Supreme Court Rules Against Child Life Sentences

[Pangloss]

Calling them 'cruel and unusual punishment'. They have to be given some hope of future release *if* they didn't kill their victims.

 

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-court-offenders-20100518,0,5369429.story

 

By a 5-4 vote, the court said young people serving life prison terms must have "a meaningful opportunity to obtain release" if they haven't killed their victims. The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy extended the "children are different" rationale that drove his decision five years ago that outlawed the death penalty for killers under 18.

 

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing, but I think it's probably the right call. And I think it leaves room for appropriate decision-making in extreme situations while generally doing the right thing.

 

What do you all think?

[CharonY]

I am wondering what offences not involving murder would result in life sentences for children.

[iNow]

I wonder why we as a nation focus so much on punishment instead of rehabilitation. Granted, some people can not genuinely be rehabilitated, but I think we should at least begin with the hope of doing so for the vast majority of crimes in our country.

[A Tripolation]

I wonder why we as a nation focus so much on punishment instead of rehabilitation. Granted, some people can not genuinely be rehabilitated, but I think we should at least begin with the hope of doing so for the vast majority of crimes in our country.

 

Doesn't this get into that whole "punishment is a form of rehabilitation" mess?

 

And I really don't think there should be a life sentence for a child unless murder was involved. That seems kind of heartless.

[Mr Skeptic]

I wonder why we as a nation focus so much on punishment instead of rehabilitation.

 

Lack of repeat customers for the people who would be doing the punishment/rehabilitation.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And I really don't think there should be a life sentence for a child unless murder was involved. That seems kind of heartless.

 

What if the child is 17.9 years old? It seems that this would mostly apply to sex offenders, which is not a very child-like crime.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

Charon; I'm sure there are some repeat child offenders (this case was) or cases where younger children that are tried as Adults (different in all States), but normally folks under 18 and tried in Juvenal Courts/Criminal Court, never receive what adults would in Criminal Courts, much less life with out parole. It's really not that common for Adults, at least the W/O parole part...

 

 

iNow, I happen to agree with you here; I don't know what the actual cost per year is or will be in the future, but I do know that cost is far more than an effort to rehabilitate anyone, especially the younger folks. Another thing that really bothers me, is putting first time inmates in with lifers (in many cases) where all kinds of psychological events WILL influence them for life, with or without them changing attitudes.

 

 

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing, but I think it's probably the right call. And I think it leaves room for appropriate decision-making in extreme situations while generally doing the right thing. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; I'd be interested in what doubts you have? This fellow can still be given 30-40 years (habitual criminal), for making a second error, probably 15-20 actual and that should be sufficient to settle him down. I'll admit using a gun, in the performance of crime should garner addition time, but really, how many gun totting bank robbers in their 30-40's do you know get 30-40 years, much less life.

[iNow]

iNow, I happen to agree with you here; I don't know what the actual cost per year is or will be in the future, but I do know that cost is far more than an effort to rehabilitate anyone, especially the younger folks. Another thing that really bothers me, is putting first time inmates in with lifers (in many cases) where all kinds of psychological events WILL influence them for life, with or without them changing attitudes.

Precisely. I appreciate that, Jackson. So many people get sent to jail having committed a minor offense... They are akin kindergartners in the school of criminality when they go in. However, by the time they leave, they've got Ph.D.s in crime and the connections now to commit more frequently and to think much less about the "wrongness" of doing so.

 

I know there is a lot of complexity in all of this, but our current system of "throw them behind bars" seems so pointless and concurrently expensive.

 

 

Pangloss - Given my comments above, I think you'll find that I tend to be against life sentences, in general. People make mistakes. We all sometimes do things which years later we realize were silly and stupid and we should never have done. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to make someone sit in a cage and rot for the rest of their life for such an event, especially when that somebody is a non-adult who is still learning the boundaries and social limits of this world. As I said, not everyone can be rehabilitated, but I think that should always be our underlying goal. Right now, the focus is on punishment, and serving time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Doesn't this get into that whole "punishment is a form of rehabilitation" mess?

I'm not really all that familiar with people suggesting the two are the same. What are your thoughts?

[Pangloss]

I am wondering what offences not involving murder would result in life sentences for children.

 

I'm not sure, but supposedly 77 of the 150-ish cases are here in Florida. Maybe I can find out something about those cases.

 

In answer to the other questions, I can't really imagine what the "extreme" would be either.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The New York Times has some details on the Florida case that was heard by the Supreme Court.

 

The case involved Terrance Graham, who in 2003, at age 16, helped rob a Jacksonville restaurant, during which an accomplice beat the manager with a steel bar. Mr. Graham was sentenced to a year in jail and three years’ probation for that crime.

 

The next year, at 17, Mr. Graham and two 20-year-old accomplices committed a home invasion robbery. In 2005, a judge sentenced Mr. Graham to life for violating his probation.

 

So it's not as if they just locked up a first-time offender for life here. He was a repeat offender who participated in a particularly heinous type of violent crime -- home invasion (meaning the victims were in the house).

 

I still agree with the decision, but bear in mind here that what the Supreme Court is saying is that repeat juvenile offenders can't be sentenced to life without parole either.

 

USA Today had an interesting bit of insight on this, comparing Justice Kennedy's questions during the presentation with today's decision:

 

During Supreme Court arguments last November, Justice Anthony Kennedy peered down from the bench and expressed skepticism for a lawyer's claim that juvenile offenders — unlike adult criminals — should not be locked up with no chance of parole, no hope of release.

 

"Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope, but an adult does not?" Kennedy asked.

 

Interesting question! Apparently one so interesting that he felt compelled to answer it himself in today's ruling:

 

"Life in prison without the possibility of parole gives no chance for fulfillment outside prison walls, no chance for reconciliation with society, no hope," Kennedy wrote in the opinion finding such sentences unconstitutionally disproportionate to juvenile crimes. "A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity."

Edited May 18, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.