"US leads world in jailing children for life"

by Henry Weinstein, Los Angeles Times
November 20, 2007

THE United States has far more juveniles serving life terms than any other country — 2387. Israel, the only other country that imprisons juveniles for life, according to a new study by the University of San Francisco's Centre for Law & Global Justice, has seven — and has not issued such a sentence since 2004.

In the US, life terms have fallen disproportionately on non-white children, who are 10 times more likely than white children to be given life without parole, the report found.

The study, titled Sentencing Children to Die in Prison, also found that in California, black juveniles are 20 times more likely to receive such sentences.

"For many children, (life without parole) is an effective death sentence," said Michelle Leighton, chief author of the study, which found 51% of such children were first-time offenders.

The US Federal Government and 44 states permit life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.

"Among those states, 13 allow sentencing a child of any age to LWOP and one sets the bar at eight years or older," according to the study.

There are 18 states that could apply the sentence to a child as young as 10, and 20 states that allow it for children 12 or older. The minimum age is 14 in 13 other states.

The report asserts that "harsh sentences dispensed in adult courts do not take into account the lessened culpability of juvenile offenders… Psychologically and neurologically, children cannot be expected to have achieved the same level of mental development as an adult, even when they become teenagers."

-----------

What do you think? Does the US jail children for life too often?

Well, often for the wrong things. The so called crack epidemic of the ninetys scared (unreasonably so) many voters, who put pressure on the politicians, who ended up passing obscene sentencing laws. The vast bulk of those children are second or third time offenders punished by political opportunists.

Are they better off outside prison?

you people should try reading the report the article was taken from before passing judgement.

from the report:
Ian Manuel was sentenced to die in prison for a non-homicide that occurred when he was 13."

I like the way they put that, "non-homicide". I found some information on this kid, he was put in prison for shooting a woman in the mouth during an armed robbery. He already had 17 prior arrests. She lost her gums and teeth on one side but survived. It's a non-homicide only because this woman was lucky, not because he wasn't trying to kill her.

So what do we do with a kid like this, throw him in with other juveniles where he can potentially kill them?

By the way if you like him so much you can be his penpal -

http://www.inmate.com/inmates/ianmanuel.htm

the blame for the overwhelming majority of these cases rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents.

one has to wonder if anti americans such as some on this board would pay children to commit such crimes. or better yet to scoop up the criminal minded from their country and send them over here. do you believe an anti american is capable of that? hmmmm?

you people should try reading the report the article was taken from before passing judgement.

from the report:
Ian Manuel was sentenced to die in prison for a non-homicide that occurred when he was 13."

I like the way they put that, "non-homicide". I found some information on this kid, he was put in prison for shooting a woman in the mouth during an armed robbery. He already had 17 prior arrests. She lost her gums and teeth on one side but survived. It's a non-homicide only because this woman was lucky, not because he wasn't trying to kill her.

So what do we do with a kid like this, throw him in with other juveniles where he can potentially kill them?
By the way if you like him so much you can be his penpal -

http://www.inmate.com/inmates/ianmanuel.htm

the blame for the overwhelming majority of these cases rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents.

one has to wonder if anti americans such as some on this board would pay children to commit such crimes. or better yet to scoop up the criminal minded from their country and send them over here. do you believe an anti american is capable of that? hmmmm?
No, he deserves LWOP. To my way of thinking offenders like this get off far too easy. We are not putting too many children in prison. I just don't think we are putting the deserving children in prison.

2387? I'm surprised it's that low. I've known quite a few cold-hearted killing kids in my time.

- N

It would be interesting to see a breakdown on the ages of these juvenile convicts. The excerpt makes a lot of hay about how young children can theoretically be sentenced to life, but it's important to remember that "juvenile" includes everyone under the age of 18.

I'm guessing that they're highly concentrated in the upper portion of that age range.

This discussion ought not be about whether kids who offend are put in prison at all. Clearly, if you commit a serious crime, you deserve some kind of penalty.

