Do juvenile offender deserve a second chance?

[montanadave]

Retired Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) has an op-ed piece in this morning's Washington Post ("A sentence too cruel for children") discussing two cases before the Supreme Court which will decide whether it is constitutional to impose a life sentence without parole on a teenager convicted of committing a crime which did not involve the taking of a life.

Simpson, who had his own brushes with the law as a youth, argues that teens lack the ability to fully assess the consequences of their actions and deserve the opportunity of turning their lives around and, hopefully, becoming productive citizens if eventually granted parole.

Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203803.html

I'm curious as to what the LEOs on M4 think about Senator Simpson's position on this issue.

[BVickery]

I am not LEO/Mil, but as a member of the general population I think it really should be dependent on the severity of the crime and circumstances.

[rifleman2000]

There is no black and white answer, in my opinion. But off the top of my head, I believe that there are crimes that warrant throwing the key away, regardless of juvenile status.

Also, it brings up the question of our justice system "rehabilitation". Is anyone ever really rehabilitated? I would argue no. Let's put it this way: Right or wrong, when you leave prison as a convicted felon, your rights are severely restricted. For example, 2nd Amendment rights.

If someone is "too dangerous" to enjoy full constitutional rights, why are they released from prison? And if someone is released and "rehabilitated", why can't they resume full rights as a citizen.

HYPOTHETICALLY, a convicted felon can leave prison, change their ways, settled down with a family, and want to buy a gun for home or self defense. But the law says no. 2nd Amendment violation? I think so.

[perna]

I can not believe a confessed criminal was ever a senator, sounds like he needed to be locked up and maybe he would not have committed all those crimes.

[rifleman2000]

I can not believe a confessed criminal was ever a senator, sounds like he needed to be locked up and maybe he would not have committed all those crimes.

These days, all Senators are criminals.

[BVickery]

There is no black and white answer, in my opinion. But off the top of my head, I believe that there are crimes that warrant throwing the key away, regardless of juvenile status.

Also, it brings up the question of our justice system "rehabilitation". Is anyone ever really rehabilitated? I would argue no. Let's put it this way: Right or wrong, when you leave prison as a convicted felon, your rights are severely restricted. For example, 2nd Amendment rights.

If someone is "too dangerous" to enjoy full constitutional rights, why are they released from prison? And if someone is released and "rehabilitated", why can't they resume full rights as a citizen.

HYPOTHETICALLY, a convicted felon can leave prison, change their ways, settled down with a family, and want to buy a gun for home or self defense. But the law says no. 2nd Amendment violation? I think so.

You hit the nail on the head, and we need to look at the crime and circumstances and as such we need to go almost on a case by case basis.

[Zhurdan]

Sorry, but being from Wyoming... I think Mr. Simpson needs a good smack and a kick in the ass. Similar to what I received as a kid when I screwed up. No, I didn't shoot up peoples property or start fires, but I learned the meaning of consequences far earlier than 13 or 17 years old. It really wasn't a hard lesson.

One day, a friend and I were throwing crab apples in the wheel hubs of passing gravel trucks as they passed our house. Did it physically hurt anyone? No. Was it something we should have been doing? No. My dad smacked me and gave me a boot to the ass as I was sent to my room to think about what I was doing. The next day, we were sent down the street with a bucket of water and soap to wash off peoples cars that were sprayed with apple guts from the passing trucks. We had to go to the door and let them know what we did and what we were doing to rectify the situation. BOOM! Instant learning experience. Don't do stuff you don't want to have to pay for. That lesson applied to many things after that and kept me out of trouble. I've never been arrested, thrown in jail or ever made to stand before a judge in my defense.

Imagine a world where a parent could actually discipline their children with something that would make an immediate impression (not advocating beating, but a good smack can go a long way for a youngster). Now look at todays society where even raising your voice at a child can get you in trouble. Ohh how the pendulum has swung. That imaginary world wasn't all that long ago in the scope of time. A mere 30 years ago, and I thank my dad every day since then for putting me on the right track and defining the meaning of consequence with nothing more than the palm of his hand.

All the time, we see people trying to fix a problem rather than providing a solution that would prevent it from ever happening. As I got older, my dad used to remind me of that lesson with a simple saying... "Don't scratch the itch, smack the mosquito".

[SteyrAUG]

I am not LEO/Mil, but as a member of the general population I think it really should be dependent on the severity of the crime and circumstances.


+1

I agree that kids don't possess the same reasoning skills as adults BUT when it comes to things like lighting other kids on fire if you do not understand it is wrong you are simply too much of a threat to the overall population regardless of your age.

[Spiffums]

I really can't give an answer for this question because no one has a cut and dried answer for "when do you become an adult?"

The DA can charge a 14 year old as an adult for a crime but the same 14 year old can't buy beer or work after 10 pm on a school night because he isn't an adult. I am not saying just because he or she is a minor that they get a free pass till 18. But I hope you all get the gist of what I'm saying.

I think most people get a 2nd chance. They just piss it away. Dog the bounty hunter is an example I like to use. He went to jail for a felony and turned his life around. Like him or Hate him, he is a good example to others on the ropes. For people like this I see no reason not to fully restore their rights and let them be free of the black mark that follows ex-cons.


Dang can't we just talk about why Colt is better than Bushmaster? It is easier to get your head around those feelings and ideals.

[EzGoingKev]

I can not believe a confessed criminal was ever a senator, sounds like he needed to be locked up and maybe he would not have committed all those crimes.

He's a maverick.

Most start out as politicians and end up as criminals.

This guy did it the other way.

[Belmont31R]

There is no black and white answer, in my opinion. But off the top of my head, I believe that there are crimes that warrant throwing the key away, regardless of juvenile status.

