Posted on 11/07/2009 6:29:20 PM PST by presidio9
Joe Sullivan was sent away for life for raping an elderly woman and judged incorrigible though he was only 13 at the time of the attack.
Terrance Graham, implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17, was given a life sentence by a judge who told the teenager he threw his life away.
They didn't kill anyone, but they effectively were sentenced to die in prison.
Life sentences with no chance of parole are rare and harsh for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of crimes less serious than killing. Just over 100 prison inmates in the United States are serving those terms, according to data compiled by opponents of the sentences.
Now the Supreme Court is being asked to say that locking up juveniles and throwing away the key is cruel and unusual — and thus, unconstitutional. Other than in death penalty cases, the justices never before have found that a penalty crossed the cruel-and-unusual line. They will hear arguments Monday.
Graham, now 22, and Sullivan, now 33, are in Florida prisons, which hold more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for nonhomicide crimes. Although their lawyers deny their clients are guilty, the court will consider only whether the sentences are permitted by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's latest look at how to punish young criminals flows directly from its 4-year-old decision to rule out the death penalty for anyone younger than 18.
In that 2005 case decided by a 5-4 vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion talked about "the lesser culpability of the juvenile offender."
"From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed,"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Grab the hankies, it’s time for some liberal boo hooing.
hmm. wow. society has become so enlightened. just look at us.
I’m no liberal in general terms, but on this one I guess I agree with them. I think it’s absurd for society to deny rights to under 18s on the grounds they are not ready to be responsible for them, and then to hold them fully responsible for crimes.
Probably not a popular view here, but I’m not going to hide from it.
Incidently, if you did not read the entire article, then you missed this:
"The crimes that these guys committed were grotesque," (Alan) Simpson said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I'm sure people will say Simpson's gone soft in the head." The Wyoming Republican served 18 years in the Senate, but as a teenager, he pleaded guilty to setting fire to an abandoned building on federal property and later spent a night in jail for slugging a police officer.
When your grandmother is the one getting raped, and the punk clearly knew what he was doing, I have no doubt you’ll feel the same way.
As a matter of fact, felon are typically denied the right to vote, hold some jobs, and in some cases drink alcohol. From here one out, I say reduce their sentences when they commit more crimes. After all, they weren’t “ready” to be responsible for certain rights.
I think you are probably a decent person. I also think you think you are a wonderfully moral person. Unfortunately like a lot of liberals (in general terms), you have obviously not thought through completely the logic of what you are saying.
ACLU and amnesty international scum
god have mercy on these people if the revolution starts
because the rest of us won’t
"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy.
See? When Jo Sullivan raped somebody's grandmother, he was just acting like a puppy. Why get angry with him? No real harm done.
I think you made a perfectly reasonable point.
If a kid is deemed too immature to manage a cigarette, how can we hold them to the same standard as an adult in any area?
I think that's it's odd, as far as the rape story goes... In Texas a person under 14 legally CANNOT consent to a sex act. If that's the case, then how can they knowingly perform the act of rape in the eyes of the law? We say that a 13 year old can't understand the consequences of normal sex, but we then say that they understand the consequences of rape?
Don't get me wrong, people. These kids are dangerous. They need to be locked up and reformed. I believe that most of these kids have something seriously wrong with their home lives to stoop so such lows. Maybe taking a 14 year old and putting them in a disciplined environment with morals, values and proper nutrition will do them a world of good.
IMHO, it should be on a case-be-case basis.
I've dealt with crime including serious crime involving members of my own family, and my views haven't changed. I don't base important beliefs solely on emotion but on principles as well. If you're interested - google Janine Balding.
As a matter of fact, felon are typically denied the right to vote, hold some jobs, and in some cases drink alcohol. From here one out, I say reduce their sentences when they commit more crimes. After all, they weren’t “ready” to be responsible for certain rights.
The situation isn't equivalent. They lost their 'adult' rights by their actions. Adolescents have never been granted them. Nor do I believe they should be.
I think you are probably a decent person. I also think you think you are a wonderfully moral person. Unfortunately like a lot of liberals (in general terms), you have obviously not thought through completely the logic of what you are saying.
Wonderfully moral? Not particularly. My level of morality is nothing I consider unusual and my position isn't based on a belief that I hold any type of moral high ground. It's based on the belief that we can't deny people rights on the grounds of irresponsibility, and then hold them to be fully responsible when it suits us.
I don't believe in being soft on crime either. I think courts typically treat adolescents far too leniently - but we go from one extreme to the other when we let them get away almost unpunished for minor crimes - and then drop the heavens on them when it becomes major.
Personally, I think that it should be on a case-by-case basis. A kid can change a lot (for better *or* worse) in the 5 years from 13 to 18.
