US leads world in jailing children for life

Discussion in 'Politics' started by James R, Nov 22, 2007.

?

Does the US jail too many children for life?

  1. No. More juvenile offenders should be jailed for life.

    1 vote(s)
    5.6%
  2. No. The number is appropriate.

    5 vote(s)
    27.8%
  3. Yes.

    10 vote(s)
    55.6%
  4. No opinion.

    2 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    "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?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Are they better off outside prison?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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?
     
  8. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    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.
     
  9. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    2387? I'm surprised it's that low. I've known quite a few cold-hearted killing kids in my time.

    - N
     
  10. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    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.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    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.
     
  12. whitewolf asleep under the juniper bush Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    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.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    From the article I quoted in the OP:

     
  14. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    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.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    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.)

    Yes. So, we get a related question:

    Are mandatory sentences of life without parole a good or bad idea?
     
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    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).
     
  17. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Only if you've determined that rehabilitation is an impossible goal.
     
  18. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    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.

    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."
     
  19. Till Eulenspiegel Registered Member

    Messages:
    419
    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.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
    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.
    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?
    again, it boils down to what a child is.

    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.

    this is, in all likelihood, a lack of good role models.
     
  21. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2007
  22. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Agreed...but there will always be those who are desperate to blame anyone or anything other than the criminals.
     
  23. Till Eulenspiegel Registered Member

    Messages:
    419
    Instead we give them gyms and weight rooms so they can pump iron and become even stronger criminals.:shrug:
     

Share This Page