law puts them in the same category as the guy who pulled the shotgun trigger.
We’ve got this distorted perspective. If a guy adapts to life in prison, is he *really* a candidate for parole? Seems like that’s precisely the guy who shouldn’t be set free.
Maybe we should execute *every* criminal. Shoplift a pack of gum? BANG! You’re dead. Break the speed limit? BANG! You’re dead. Smoke a cigarette in a blues bar? BANG! You’re dead.
Just what is justice, anyway?
“Are you going to honestly be able to look me in the eye and say “he’s fixed, we can let him out now.”???
Posted by: Heckler | October 22, 2007 at 01:07 PM ”
Sure, when and if that time comes (if it is able to happen).
Hopefully you would be man enough to forgive him at that point.
Hell, drafting them at that age would sure solve the cannon fodder problem.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl
And if we let them buy smokes, they can help fund the free healthcare movement!
Yes!
brian
It’s not about me forgiving him. It’s a matter of whether he can be trusted not to harm anyone again.
How about this. We hold the “professionals” who say he’s good to go criminally liable for any crimes he commits! If he kills again the doctor and judge who set him free get to share a cell with him. For however long his sentence is.
How ’bout this, “Heckler?” –
If evidence turns up that a defendant has been convicted wrongly, the judge and jury of the trial must serve the defendant’s sentence.
Not that long ago, half the people on Death Row in Illinois were released after DNA evidence proved they were innocent. So let’s haul their judges and juries into prison and stick needles in their arms.
I must confess I am a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to prisons.
I am ALL FOR building as many as we possibly can. I will personally check a box, or send in an ADDITIONAL check to the state and federal IRS to help this happen.
I’d also be very liberal with salaries for our corrections officers. It is a very difficult job, life threatening, and we pay them peanuts.
If you want to build a special prison for young inmates (so you feel good about yourselves), I’d go along with that. This would provide the advance training the youth need to face permanent incarceration at the adult facilities.
I cannot understand why we cannot have them making license plates anymore. Or breaking down big rocks into little ones. I think we are depriving these young criminals a great physical training program.
On the other hand, as a conservative, I would NOT spring for cable television, weight training equipment, or recreational expenses. (They watch cable tv in Lansing – check it out).
I would fire the locksmith, right after he completed the lock. That would save the cost of making a key, or the environmental cost of throwing it away.
Why not let the victims choose the penalty?
It depends on how heinous the crime was. There are some cold blooded individuals that can be very young and prison won’t rehabilitate their attitude in just a few years. Let the cold blooded ones chill in prison for many years.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html
Got this link from Clark Kent.
6.3% of all murderers in the US in 2006, were under age 18.
(1,111 murderers out of 17,399)
The Government doesn’t know how old 5,723 of the murderers were. (No birth certificates for illegal immigrants ya know, and you just can’t tell for sure by lookin at em)
The Government also doesn’t know if 4,740 of the murderers were male or female. (Hard to tell I guess, and no one wanted to look)
But that’s OUR Government.
I trust Government with my Social Security and everything else they do for me, even if they can’t count.
Here’s some idea’s
Criminals who serve life sentences should be subject to medical testing? I would rather see criminals used than animals.
Die in prison you get donated to a Med center. Your family then they can pay a surcharge, your back roomandboard and what ever civil judgement the perp owed. Also a source for organs.
Charge families for visits $1000 per visitor per visit.
Drug Trafficking, gangs in prison warden and guards forfeit salaries as long at goes on.
And again let victims choose the punishment if their isn’t one then it shouldn’t be a crime
Max, 1/3 of all murders go unsolved so it would be hard to tell sex and age if the government doesnt even bother to look for them. It took 20 years to catch BTK more by mistakes on his part than thru brillant police work.
YES!GMC
To know that a person in the justice system or our country is not just an ogre, but a gleeful ogre saddens me deeply.
One may only hope a defendant before you has counsel of equal zeal.
That’s right Tom, 1/3 of all murderers get away with it!
That’s law enforcement in America for ya.
And we expect the police to protect us after Hillary bans guns?
Oh, that’s right, banning guns will make us all safe.
Right.
I trust my Government with my life and with my Social Security.
Richard Eugene Hickock and Perry Smith, would probably have loved to had another chance… Perry was first arrested at age 8.
Thankfully, they had their last dance under a rope in Lansing. No questions back then about the poor lads having had a rough childhood, or time spent in juvie.