Also, it brings up the question of our justice system "rehabilitation". Is anyone ever really rehabilitated? I would argue no. Let's put it this way: Right or wrong, when you leave prison as a convicted felon, your rights are severely restricted. For example, 2nd Amendment rights.

If someone is "too dangerous" to enjoy full constitutional rights, why are they released from prison? And if someone is released and "rehabilitated", why can't they resume full rights as a citizen.

HYPOTHETICALLY, a convicted felon can leave prison, change their ways, settled down with a family, and want to buy a gun for home or self defense. But the law says no. 2nd Amendment violation? I think so.


Its possible for felons to get their 2A rights back. Their state must do so, and under federal law if the state grants them their rights the feds will honor that.


I think someone 14+ should know right from wrong. There's no magic birthday where someone suddenly grasps that. But I think as a society we need to say if you are out there doing 'adult' crimes you need to pay the responsibility as an adult. I mean we let 16 year olds drive cars, and they are subject to the same road laws as anyone else.

If you're involved in some heinous crime you shouldn't get a pass just because you're 2 days away from your 18th birthday.

[sudnit5]

We have a program where a juvenile that gets charged with a first time misdemeanor can "work" for a few weeks for us and not get the charge filed so they have no record. If it is a felony it goes to the courts.

This one is hard to say without knowing the background of them.

[ZDL]

*******

[seb5]

I think it has to depend on a lot of factors to reach the answer. Currently in our system very very few don't get a second and a third or even a fourth chance. In our society where many worship criminals, criminal activity, and instant gratification is the accepted norm for many of our citizens it's hard to argue that most have not been given chances.

I think that it also has to depend on the age of the offender and the crime committed. I also think that a very large percent of youthful offenders are very aware of right and wrong and just don't care. I think that it's not the severity of the punishment but the surety of it that deters criminal activity. In our current system there is very little surety of punishment. The attorneys have created a complete mockery of our system, turning it into an abomination of what is was intended to be and once was. I do not detest attorneys at all. I know many great prosecutors and even a few decent defense attorneys. But the bottom line is that the attorneys, who make up the majority of our politicians, are to blame. When you combine that with the massive breakdown of the family unit on many levels, you have the at times anarchy like environments that many of these youths grow up in.

I don't care what they came from, where the came from, or who abused them. These offenders still know right from wrong and that is the only thing that should be considered when dealing with them in the courts, the actions, not the why.

I try very hard each day to maintain a sense of compassion for people, but I do not have a large level of sympathy for most of these offenders. I am a police officer that investigates the majority of crimes against juveniles in our department. Most of these are juvenile against juvenile. You can't tell me that when a large 14 year old boy anally rapes a small 11 year boy old that he thought it was normal, acceptable behavior. He needs to be punished. Punished severely enough that he will never again contemplate such actions. I don't care who says rehabilitation can work for these violent sexual offenders. They are wrong. You can make sure the punishment is swift and consistent. Enough so that they won't do the crime again. You cannot rehab them. Who wants to try, anyway?

So, in the end, yes I think juveniles should get a second chance for many crimes. For many, no way.

[sudnit5]

What is that?


WILA?

[ZDL]

*******

[sudnit5]

I guess that might be it. Sounds the same. Where is that at?


work in lieu of arrest.

[ZDL]

*******

[RancidSumo]

A similar discussion came up in my government class this week. I couldn't believe the number of people in my class (all be me and one other person) that believe that people should not be treated like adults until they are 18. I believe that people are capable of reasoning between basic rights and wrongs when they are far younger than 18. I know I was. With that in mind, anything that would result in a life sentence for a legal adult should apply to juveniles as well.

[Cascades236]

Teenagers will be teenagers, BUT......

If a teenager commits a crime that has a potential punishment of life in prison, we aren't talking about typical juvenile delinquency... we're talking SERIOUS felonies.

[BrianS]

I believe juvenile offenders deserve to eventually regain their rights, even those convicted or adjudicated guilty of offenses that were felonies (or would have been felonies had they been adults, the way these offenses are treated change wildly depending on jurisdiction).

However, I agree that certain types of offenders will not be rehabilitated, and those tried as adults in particular because of the heinous nature of their crimes might be justly held for life in prison.

Guess I will wait to see what the Court, in it's infinite wisdom, decides on the matter. Now that a "wise latina" is sitting on the bench they couldn't possibly get it wrong!

:D

[Ziran]

I am not LEO. I do believe that with a lot of work folks do deserve the benefit of a second chance.

That being said if you are so screwed up that you commit things like murder at young age, I'd say to the electric chair with you and good riddance.

[Kchen986]

I argued this case before a moot court, so I'm pretty familiar with the issues and underlying facts.

On one hand, the weight of law supports life without parole ("LWOP") for minors. Repeat offenders, especially ones who violate parole (they already had their first chance if they were out on parole, right?), should receive punishments. Especially in Graham, where the juvenile repeatedly committed violent crimes (armed robbery then home invasion). The state has an interest in keeping its citizens safe.

On the other hand, children are children are children. I think Mr. Graham was 15 at the time of the offense? 15 or 16 I think. Peoples' pre-frontal cortexes, the part of the brain associated with long range planning and higher reasoning continues to develop and does not fully mature until age 25. As a result, those under 25, especially those under 18 tend to reason with the Amyglada, the part of the brain associated with emotions and impulse. Mix those two together, and you have children who are more prone to criminal acts than say, your average 25 year old. Furthermore, consider that a juvenile at 16 will be very much different than the adult at 40.

Also, international standards do not permit LWOP for children. Indeed only Somalia and the USA impose LWOP on juveniles. Other countries, such as the those in the EU, or even China do not impose juvenile LWOP.

I'm going to keep a close eye on this case. I imagine it will be a 5-4 decision or even a plurality with respect to the 8th amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.