The point I was trying to raise was whether handing down life sentences without parole to sometimes very young children (e.g. young teenagers) is appropriate. I mean: no chance for parole ever? Aren't children generally considered not to always recognise the implications of their actions in the same way that adults are expected to? Essentially, giving kids life without parole is treating them as adults, even though they are not.

And the other point I wished to examine was why the US hands out such sentences at a rate 300 times greater than the next country.

Another interesting aspect is the racial differences in sentences in the US.

What are they given life sentence for and at what age? I'm not familiar with the subject, give me more details.

Leopold99, I can understand that a kid at age 5 doesn't know guns kill people, but a 13 yr old kid is fully aware of what he's doing when he's shooting a woman in the mouth. He's seen it in movies and cartoons. When people get shot they bleed, they are in pain, and they often die.

...but a 13 yr old kid is fully aware of what he's doing when he's shooting a woman in the mouth.

From the article I quoted in the OP:

"Psychologically and neurologically, children cannot be expected to have achieved the same level of mental development as an adult, even when they become teenagers."

According to http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/12/usdom11835.htm , 16% of the crimes that resulted in life sentences for juveniles were committed when the offender was between the ages of 13 and 15. So, presumably, more than 80% of the crimes in question were committed by people who were either 16 or 17 years old. Still juveniles, but not what I'd consider "children." Typically the term "child" refers to somebody who hasn't reach puberty.

That site also notes that in 26 states, a sentence of life without parole is mandatory for anyone convicted of first degree murder, so that presumably explains why so many of these sentences include the "without parole" part.

quadraphonics:

Again, to extract information from the article I quoted:

44 states permit life sentences without parole for juveniles.

Of those, 13 allow sentencing of a child of any age
1 allows it for age 8 and up.
18 allow it for age 10 and up.
20 allow it for age 12 and up.
13 allow it for age 14 and up.

(I guess these aren't mutually-exclusive categories, and I admit I'm a little confused by the numbers.)

That site also notes that in 26 states, a sentence of life without parole is mandatory for anyone convicted of first degree murder

Yes. So, we get a related question:

Are mandatory sentences of life without parole a good or bad idea?

Aren't children generally considered not to always recognise the implications of their actions in the same way that adults are expected to?

Yeah, but that applies more to young children (like, less than 10 years old). The salient difference between kids in the age range in question (teenagers) and adults has to do with impulse control, which doesn't fully develop until well into your 20's. I.e., it's not that they don't understand the consequences of their actions, but that they're less able to resist the urge to act on impulses. This still bears on life without parole sentences in that part of the rationale for them is that the person in question can't realistically be reformed to the point where it's safe to have them out and about. Essentially, it's premature to make that assessment on someone whose impulse control is still developing (although this would also apply to people between the ages of 18 and 25 to some degree as well).

Are mandatory sentences of life without parole a good or bad idea?
Only if you've determined that rehabilitation is an impossible goal.

Again, to extract information from the article I quoted:

44 states permit life sentences without parole for juveniles.

Of those, 13 allow sentencing of a child of any age
1 allows it for age 8 and up.
18 allow it for age 10 and up.
20 allow it for age 12 and up.
13 allow it for age 14 and up.

(I guess these aren't mutually-exclusive categories, and I admit I'm a little confused by the numbers.)

Err.. yeah, I saw this stuff the first time around, but it's not what I'm interested in. These figures just tell us at what age the law would allow such a sentence, they don't tell us how old the kids actually getting the life sentences are. From my link above, it's clear that the vast majority of these sentences are applied to 16 and 17 year olds.


Yes. So, we get a related question:

Are mandatory sentences of life without parole a good or bad idea?

I think that mandatory sentences in general are a bad idea. Why take the discretion out of the hands of the judge (who is a highly trained, experienced specialist that knows the details of each case much more intimately than anyone) and put it into the hands of a politicized body like a legislature? What ends up happening is that the prison industry hires tons of lobbyists to push for ever-harsher sentencing laws, and the politicians are only too happy to play along, as it makes them look "tough on crime."