Heckler,
“So let’s say some 14 year old kidnaps, rapes, and murders my 6 year old daughter. Some folks say “well he really didnt understand what he was doing” or “he’s mentally ill, he has a chemical imbalance in his brain, but with chemicals and councelling we can fix him.”
Are you going to honestly be able to look me in the eye and say “he’s fixed, we can let him out now.”???”
I don’t know. IT DEPENDS. Some cases are one way, other cases are another way. Sometimes there are ameliorating factors, other times there are not. Sometimes criminal defendants act in a diminished capacity, other times they do not. Some cases can be managed quite effectively, others cannot.
I realize such factors give you a headache, Heckler, since you’re more interested in posturing from some imaginary standpoint of moral certainty, but if we’re going to make defensible judgments about how to administer justice, these are the sorts of things that have to be considered. Calling me names won’t change that, either.
As to your other point, Heckler, while society obviously has an interest in protecting its citizens, it also has a responsibilty to prevent miscarriages of justice. Society is not the author of a criminal’s action, even when society has contributed to such an action by allowing an at-risk offender to be freed. Period. After all, Heckler, what would this do to your much-cherished insistence on “personal responsibility?” To the extent that such things happen, institutions do share in the liability.
But society IS the author of the decisions by which offenders are treated justly or unjustly. And these sorts of decisions should not be hostage to the sort of ignorance or impulses for revenge that are so manifest in Heckler’s responses. Particularly in the case of juvenile offenders, who pose specific challenges to the system of law developed on the model of adult capacities.
Adults know that they live a world of moral ambiguity and probabalism, and try to reckon with it accordingly. Reactionaries feel this, but they can’t abide it. So they fall back on an adolescent world of posturing and pretended moral certainty.
Max, and Rudy or Mitt will be better? Rudy already supported gun control in NYC. Mitt in Mass. Hell Reagan enacted gun restrictions when he was Gov of Cali. The way that money buys votes and the way primary are set up almost guarantees that well see a Hillary vs Rudy election neither is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment which leaves one the choice of not voting which would be stupid or voting for the libertarian candidate which actually supports gun rights.
Thompson has a SOLID voting record FOR the 2nd Amendment.
Many many children say in 16 are actually in prison with a LWP sentence few adults actually have that sentance i suspect the number inst very high
And so does Richardson but based on money and polling neither will win
http://www.kubby2008.com/guns
CF2k
“should not be hostage to the sort of ignorance or impulses for revenge that are so manifest in Heckler’s responses. ”
Revenge? That must be your perception, I said nothing about revenge.
I simply beleive that there are certain social contracts that when broken should result in total suspension of a persons right to live in a free society. Premeditated murder is one of them. Add a little torture and rape and I see no reason why that person should ever be trusted to live freely again.
Being called a leftwinger bother you? It would me too. Look at the worst cesspools of violence in America and they have one thing in common. They are all run by leftwingers like yourself who somehow seem to feel that making concessions to violent criminals while disregarding their victims make them morally superior to people who refuse to tolerate certain violent behavior.
Oddly enough it’s people of the same mindset that like to ban guns.
Go figure.
Heckler,
You may want to reconsider the presence of torture on your list of “contracts that when broken should result in total suspension of a persons right to live in a free society.” Just want you to be consistent with the Republican pro-torture message and all.
As to the issue of revenge, I think I had grounds for imputing this to you as a motive, in light of this proposal on your part:
“How about this. We hold the “professionals” who say he’s good to go criminally liable for any crimes he commits! If he kills again the doctor and judge who set him free get to share a cell with him. For however long his sentence is.”
Sounds pretty retributivist to CF2K, at least insofar as you’re saying that malfeasance on the part of mental health/justice system professionals is to be minimized by exposing them to the sorts of crimes that the wrongly released are apt to visit on other victims. ‘Eye for an eye’ as a pre-emptory disincentive, to get those responsible for assessing prisoners to hold them in jail as long as possible.
Nobody is fooled by your appealing to the ‘victims’ of crime, Heckler, given the Right Wing repugnance for standing up for the rights of victims when it comes to the misuse of individuals at the hands of institutions, whether governments or corporations. Hiding behind the ‘rights of the victim’ is just another way for Right Wingers like you to push for retribution, while immunizing yourself against being called a retributivist.
Finally, as to calling me a “leftwinger,” what could be a more knee-jerk response on the part of someone who can’t abide moral ambiguity? My earlier post all but predicted this response on your part.
