Should the US sentence child offenders to life without parole?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Should the US sentence child offenders to life without parole?


  • Total voters
    28
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
Should the US sentence child offenders to life without parole?

::
::
BBC

The US must stop giving young offenders life sentences without the chance of parole, human rights groups have said.

A report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said such prisoners - numbering at least 2,225 in the US - must have access to parole processes.

The report says no more than 12 young offenders are serving life without parole in the rest of the world, where the punishment is largely outlawed.


The rights groups spoke to some 375 inmates and used data from many states.

The 157-page report, entitled The Rest of their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, was compiled over two years.

It found that 42 US states have laws allowing for offenders under the age of 18 to be sentenced to jail for life with no possibility of parole.

'Robbed of redemption'

Virginia, Louisiana and Michigan were found to be the most aggressive in imposing such sentences.

The practice is outlawed in many countries and by international law, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The US and Somalia are the only two countries that have not ratified the treaty, the rights groups said.

Children too young to vote or buy cigarettes should also be considered too young to spend the rest of their lives behind bars, Human Rights Watch Senior Researcher Alison Parker said in a statement.

The executive director of Amnesty International in the US, William F Schulz, said the judicial system must be changed.

The courts, he warned, were in danger of becoming "assembly lines that mass produce mandatory life without parole sentences for children, that ignore their enormous potential for change and rob them of all hopes of redemption".

Racial profile

The report claims that an increasing number of children are receiving life without parole, even as the number of children convicted of serious crimes such as murder has fallen.

It found that the vast majority - 93% - of young offenders serving the sentence had been guilty of murder.

However, some 26% of youths sentenced to life without parole were guilty of "felony murder", where they were deemed accomplices to murder, even if they did not directly kill anyone.

The report cited the example of a 15-year-old prisoner, Peter A, who received the sentence because he had stolen a van used by two older accomplices who committed a double murder during a robbery.

Across the US, black youth were found to be 10 times more likely to receive life without parole than white youth.

In Pennsylvania, Hispanic youth were found to be ten times more likely to receive the sentence than their white contemporaries.

A spokesman for Mark Warner, the governor of Virginia, told the Associated Press news agency the punishment had widespread public support in the state.

Kevin Hall told the agency the governor believes young offenders should be able to receive life without parole "for crimes so heinous that prosecutors present that as an option".
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#5
If they have the ability to plot something and carry it out, then yes, because they know it's wrong and they know they can't get caught or they're fucked. Just because a 17 year old can't buy cigarettes, he/she should get a lighter sentence than an 18 year old who murdered somebody? No, I'm sorry, makes no sense. If a 13 year old buys or steals weapons, plans a schoolyard massacre, and carries the shit out, he shouldn't be allowed outside prison walls ever again. If Stanley Williams, who has redeemed himself at LEAST 9 times over, is denied every single appeal, then a kid who does the same shit should get the same punishment.

Kids these days are fuckin nuts, they have no guidance, and they know right from wrong. End of story. Lee Boyd Malvoe shouldn't serve a life sentence for being a sniper and killing innocent people? Wasn't he 17 when he committed those crimes? Those kids down south who were what, 12 and 9 or some shit, who pulled the fire alarm so they could have target practice on teachers and classmates shouldn't spend life in prison? That's fuckin nuts. They didn't get life, but they should have, they planned that shit, from pulling the alarm, to hiding in the woods so nobody would see who did it. I'm sorry, but if you want to be grown, and carry weapons, and use them on people, you should be ready to face a grown mans punishment.
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#6
ColdBlooded said:
If they aren't being aforded the same rights as others then they should not be punished the same.
What do you consider "rights"?? Driving is a privelage...drinking and smoking are privelages that could be outlawed at any given moment because they are hazardous to ones health. Drinking can be taken away from you if you get convicted of crimes having to do with controlled substances...it's not a "right". Voting is a privelage that you don't get if you aren't a citizen or if you're a convicted felon. Are those the "rights" that kids don't have that adults do? Kids in America have the same rights as everybody else does.

Kids, just like adults, have the right to remain silent, have the right to an attorney, have the right to free speech, have the right to live, have the right to believe what they want...adults have the right to divorce each other and kids have the right to be emancipated (divorce their parents). Wait, kids don't have the right to bear arms...but should they? As you look at past events, you'll probably say no...because most kids, especially these days, are quick to use those arms....
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#7
They don't have the same rights. Sorry you're wrong on that. Give up that notion now.