In the US, life terms have fallen disproportionately on non-white children, who are 10 times more likely than white children to be given life without parole, the report found.

This is an example of statistics used improperly in order to foster a particular point of view. Saying that more non-white children are given life sentences than white chldren means nothing unless the number of crimes calling for a life sentence are factored in. If white and non-white children commit the same or near the same number of such crimes and the number of non-whites given life sentences is ten times higher it indicates a problem with the criminal sentencing system. If non-white children commit ten times as many crimes calling for a life sentence than white children there is nothing wrong with the criminal sentencing system.

More information is needed before a conclusion can be drawn.

The point I was trying to raise was whether handing down life sentences without parole to sometimes very young children (e.g. young teenagers) is appropriate.
i know i'm gonna catch flak for this, but, it really boils down to how serious the situation is. not the crime itself but the overall situation in the country in question. when children kill children then a hard solution is in order.
if you are lucky then a few examples will suffice.
but, if the situation is really serious then you will need more than a few examples.
I mean: no chance for parole ever?
yes, as examples? most definately. but as a matter of course? standard procedure? no way. but here again you must look at the overall situation.
Aren't children generally considered not to always recognise the implications of their actions in the same way that adults are expected to?
the question here is "what exactly is a child?" a person under the age of 18 is legally a minor, but only because a line needs to be drawn somewhere.
the only thing we can do here is to say a person under a certain age is most definately a child. if parents do their jobs can we say an 8 year old that kills a cat doesn't know what he is doing? if he tortures a neighbors kid to death can we say he is innocent?
Essentially, giving kids life without parole is treating them as adults, even though they are not.
again, it boils down to what a child is.

And the other point I wished to examine was why the US hands out such sentences at a rate 300 times greater than the next country.
there can only be a few reasons why.
america is such a screwed up country.
or
the seeds have been planted and we have found ourselves in a vicious circle.

Another interesting aspect is the racial differences in sentences in the US.
this is, in all likelihood, a lack of good role models.

Prison can make criminals better or worse, depending on how its arranged.

I have no problem with locking inmates in their cells and going without food if they fail to comply with the labour and education programs. This should be the only type of punishment allowed by law.

For a rare few it will mean they will die of starvation.

If white and non-white children commit the same or near the same number of such crimes and the number of non-whites given life sentences is ten times higher it indicates a problem with the criminal sentencing system. If non-white children commit ten times as many crimes calling for a life sentence than white children there is nothing wrong with the criminal sentencing system.
Agreed...but there will always be those who are desperate to blame anyone or anything other than the criminals.

Prison can either make criminal worse or better, depending on how its arranged.

I have no problem with locking inmates in their cells and going without food if they fail to comply with the labour and education programs. This should be the only type of punishment allowed by law.

For a rare few it will mean they will die of starvation.

Instead we give them gyms and weight rooms so they can pump iron and become even stronger criminals.:shrug:

...So, life sentence without parole is only given for murder or attempted murder? I'm still not clear on this.

I know teens are not adults, but there are certain things that children learn from very early on. Don't put your hand on the stove, you'll get a serious burn. Don't jump from the window, you'll die. Don't run under a car, it'll hit you and you'll die. See, matter of life and death is something we learn as soon as we open our eyes, because it's very important for our safety. That's why I say that at 13 the boy knew that if he shoots a gun the person might die or be severely hurt. That's why the boy took a gun and not a knife or brass knuckles.

Kids who commit these kinds of crimes became an adult early in their life, having to take care of themselves, hence the whole reason for their crimes.

- N

* LA TIMES (Pravda West) ==> check
* "The US is the worst in the world in [xyz]" ==> check
* "... only followed by Israel ..." ==> checkity check.

conclusion: add a huge chunk of salt to that article.

now, re: US having the most minors in jail for life. guess which countries have the most minors on death row?

leopold99:

i know i'm gonna catch flak for this, but, it really boils down to how serious the situation is. not the crime itself but the overall situation in the country in question. when children kill children then a hard solution is in order.
if you are lucky then a few examples will suffice.