I think the reason that so many violent acts are committed by young gang members is that the older ones can manipulate them, and the older ones probably think that the minors may get off with a lighter sentence.
The Phantom,
Absolutely. As was the case with John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, in which Muhammad set it up and Malvo did the shooting.
For the record, CF2K believes that Malvo’s sentence of life imprisonment without parole is an appropriate punishment.
JR
Just so you know, the idiot posting “yes!” above is not myself. If you look carefully, you should be able to spot the difference, though after several shots at troll posting, it’s clear that the aformentioned idiot can’t.
Besides, when have I ever been able to limit myself to a single word?!?!
;-)
I don’t really want to weigh in on this one; it would take far longer than I have. But I suspect we’re not that far apart here.
Yes, Revenge is wrong.
I support the death “penalty” not to punish the criminal, but to protect the rest of us.
Murder happens in prison all the time. The only way to stop a sociopath form killing is to kill the sociopath.
It is not about revenge.
The only justifiable reason to use deadly force is self defense or in the defense of other people.
Sociopaths are dangerous, they always will be. They can’t be “fixed”.
Rehabilitation?
Lets look at gun permits and how the liberals REALLY feel about the ability of someone to change:
If you shot off your shotgun on New Years Eve and were charged for that crime —
If you pulled your gun, unlawfully, on your sister’s boyfriend to frighten him, or your neighbor who was throwing a loud party —-
If any of these things happened when you were 18 years old, and now, 20 years later, you applied for a hand gun —
Ya, you were a dumbass 20 years ago, but society doesnt really think you can rehabilitate yourself.
You will be denied, in most cases.
Same with a “carry concealed” permit.
There is not much chance that the teenage, sociopathic gang banger will ever change.
However, liberals seem to give the really dangerous people more chances to “rehabilitate” than what they give average folks.
Maybe they can change. Great! They can get less restrictions in prison, maybe mow the warden’s lawn.
Granting them freedom would only telegraph, to the rest of our troubled kids, that they CAN get away with murder.
Gang-bangers already recruit kids by telling them that they won’t do much time in Juvi Hall.
Actually G M C
THIS time it is my bad. That troll has used your nic thusly before and I didn’t fall for it.
I need a shot of Dr. Pepper maybe.
Glad you cleared that up though.
Objection withdrawn
JR!!
Don’t give anything away, now!! It’ll be our secret. Faux gmc70 apparantly isn’t smart enough.
IF “Fuax Gmc” is one of “mine” I’m frankly embarrassed.
Whoever it is won’t be passing any creative writing courses anytime soom.
“However, liberals seem to give the really dangerous people more chances to “rehabilitate” than what they give average folks.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 22, 2007 at 03:49 PM”
I would rephrase that to say: generally, liberals seem to give all people the same chances to rehabilitate regardless of if they are labelled criminals.
Isnt revenge and justice the same thing? And if not whats the difference?
What is justice?
“Isnt revenge and justice the same thing? And if not whats the difference?
Posted by: Tom Paine | October 22, 2007 at 04:26 PM
What is justice?
Posted by: Max | October 22, 2007 at 04:27 PM”
What truely philosophical questions!Afterall, what IS justice? And who decides that?
A just society protects its citizens.
It is unjust for dangerous people to victimize society.
“A just society protects its citizens.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 22, 2007 at 04:57 PM”
Econ,Are you then, in favor of Iran’s crackdown on couples whose behavior like holding hands in public is a threat to public morality? Are they a ‘just society’ for protecting their citizens from immoral influences like that?
I want to know from the right wingers- they don’t think these kids are capable of making the decision to have sex at 14 nor to have an abortion, nor drink…
So if they can’t make the proper decisions on these issues (and I do agree), they shouldn’t be held accountable for life nor the death penalty for something they did at that age.
It just figures the right wingers would have such bizarre and hypocritical expectations of our youth.
P_M,I also have been hoping someone could explain that thinking to me.It just don’t make sense
Pall,”A just society protects its citizens.”
Aren’t 13-14yr old kids also citizens? Aren’t prosecutors being bastards in pursuit of a tougher-on-crime-than-my-opponent image a danger to the quality of justice they’re provided? A barely teenage kid shouldn’t be given up on quite that blithely.
Revenge is when you our a CIA agent, Justice is when you pay for your crime. We’ve seen revenge; but still await for justice to have its day.
