Trying youths as adults hurts families and taxpayers, but not crime

[Odysseus]

It's hard to imagine any child having so little compassion, and I have known some seriously self centered and cold young people. But there was always that clear line that never wanted to be crossed, the line where permanent damage was likely. Sure, there were accidents of misjudging but even the crazy kid in my neighborhood knew better than to beat a child with a baseball bat.

You should take the opportunity to read Lord of the Flies, if you haven't already. Children are not naturally compassionate, they have to be taught that others have feelings and are deserving of consideration. Even the crazy kid in your neighborhood had parents who taught him right from wrong. The kids who commit murder have never gotten that lesson, or they've been taught something else that overrode it. If you want to see a society run by children, look no further than Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, which took children them to participate in their parents' murders, then armed them and let them run wild. The results were horrific, even by the standards of the twentieth century, which also saw Nazism and enough variations on Communism to satisfy the blood lust of the most jaded sadist.

On another note, how do you feel about lighter sentences in lieu of our public demand for LWOP and DP? In watching Lock Up Abroad, it seems like their prison population is more manageable because they have much fewer lifers. Am I wrong? Wouldn't 30 years and eligible for time-off for good behavior be good?

And what is up with parole? Are we just hearing the one side or is parole nearly impossible to complete without getting into trouble? In particular, the comments that parole in Florida is so difficult that inmates prefer simply to finish their time so as to be free of the system.

Life Without Parole is a reaction to liberal opposition to the Death Penalty. Since liberals object to executing murderers, the best that we can hope for is to lock them up for life, but even that is problematical. Lifers kill because they have nothing better to do, and a trial that takes them out of their cells, permits them to see their family in court, and otherwise breaks up the monotony of their sentences, has little or no punitive value. This is one of the reasons that a death penalty is needed.

The public demand for the death penalty is a rebellion against liberal elites who see crime as a symptom of societal problems, not as an act committed by an independent, responsible individual. Those who seek so-called "root causes" of crime fail to see the obvious, which is that the most basic root cause of crime is the decision of the criminal. No matter what has been done to someone, or what they have seen or been through, at the end of the day, we are still individuals who bear responsibility for our actions. Shorter sentences, more lenient parole criteria and other sympathetic acts on the part of intellectuals who lack empathy for victims of crime, but are heartbroken at the thought of a criminal being executed, end up making the choice to commit a crime more likely, rather than less.

[noonwitch]

True. It worked out well for Nathaniel Abraham, didn't it? I am sure you remember his case.

I know that case, although I never worked in Oakland County. I know of a worse example that I can't talk about.

At least Abrams hasn't killed anyone else. I remember when he turned 21 and was released from Maxey GOC-he was scheduled to go on Oprah, but showed up for his release hearing (which was a formality) all pimped up and she wouldn't let him on her show.


There is no easy answer when it comes to the young and violent. There probably needs to be blended juvenile/adult sentences for serious crimes.

[NJCardFan]

In truth, I'd rather have a unit full of lifers than a unit full of idiots doing a few years. Lifers are usually model inmates. The short timers are the ones who get into scraps with staff and who can't abide by the rules. In fact, when I had my own unit and if an inmate was acting the fool, usually it's the lifers that put them in their place.

[Novaheart]

Life Without Parole is a reaction to liberal opposition to the Death Penalty. Since liberals object to executing murderers, the best that we can hope for is to lock them up for life, but even that is problematical. Lifers kill because they have nothing better to do, and a trial that takes them out of their cells, permits them to see their family in court, and otherwise breaks up the monotony of their sentences, has little or no punitive value. This is one of the reasons that a death penalty is needed.

The public demand for the death penalty is a rebellion against liberal elites who see crime as a symptom of societal problems, not as an act committed by an independent, responsible individual. Those who seek so-called "root causes" of crime fail to see the obvious, which is that the most basic root cause of crime is the decision of the criminal. No matter what has been done to someone, or what they have seen or been through, at the end of the day, we are still individuals who bear responsibility for our actions. Shorter sentences, more lenient parole criteria and other sympathetic acts on the part of intellectuals who lack empathy for victims of crime, but are heartbroken at the thought of a criminal being executed, end up making the choice to commit a crime more likely, rather than less.

The greatest argument against the DP is that the DP is irreversible. The state can compensate for lost time, but cannot bring back extinguished life. So there are sound reasons to oppose the DP, you simply think that they are insufficient to overcome the arguments for execution.

I'm not an expert on corrections, but I have read that there are indeed some dynamics in play other than "He's a criminal and will always be a danger to society." I read in one article that convict recidivism falls dramatically at certain ages and after certain periods of incarceration. No one is saying that there aren't convicts who are beyond rehabilitation, even in those European prisons to which I referred. I think we can agree that there is a difference between a man who murders his vicious ex-wife and one who murders a series of women who made the mistake of wearing green shoes.

[Odysseus]

The greatest argument against the DP is that the DP is irreversible. The state can compensate for lost time, but cannot bring back extinguished life. So there are sound reasons to oppose the DP, you simply think that they are insufficient to overcome the arguments for execution.

The argument against it is also the argument in favor of it, namely that it dramatically reduces the recidivism rate among murderers. And, judges and juries have the option of imposing lesser sentences in the event that there is uncertainty (although one would think that such uncertainty would also prevent conviction). The vast majority of death penalty cases involve persons whose guilt is beyond any doubt, and who have committed crimes that warrant it. There are far more Ted Bundys than there are Jean Valjeans.

I'm not an expert on corrections, but I have read that there are indeed some dynamics in play other than "He's a criminal and will always be a danger to society." I read in one article that convict recidivism falls dramatically at certain ages and after certain periods of incarceration. No one is saying that there aren't convicts who are beyond rehabilitation, even in those European prisons to which I referred. I think we can agree that there is a difference between a man who murders his vicious ex-wife and one who murders a series of women who made the mistake of wearing green shoes.

Actually, there are those who argue that any convict can be rehabilitated, or that the death penalty is wrong in all cases. The Europeans will not even extradict a criminal if there is a risk that he will face a death penalty, regardless of the nature of the crime or the magnitude of the evidence. They elevate their scruples over centuries of law, mounds of evidence and the outrage of victims, because it flatters them to think of themselves as crusaders against what they perceive as hidebound traditions, dry data and emotional mobs, not because they care about justice or even understand the issues.

[FlaGator]

10 is very young, especially when the child has a documented history of being physically abused himself. I understand that he committed a horrific crime, but I'm not sure that a 10 year old is beyond rehabilitation.

I personally do not accept physcial abuse as a mitigating factor for violent crime or violent behavior. At some level most children know the behavior is wrong, even kids who commit violent crimes. They may not understand that what they do is wrong but they know that others view it as wrong, that is why they hide it and lie about it,

Also, regardless of whether someone can be rehabilitated the aspect of punishment must be observed. Jail is as much about punitative action as rehabilitation... maybe more.

[Odysseus]

I personally do not accept physcial abuse as a mitigating factor for violent crime or violent behavior. At some level most children know the behavior is wrong, even kids who commit violent crimes. They may not understand that what they do is wrong but they know that others view it as wrong, that is why they hide it and lie about it,

Also, regardless of whether someone can be rehabilitated the aspect of punishment must be observed. Jail is as much about punitative action as rehabilitation... maybe more.

Jail is about keeping dangerous people away from the rest of us. It's also about punishment, in that it should be unpleasant enough to provide a deterrent. Rehabilitation is a recent idea, and not a proven one. If it can be done, fine, but it should not be indulged in at the expense of the primary and secondary purposes of imprisonment.