Take them out of the court room and string them up with 5 dollars of robe you can recycle on the next perp.
You, like anyone else are entitled to your opinion. So are the many legislators who considered the facts surrounding the bill they passed and the governor who signed the bill into law.
What you or I consider to be bad or improper law is not necessarily unconstitutional. The strict constitutionality of the sentence is what Scotus should decide, not the squishy notion of the modern "morality" of the sentence.
True enough - a court should rule based on the law and the constitution and not on other factors.
I wouldn’t want or expect them to do anything else.
But I don’t agree with laws that treat people as children one moment and as adults the next.
True enough - a court should rule based on the law and the constitution and not on other factors.
I wouldn’t want or expect them to do anything else.
But I don’t agree with laws that treat people as children one moment and as adults the next.
1. You're missing a very important distinction.
The assumption of adult responsibilities in civil matters has ALWAYS been different from the assumption of responsibilities in criminal matters. The latter is not a question of minority or adulthood, but simple humanity.
Whether or not you have sense enough to enter into a contract, drive a car, or vote is completely different from whether you know right from wrong.
The ancient common law put criminal responsibility (knowing right from wrong) at about age 7. That is STILL the case -- the purpose of the juvenile system is not to diminish responsibility but twofold: to rehabilitate if possible, and to keep juveniles out of the prison system so that they are not victimized.
And if you're thinking that kids are like puppies, you are denying both their intelligence and their humanity.
2. The juvenile system already treats kids on a case by case basis, and there are multiple hurdles to sentencing these kids as adults. First, there are only a limited number of crimes for which juveniles may be prosecuted, let alone sentenced, as adults. A hearing is held in juvenile court and the juvenile judge looks at the accused's record in detail before making a finding that he has had multiple chances in the juvenile system and cannot be rehabilitated, that he understands the criminality of his conduct, and that he is unamenable to treatment in the juvenile system. Only then does the case proceed to the regular superior court system.
There is ample opportunity for considering the accused's mental state and level of responsibility in the trial as well. And THEN there are additional hurdles to cross before a juvenile may be sentenced as an adult.
This is not something that "just happens" all of a sudden to some hapless innocent who has no idea that his crime is serious.
But sadly, certain rights are attained by age.
But, certain crimes are irrelevant to age in terms of sentencing.
Most kids are good. Some know the difference between right and wrong...and just don't care.
I fear we will see more of this as time evolves. It is a sign of our times.
A child is not a puppy but if a child messes his pants your analogy might hold up.
A teenager rapes grandma and he’d better be in prison for the rest of his stinkin life.
No - not missing it. Just don't think it's a real distinction.
The ancient common law put criminal responsibility (knowing right from wrong) at about age 7. That is STILL the case - the purpose of the juvenile system is not to diminish responsibility but twofold: to rehabilitate if possible, and to keep juveniles out of the prison system so that they are not victimized.
Actually it didn't. Common law (the doctrine of doli incapax to be precise) assumed a child was not criminally responsible in most cases until the age of 14 - which at the time was fairly consistent with the age he was allowed to carry out most adult responsibilities. There were very rare cases where a child under that age might be found to be criminally liable but they were rare and unusual. Seven was set at the absolute limit for these rare cases - it was never the 'normal' limit under common law.
Common law can be superseded by both courts and legislatures, so it's not particularly relevant to modern discussions, but it was what it was and it said what it said.
And if you're thinking that kids are like puppies, you are denying both their intelligence and their humanity.
No, I don't think kids are like puppies - and I'm frankly amazed that anybody might think I do. The point of the quote I gave isn't whether children are like puppies or not. I'll single out the bits I consider most important just to make it clear.
"Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals. They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.
"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder.
It's actually a separate point to the other one, which is why I put it into a separate post. There are two issues here that are relevant as far as I am concerned. The first is whether or not it is sensible to treat people as irresponsible children for some purposes and as responsible adults for others. I don't believe that is sensible or reasonable.
The second issue - the one I quoted from Starship Troopers about - relates to the fact that our society is creating more and more delinquents because we're not punishing children in a way that's appropriate for children. We let them get away with so many things (or nearly so) until they suddenly go too far for us to ignore it. And then we tend to come down on them like a pile of bricks. Our society isn't doing what it needs to do to stop these children becoming serious criminals. Once they become such, we have to treat them as such - but we should be doing a better job of preventing them reaching that stage.
I'm a teacher - my students don't turn into juvenile delinquents? Why - because their parents discipline them, and so do their teachers (with the approval of the parents in our case). Every day I see kids who aren't being disciplined and a lot of them do wind up as criminals. It's their choices, but it's not just their choice.
I lost my parents when I was nine. I was lucky. Other people took on the responsibility of seeing I was brought up right. There's too many kids now who nobody is doing that for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.