I would like to know from those who believe these murderers should not get a life sentence (something victims didn;t get to have) what sentence is appropriate? Rather than put words or ideas falsely into yor mouths, I would like to hear in your words, what the appropriate punishment is
It depends LJ. You can’t just say every instance is the same nor that every person is the same.
PoliticMOm-
I agree, but that is no answer. The only answer I have seem is “they don;t deserve life in prison” Doesn;t it depend on the circumstance and the person? What is the answer? What is the maximum sentence a juvenile shold receive?
For Murder?
Life…with the possibility of parole.
As much as we like those little pigeonholes, each crime and each criminal is different. We need much more latitude in sentencing and many more selections than just imprisonment. In some cases, prison is the only answer. Others may be better dealt with by other means. The punishment should not only fit the crime but the criminal. We’ve tried prisons as a one-size-fits all solution and the failures have been cosmic. We now have a prison system housing over 2 million people at a cost of between $22 and 56 thousand a head per year, and a prison population that’s growing exponentially. You really think adding to it is the solution?
Yes, prisons cost money.Crime costs even more money.
Most crime is committed by repeat offenders.
Again, explain to me how a 14 year old, cold blooded killer, someone who kills for the fun of it, can ever be trusted to run loose again?
I don’t like the inane “three strikes you’re out” laws if they don’t allow any judicial discretion. Not when the crime is petty shoplifting or a joint in the ashtray.
However, when intentionally cruel violence is involved, I do not believe that rehabilitation is successful, often enough, to justify the risk.
When a rape or weird murder happens, what do the police do?
They check their files for all of the recently released jail birds!
So Paulie wants to line them up and shoot them? Is that a final enough punishment for you?
I’m not defending any 14-yr old cold blooded killer but we need to be figuring out why and how that kid became that cold-blooded killer. If not, then there will just be more to follow in that kids’ footsteps – don’t you think?
IndyStudy the little monsters all you want.Do your studying behind the barbed wire of the prison walls, with the armed marksmen in the towers prepaired to shoot the little darlings if they try to rape and murder you, while you “study” them.
Many of these kids are dangerous. I don’t care much how they got that way.
— Except for this point: If we keep the little darlings in prison, maybe they won’t be able to create more sociopaths, outside the prison walls!
“I don’t care much how they got that way.”
Spoken like a true fundy Paul.
You don’t care that these kids were probably raped, perhaps from a very young age, shown no love, beaten by the people who were supposed to protect them. Nope, you don’t give a damn. But you sure as well will insist that they be born into that kind of life.
It amazes me…truly. How you can have so much care for something that can’t think, speak, breathe, or feel. But you can not give a damn about a real person.
I think I’ve figured it out. It gets you off the hook of actual responsibility for the world around you.
Justice system cut you a break didn’t it Paulie?
Encouraging little kids to lay down in front of cars at Tiller’s clinic. Endangering children to “defend” fetuses. And they let you skate. Didn’t they paulie?
Interestingly Paul, we, on another forum, are talking about Marky Mark. As a juvenile he did a lot of really bad stuff-violent crimes. Now he’s up for an Oscar and has a foundation for troubled youth.
That’s what can happen when you try to help these kids instead of just locking them up.
— Except for this point: If we keep the little darlings in prison, maybe they won’t be able to create more sociopaths, outside the prison walls!
Posted by: Econ101 | October 22, 2007 at 10:58 PM
==========================
But… But… Econ — I thought you didnt believe in Birth Control? LOL
This is why we call them the ‘pro-birth’ crowd.
P-Mom,These are Jesus’ fishermen; they throw back the little ones so the can catch and kill them when they’re bigger. Makes a better trophy!
This argument is truly philosophical, mainly because in our system, we DO NOT REHABILITATE!!! We can talk about it all we like, but our system is punitive. We put people in jail as punishment, and what they mainly learn in jail is how to be a better criminal, and how to look out for number 1 better. Like most libs, I hate the idea of putting a teen away for life, but since we do not have a place to put them for rehabilitation, if we let them out, they will be as bad, if not worse, than they were when they went into prison. Just thought I’d throw that reality check in there.
Pmom
And YOU care so much —
That you would let these sociopaths out to rape and murder and create MORE sociopaths?
Think about it: If they “got this way” due to “nurture” and not “nature” then keeping them in prison is the only way to make sure they dont creat more bad apples when THEY have kids.