By what you've been saying you credit these children with a good deal of mental capacity to make complex decisions beyond just what is right and wrong. If you feel at their age they can comprehend and make/decide on such complex issues then why deny them the rights of adult citizens based on the reasoning that they lack the ability/mental capacity to make such complex decisions that would affect their lives?

Use the cigs, drinking, voting examples that you raised, though those are the obvious because most people are familure with them as being rights granted only by one reaching a certain age.

If a child has the ability/mental capacity to make the complex life decisions beyond just right and wrong that are involved with the crimes they commit (and the basis of what makes them "guilty" and "diserving" of such sentences) why would you deny their ability to make the same type of decisions when it comes to cigs, drinking, voting?

It is hypocritical to hold them up to one standard and then not apply the same standards to other areas of life.
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#9
ColdBlooded...listen to yourself. What inalienable rights do adults have that children don't? What makes a childs life worth more or less than an adult life? We're all human, and no life can be replaced. I'm sorry, but children DO in fact, have the ability to make rational decisions. They have proven that time and time again, when they plot massacres and carry them out. What about 13 and 14 year old kids who have no parents, and end up providing for themselves and their younger siblings by finding any source of income possible? You telling me there's a huge difference between 14, 15, 16, 17....and 18 when you're a legal adult? There's not really a legal difference between a child and an adoloscent...so anything below 18 is a child, legally speaking.

Shit, as an adult, if you knew the difference between right and wrong at the time you committed the crime, you will be convicted. So, if a 13 year old knows the difference, what makes them special?? If you kill somebody and you know it's wrong, and you know it's final, but you do it anyway...why should you get to live a normal life? The person the kid/adult kills doesn't get to live life at all. Kids who hide in bushes or car trunks and snipe people from a distance know EXACTLY what they're doing.

If you're old enough to pick up a gun, aim it at somebody and pull the trigger repeatedly, knowing exactly what you're doing, you're old enough to be punished how every other adult is punished.

If a kid finds a gun, brings it to school, and kills a classmate on accident...that's different, because it wasn't pre-meditated and in most cases, the child didn't mean to shoot the other child, they just don't know how to handle weapons...those kids shouldn't get life.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#10
If children DO in fact, have the ability to make rational decisions why do you deny them the rights of adults based on the fact that only once you reach a particular age you are rational enough to pursue your rights to the fullest? If a child can make complex rational decisions to the depth and understanding of the importance of life and death, right and wrong, good and evil, and the far reaching consequences that develop from committing a hanous crime then why are they not capable enough to weigh the decisions of which presidential candidate the would like to vote for?

I'm not telling you there is a huge difference between 14, 15, 16, 17....and 18 when you're a legal adult, you are. By saying they should be held accountable for their actions the way an adult is, while still denying them the rights given to an adult, ONLY because you make a corralation between one's age and one's ability to make rational decisions is the problem.

"If you're old enough to pick up a gun, aim it at somebody and pull the trigger repeatedly, knowing exactly what you're doing, you're old enough to be punished how every other adult is punished."

If you are going to hold people to that standard and punish them the way an adult is punished you should treat them as an adult all the time. There isn't a difference between an adult crime and a child crime. You either kill someone or you don't. But the difference is one either has the ability to understand the far reaching implications of their actions rationally or they don't. If you believe a "child" does have that ability then they also have the ability to understand the far reaching implications of their actions when they drink, smoke, gamble, or vote.

If you believe a child understands what it truly is to murder someone (especially to the point where you would give them life without parole) then how do you not believe that they understand what happens when they smoke?

do you get what i'm saying?
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#12
I do think they understand what happens when they smoke. As a person who started smoking at 13, I understood exactly what I was doing to myself. I thought about it every day, only thing is, I didn't really care. Even at 9, when I had my first gun pulled on me, I knew what it meant if that man pulled the trigger. At 11, somebody put a knife to my throat and said he was gonna slice it...I knew what that meant if he decided to follow through.

I'm not the government, I didn't make the legal drinking age 21, smoking and voting age 18, ya know? I think, as soon as people understand politics, they should be able to vote. If a kid can sit down and weigh the pros and cons of smoking, and decide to do it or not, well, he or she should be able to do what they decide. I'm not saying it's right, but they'll do it if they want to, right? If you tell a kid not to drink, that kid will do it anyway if he damn well pleases, with or without your knowledge. I happen to believe that understanding politics is a bit more difficult than understanding the consequences of committing violent crimes. You do this, you WILL go to jail. Very simple. Whereas stuff like politics is, well, just a totally different understanding. Convicted Felons can't vote just like kids can't, but they can be sentenced to life.
 