It seems strange to pick a few kids to make arbitary "examples" of. Shouldn't you punish all kids equally for the same crime?

Also, the point with kids who kill is that they may not realise the full implications of their actions. Strange as it may seem to you, many kids don't regard death as a permanent thing. They don't necessarily appreciate that once a person is dead they never come back. So, they don't always regard killing someone with the full seriousness that adults do. And if they can't appreciate the finality of death, then do they real deserve life without parole?

the question here is "what exactly is a child?" a person under the age of 18 is legally a minor, but only because a line needs to be drawn somewhere.
the only thing we can do here is to say a person under a certain age is most definately a child. if parents do their jobs can we say an 8 year old that kills a cat doesn't know what he is doing? if he tortures a neighbors kid to death can we say he is innocent?

Nobody is saying he is innocent. As I said before, the point I am asking people to consider is whether he deserves a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

You're right, though. It does boil down to what a child is.

So, that raises another question for me: At what age do Americans consider children to be adults? And is that age younger than for other nations?

Another interesting aspect is the racial differences in sentences in the US.

this is, in all likelihood, a lack of good role models.

For offenders, or judges and police?

* LA TIMES (Pravda West) ==> check
* "The US is the worst in the world in [xyz]" ==> check
* "... only followed by Israel ..." ==> checkity check.

conclusion: add a huge chunk of salt to that article.

You want to shoot the messenger rather than discussing the topic? Ok then. Whatever.

now, re: US having the most minors in jail for life. guess which countries have the most minors on death row?

You tell me.

enough is enough
signal the indonesians
we'll look the other way

/smug

for some real fun, we left wing loons can relinquish the nominal control we have on the fundies.

god bless the american children

You want to shoot the messenger rather than discussing the topic? Ok then. Whatever.

You tell me.
No need to shoot the messenger. The messenger need only be told to butt out and mind his own business.

No discussion required.

Only if you've determined that rehabilitation is an impossible goal.

How can one determine if an 8 or 15 year old cannot be rehabilitated? A child's mental development does not remain stagnant. By giving them a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole, you are effectively denying them the chance at rehabilitation. In many cases, these children are handed such sentences for a first offence.

"For many children, (life without parole) is an effective death sentence," said Michelle Leighton, chief author of the study, which found 51% of such children were first-time offenders.

Children who commit murder should be punished. But to give, say, a 13 year old a life sentence with no possibility of parole? Surely as a society we have not gotten to the point where we condemn a child to death because we simply can't be bothered to try to rehabilitate them.

It seems strange to pick a few kids to make arbitary "examples" of. Shouldn't you punish all kids equally for the same crime?
do cops give tickets to every speeder?
they write a few and move on.
Also, the point with kids who kill is that they may not realise the full implications of their actions.
taking the life of a human being isn't easy.
a person has to know what they are doing to kill someone.
and of course they might not know the full implications, there are some things i do and i don't realize the full implications.
Strange as it may seem to you, many kids don't regard death as a permanent thing.
They don't necessarily appreciate that once a person is dead they never come back. So, they don't always regard killing someone with the full seriousness that adults do.
okay, granted
And if they can't appreciate the finality of death, then do they real deserve life without parole?
no. and i have already stated as such.
i stated as an example yes, but as a matter of course, standard procedure, no.
So, that raises another question for me: At what age do Americans consider children to be adults?
women are physically capable of having children by at least 13 some by 11.
most women are emotionally capable for childbirth by 14.
so, for women at least, 14 would be considered as an adult (my opinion of course).
For offenders, or judges and police?
offenders. but that doesn't really answer the question though.
to be honest i haven't a clue as to why there is a discrepancy.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown on the ages of these juvenile convicts. The excerpt makes a lot of hay about how young children can theoretically be sentenced to life, but it's important to remember that "juvenile" includes everyone under the age of 18.