Think it through! If they way a kid is treated, at a young age, determines their respect for life and the law, why they hell do we want these people out there mistreating MORE kids?
If it is nature, if they inherited a bad, sociopathic gene, well, they CAN’T be “rehabilitated” can they?
JRI agree that I am a “public figure” and that I must prove that anyone who liables or slanders me must know, beforehand, that such liable and slander was false.You have been warned that it is false.I have told you how to find such “proof” yourself.There was never any criminal charge against me, in the case you mention.The Civil Contempt charge was vacated by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.The kids in question gave me signed statements stating that I told them to “Get OUT of the street.”
You are a piece of work, JR. So full of hate that you justify anything and everything you do, as long as you bring pain or “discomfort” to your enemies.
A father like you is probably very well equiped to produce the types of Sociopathic behavior we are talking about.
And, just so you know, JR
I think your hatred helps the Republican cause.
That is why I won’t quit, on this Blog.
Literally thousands of people read this Blog without every posting.
You are a shining example of the hate in the left wing of the Democrat Party.
Your hate and ignorance serve a useful purpose.
You are a recruiting poster, helping us recruit reasonable people to the Republican cause.
pmomYou said “spoken like a true fundy” —Therefore some “artistic license” might apply.However, there is no such thing as “Fundamentalist Catholic” —
Catholics wrote the New Testament. Catholics believe that the Bible is only one source of guidance. The teachings of the Vatican form another source of guidance, as definitions, meaning and cultures change over time.
“Fundamentalism” holds that the Bible (mangeled a bit by Martin Luther) is the ONLY source of divine wisdom.
Therefore, calling ME a “fundy” is a hoot.
Excuse me Fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the only source of divine truth.Catholics believe that the Church must interpret the Bible.
Catholics, in other words DONT believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of truth.
libel liable
a confession folks, I Blog here while I am on the phone.
Glad I am not driving!
Quoth paulie econ:
“Waaaaaaaaaaaah”
Readers? Hell Paulie they know you are a busted liar.
Ever find that email you say someone sent you about me? You know, the one that had a virus but you opened it anyway. Oh and then you threw it away! Real dirt on bad ol’ J R and you chucked it. Riiiiiight.
Didn’t keep you from saying you had it though. And the real laugh is that you were too stupid to fake an email for some proof.
Ah you seem to be ranting here Paulie. I’m gonna let you alone to that. Make up some more lies. Use a chat link for a source!Have a lotta fun.
“A father like you is probably very well equiped to produce the types of Sociopathic behavior we are talking about.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 23, 2007 at 04:48 PM”
Classy
Unfortunately sociopaths are born without a conscience. That’s why you see good kids come from lousy homes and lousy kids come from good homes. Sociopaths can’t be rehabilitated..but it’s not easy to tell if a kid is a sociopath or not, because kids that age can have antisocial behaviors but not necessarily be true sociopaths..it’s when they don’t grow out of it that you know you there is no chance they’ll develop a conscience or empathy for other people.Kids should be given a chance to rehabilitate with intensive treatment when they screw up so badly, because some can be saved and go on to live a productive life.BTW, I’m REALLY getting sick of the “prolife people only care about fetuses” attitude..I find it funny that you would claim that you care about children when you think the best solution to unwanted children is to kill them before they are born…that’s a REAL caring attitude for sure!
Whyyyyyyy should we put our poor children in prison for life!
They didn’t knowwwwwwwwwwww any better.
They was raised wrongggggggggg.
It ain’t their fault they killed someone when they were 14.
Their mind wasn’t fully made yet.
They are not responsible for themselves at that young age.
We need to ReHaBiliTate them somehow and save them.
By the time they are 18 they be ReHaBiliTateD and be normal a gain. Like lily white angel boys da day they was born!
Then we cannnnnnnlet them out to live a free life agin.
No need to put them in jail for life.
Mary, oh Mary Caruso, you be so right on this one.
Save them little murdering boys and turn them into nice men. They be ok then.
There are three distict kinds of homicide:Felony HomicideJustifiable HomicideBeneficial HomicideMaybe we ought to determine which kind they did before we chuck their little asses out of sight and out of mind forever.
There are three distict kinds of homicide:Felony HomicideJustifiable HomicideBeneficial HomicideMaybe we ought to determine which kind they did before we chuck their little asses out of sight and out of mind forever.
I’m just saying that some can be saved if we make an effort…you know me, I don’t believe in just throwing children away.