Skip to comments.For young killers, 'a chance to have a chance'
Posted on 03/19/2012 6:57:41 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
Adolfo Davis had been 14 years old for just two months when he made the mistake that changed his life.
In October 1990, he was living on Chicago's South Side with a grandmother who could barely care for him. His father was gone. His mother was a drug addict. He was teased because he often wore the same clothes to school. He committed petty crimes to get money for food. He found family in a gang, and one night, two much older gang members brought him along on what he believed was going to be a robbery. Two men were killed, though Davis never fired his gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
In the words of Dirty Harry, “ Well that sounds very stylish”... what about the dead people, do they get a second chance??
I am not a fan of long sentences for first offenses.
However, there is another problem. In prison, the person has a support system. Out in the “real world” the person is preyed on and has no way of making a living and no one to teach him. If he is not a Christian, he has no support system. What is the answer? Our society teaches disrespect for life, teaches that if someone has more than you it is fine to take what you want, it is pretty hopeless.
That kind of squishy language just drives me crazy.
A "mistake" is writing 2+3=4 on a math test. A "mistake" is accidentally calling your new neighbor Jim when his real name is John.
Putting a gun in your pocket, then going to a robbery should not be classified as a "mistake."
I don’t care whether it’s his first offense or his fiftieth offense he murdered another human being. I might point out that this young thug had committed other crimes. There are four or so rationales for punishment and I favor deterence and/or protecting society. His victim wasn’t given any consideration as to his age or his prior behavior. Why should the defendant be treated more leniently than his victim or the victim’s family. I would be in favor interment based on the victim’s age expectancy - no parol hearings for the defendant until the defendant served the number of years the victim’s life was cut off by his murder.
So he decided to kill some people to make it all better. Boy, was he surprised when it didn't!
And now he gets to wear the same orange clothes day after day.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
I’ve been telling people that exact same thing for years.
My brother in law just retired from a career dealing with these kids in the Chicago system, specializing in violent youth offenders. He told me that by the time these kids got to him (mostly gang members) they were already lost. They would just as soon kill him as shake his hand. He didn’t believe in rehabilitation and he couldn’t wait to get as far away from the city as possible once he retired.
“So it is that in Illinois, children as young as 13 can be sentenced to life without parole, often in cases in which the sentence is mandatory. At 15 or older, juveniles can be sentenced to life without parole even if they merely acted as a lookout or the driver of a getaway car and were unaware that their co-defendants had weapons or were planning to commit murder.”
Sounds to me like bad Law, it is far too easy for a child to be manipulated, and to hold someone of that age to a LWOPP sentence under these circumstances. I think you are going to without question wind up trapping what could be decent kids in bad situations under such guidelines. Not saying the kids in that sort of situation should walk without consequences, but in and of itself, I have a hard time with the verbage of this law, at least as presented.
I think you need to read the article.
So he took a gun along. Did he think they were going to a shooting range afterwards to do some target practice?
Speaking of the young fellow bringing his gun to the robbery - I hope he had his FOID card updated (it’s an Illinois thing). And I guess he had a special waiver as a juvenile to own that gun, properly register it, and apply for said FOID card.
Are you quibbling over the fact that he didn't actually pull the trigger? If so, you might want to look up the statutes on Felony Murder. He is every bit as guilty as the hit man.
The law might say that, but it doesn’t make it right. Just like the abortion laws say that it is perfectly OK to slaughter an unborn baby...
If legal system gives them a break because of their age the gangs just use that to help talk them into it. They can tell them nothing really bad will happen if they get caught because of their age.
I never said nothing really bad should happen to them, I said LWOPP in the instance described, being a lookout or driver when you had no idea what your “conspirators” were doing for a 13-15 year old is going to ensnare kids who aren’t the hard core you need to put down.
I work with kids this age every day, and the overwhelming majority can be very esily manipulated by someone with nepharious intent if they would choose to. You are talking about 7th-10th graders here. I am not suggesting no punishment should occur or that blanket passes should be made in every case. However you cannot ignore the case where a truly bad person convinces a kid to do something they shouldn’t and may have had no idea what was going on, and treat it as though they were an adult in the same situation every single time.
Agreed. But according to the article he knew they were there to commit a robbery.
And he’ll be wearing the same clothes for a long, long time.
What IS right? The law presumably exists for a reason, namely that the citizens of the state saw fit to equate murder in the commission of a felony to Capital Murder. The Supreme Court didn't create the law out of vapor like it did in the case of abortion "rights".
Even though “His father was gone. His mother was a drug addict.”, the laws of God and country remain fair but tough.
I wasn’t talking about this case in particular, was talking more about the law in general.
But lets even go into this case, you have 14 year old boy with not much of anything now in your gang, sounds like probably an ok kid under a bad situation at this point though could be wrong, hasn’t been completely lost.. his buddy’s convince him to be lookout/driver for a robery, and it goes wrong... at 14 could the kid really forsee that possibility? Dubious, unless he was a hardened criminal..that he really could think that all the way through...
Again, I am not suggesting the kids should escape punishment, just saying the mandatory LWOPP law seems bad law because it is going to ensnare those that are not hardened criminals, and could turn things around, with those who are completely past saving.
I am not against throwing a kid in jail for life or even executing them under circumstances where it is clear without any shadow of a doubt they knew what they were doing etc.. (The hardned criminal) but I don’t think its appropriate that it be applied across the board to any case.
“Why should the defendant be treated more leniently than his victim or the victims family. I would be in favor interment based on the victims age expectancy”
I agree, as in, “Services at 11, followed by interment at 2 at Woodlawn Cemetery.
Given the environment he's in, I'd have a hard time believing that by the age of 14 the kid didn't know that armed robberies can go bad and when the do, people get shot.
There was a time when the law said it was OK to hang children for stealing hankerchiefs and burn people alive for being witches.
Personally, I have a problem with locking up a 13 year old for the rest of his life when he neither pulled the trigger nor gave the order for someone else to do so...
Then you'd be the perfect juror for the defense. Personally, I wouldn't bat an eye. And I certainly wouldn't be swayed by any of this boo-hoo bull flop.
I couldn’t care less about what happens to him. Make him a roll model for others so they might think twice before they make the same “mistake.” Life without parole is just right.
Don’t get me wrong, I would have voted to convict if the evidence directed me to, but locking up a 13 year old with no possibility for parole in those circumstances is ridiculously harsh. Its a harsher punishment than it would be for an adult because he has his whole life in front of him.
He should have served a few years, not his whole life.
Liberals teach that - conservatives don't. Are you living in liberal-land?
Liberal values in action - no fathers, zero responsibility, drug addictions just another lifestyle... this story is a yawn. It’s dog bites man...
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.