I'm guessing that they're highly concentrated in the upper portion of that age range.
Good point, and probably correct.

If I remember correctly, "life sentence" is 50 years; or at least there's a limit. So they do get "rehabilitated" and come back into society.

Are there statistics for success of rehabilitation?

P.S. WTF about not realizing "finality" of death? Is there anyone who, as a kid, thought that once a person dies he or she might come back?

the report and the official press release can be found here:
http://www.law.usfca.edu/home/CenterforLawandGlobalJustice/Juvenile%20LWOP.html

If I remember correctly, "life sentence" is 50 years; or at least there's a limit. So they do get "rehabilitated" and come back into society.

Are there statistics for success of rehabilitation?
There's not always a limit. Some people are sentenced to "life, without the possibility of parole". Regarding rehabilitation. If some kid goes into prison at 13 and gets out at 50, do you really think there's any hope at all he'll make it on the outside?

There's not always a limit. Some people are sentenced to "life, without the possibility of parole". Regarding rehabilitation. If some kid goes into prison at 13 and gets out at 50, do you really think there's any hope at all he'll make it on the outside?

Doesn't parole mean right to petition for release? Then, "life without parole" means 50 years without possibility of getting out earlier?

The reason I ask about statistics for success of rehabilitation is because rehabilitation hasn't had much success, as far as I remember. But I might not remember right.

How long do you think the sentence should be? Leopold's link leads to a picture of pretty children with cute eyes, but kids who pick up guns are not ordinary kids. People who get out of prison in general have few chances to make it on the outside. But then, the question is whether they want to "make it" in terms of social norms. Vast majority of them return to crime.

Do you want to live next to someone who attempted murder once during a robbery? I don't want to pay taxes to shelter, feed, and clothe a person like that. In my opinion, he's lucky with a life sentence. How do you like living next to a rapist? How about raising your kid next to a rehabilitated child molester?

You want to shoot the messenger rather than discussing the topic? Ok then. Whatever.



You tell me.

If the messanger is Iago, yes I do. But what I infact said "take with a big chunk of salt," not "shoot."

It would be much helpful for the discussion to post the full article or study.

But using only the info from the OP, if 51% of the "children" are first time offenders, that means they must have murdered someone with full intent (although maybe not fully understanding their actions.)

I'm reminded of the case in England when 2 11-year-olds (if I'm not mistaken) kidnapped a 6 year old boy from a shopping mall as his mom lost sight of him for a minute, brought him into the woods and murdered him. If they're into that kind of shiz when they're 11, what do you suppose they'll be into when they're 21?

There are 61 million of American kids under the age of 14 (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), July 2007 est.)

If only 2800 of them are in that situation, that makes it only 0.0046%. I'd say it's pretty damn good that the number is that low.

And when you say that the US is "the worst" on the list, are you sure you have reliable comparable data from other countries? The prime suspects at being worse (China, Iran, etc.) (a) don't have public statistics of this, and (b) are more likely to execute such kids.

Plus, the number is the biggest in the US because the population is so vast. In per-capita terms the ranking is probably not even in the top 5.

What do you think? Does the US jail children for life too often?The prison system doesn't rehabilitate - aka it doesn't work. The social system doesn’t provide hope - aka it doesn't work. Rather than work on these tough issues an easier option is to simply kill the children - so that's what's done.

Just wondering ..... Is the number of US kids arrested and jailed because they have more freedoms than kids in other nations? ...more freedom to do the things that get them arrested?

Baron Max

Actually it often seems in America I have less freedoms. I mean 18 years olds can drink beer legally here and it's fine to walk around topless at the beach, not to mention Canberra (AU Capitol) you can grow and smoke your own pot... ... no it's much more likely these kids are the product of a the American social system.

Doesn't parole mean right to petition for release? Then, "life without parole" means 50 years without possibility of getting out earlier?Not in most US states. Life without the possiblity of parole means you're there till you die.:
United States

The definition varies from one U.S. state to another. Life imprisonment often lasts until the prisoner dies, particularly in cases where life imprisonment is imposed as alternative to the death penalty. It is also usual that life terms are given in sentences that are intentionally longer than how long the prisoner is expected to live, e.g. a 200-year sentence for multiple counts of murder.

[edit] Determinate and Indeterminate Life Sentence

In contrast to that, there are also many states where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence". Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served. Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences, so a life sentence from a federal court will result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant, unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#United_States
[QUOTE]

It would be much helpful for the discussion to post the full article or study.

you should try to read the thread before saying something wasn't posted, thus:
the report and the official press release can be found here:
http://www.law.usfca.edu/home/CenterforLawandGlobalJustice/Juvenile%20LWOP.html

Mr. G:

No need to shoot the messenger. The messenger need only be told to butt out and mind his own business.

No discussion required.

Tell me: why do you come here?

For every topic that is too hard for you (which is most of them, let's face it), you just say nobody has a right to discuss it.

It's the coward's way out.

pretty sure austraian dept of child safety beats all the world
at children suffering
the abuse the govtment put kid thru here is astronomical
and the sexual crimes
we have a saying us normal class aussie families
if you wanna do kiddy tampering stuff work for ept of child safety (docs)
an american movie called a gentleman and dunno th other word

ahm his secretary in the movie says to him over dinner she needed to get his
attention to the growing problem w3ith dept of child safety

but eddie murphy says in it to his secretary
well give me the inn's and out''s of it all
she says ...pardon sir
eddie says ...well every one else does

were even that bad were plastered over movies
its disgusting not to mention docs will blatently lie to our faces and courts
and say ....were only trying to help the kid of australia

i found out they were sending kids to UK and other countries
they are also putting kids in homes with drought problems
needles to say they get enough money now they have the so called situation controlled
cause every child thats taken and placed in home
the carers have good bloody money

they went to extremes as to be involved in taking or seperating twins
one docs worker said its because she was interested in if one felt the same as th other
if one was put in pain she was a docs worker

another thing they have an abundance of money to do with what ever they desire
i found out they had very advanced intelligence to do with equipment
latest technology
they even stayed in the best motels travelling was also paid
i gave this info to the govtment and produced the witness and the evidence
they had used kids that were raised in govtment care telling them they knew who their real families were that they themselves were their family

the kids thougth this true as they told me but things to them didnt make sence they said
cause the docs would use the kids use them to burn motels business buildings
so forth they were allowed to have drugs some were given speed in office of dept of child safety

its fucked mate
took me years to uncover the bastards but i did it
and uncovered their dirty little kiddy thing they did with UK
and its all recorded
now docs dont have the access to all the money they want
they are limited my aim is now to get the laws changed
so docs dont have full control over kids and kids and adults with have rights
a right to live in australia
a right to learn education within australia
also docs have a law of their own they are protected by laws and cant be criminaly investigated cause of the loop holes they have aquired

its time they are taken to court by UN laws and questioned over their illegal doings and spy espionarge
they are the filth of this world and sum workers think they can make a change
it dont happen that way cause of what they are involved in once your working for them you are one of them

What do you think? Does the US jail children for life too often?

I don't think thats a problem. It's a symptom of something else. Children in the U.S. can gain access to freedoms and resources that they simply should not. In addition, children aren't getting enough relationship / values education. That's just a bad mix any way you look at it.

if a kid gets LWOP, then the circumstances must be extra ordinary. given the miniscule percentage (0.004%) of these cases it's reasonable to assume that all of those cases are extra ordinary.

re: American children somehow being unique with this bloodthirst, that is not the case. my ex's good friend was brutally murdered when she was a young girl by 4 15-16 yr olds in Kazakhstan. it can happen anywhere. it's just that the media won't report on it, and the culprits might not be caught - as the case was with that girl.