Sep 28, 2004
1,901
1
0
41
#13
(Godammit, I'm a fucking moron. When I read the poll, I was thinking it meant something else. I thought it was asking if "child offenders" as in child molesters or pedophiles should be sentenced to life with out parole. Dammit. Ignore my vote. I read the article AFTER I voted and realized what I did..)

No, I don't think a child should be tried the same way as an adult, or even sentenced as one. Different areas all together with different solutions. A child can hopefully be worked with, and given attention. Children don't really, fully understand right and wrong. They can commit ghastly shit, but they probably don't understand it fully. Is a child's bevahior indicative of what they may become later? I believe so.. Might as well try to help them if it's spotted early.
 
Mar 8, 2005
292
0
0
40
#14
depends on the age...15 or 16+ should be tried as adults, i don't agree on the US sentencing younger juveniles to life, cz children don't understand whats going on...parent or guardian should be punished.
 
Jul 21, 2004
465
0
0
#15
dangerous children have been a worry some subject....some people not wanting to deal with kids, people not caring two shits about them, people just being scarried little bitches towards them, scarried enuf those people "have the power" to lock them in a cage cement boxing ring with more sedestic dangerous minds based on the same calibar of callous dump ass people who put them there.

if you don't care to help them...then shut the fuck up and let the people who do think they have a chance to TAKE CARE OF THEM. why should it bother you?? you know kids are brought up in different homes, culture, environments, and all "mental" developments of human existence, but if you are not williing to see the real story outside the political arguement, then kids aren't your subject to vote on....if you believe in hope then you argueing the wrong way of making it right for these kids. it's all fine and dandy to fear children, but if you aren't aware of potential "dangerous" kids in your neighborhood and you don't do something about it....then the adults just fuck up on his/her watch. and we sure know there are some dumb ass adults out there...paying more attention to themselves then people around them.
 
Jun 27, 2003
2,457
10
0
37
#16
ColdBlooded said:
If children DO in fact, have the ability to make rational decisions why do you deny them the rights of adults based on the fact that only once you reach a particular age you are rational enough to pursue your rights to the fullest? If a child can make complex rational decisions to the depth and understanding of the importance of life and death, right and wrong, good and evil, and the far reaching consequences that develop from committing a hanous crime then why are they not capable enough to weigh the decisions of which presidential candidate the would like to vote for?

I'm not telling you there is a huge difference between 14, 15, 16, 17....and 18 when you're a legal adult, you are. By saying they should be held accountable for their actions the way an adult is, while still denying them the rights given to an adult, ONLY because you make a corralation between one's age and one's ability to make rational decisions is the problem.

"If you're old enough to pick up a gun, aim it at somebody and pull the trigger repeatedly, knowing exactly what you're doing, you're old enough to be punished how every other adult is punished."

If you are going to hold people to that standard and punish them the way an adult is punished you should treat them as an adult all the time. There isn't a difference between an adult crime and a child crime. You either kill someone or you don't. But the difference is one either has the ability to understand the far reaching implications of their actions rationally or they don't. If you believe a "child" does have that ability then they also have the ability to understand the far reaching implications of their actions when they drink, smoke, gamble, or vote.

If you believe a child understands what it truly is to murder someone (especially to the point where you would give them life without parole) then how do you not believe that they understand what happens when they smoke?

do you get what i'm saying?
I agree with that...

I was watchin the O'Reily factor a few days back (they say it's smart to know your enemy nah mean) but anyway, this guy was on there arguing with O'Reily as to why kids should not be given life without parole sentences. He brought up the same arguments Cold Blooded brings up, being that they are NOT viewed as adults in this country so why should they be tried as such? Also, he brought up the fact that 1/4 of children who were sentenced to life in prison in fact did NOTHING wrong. They were simply WITH somebody when a murder ocurred. Now that's fucked up.
 
Dec 18, 2002
3,928
5
0
38
#20
ColdBlooded said:
They don't have the same rights. Sorry you're wrong on that. Give up that notion now.

By what you've been saying you credit these children with a good deal of mental capacity to make complex decisions beyond just what is right and wrong. If you feel at their age they can comprehend and make/decide on such complex issues then why deny them the rights of adult citizens based on the reasoning that they lack the ability/mental capacity to make such complex decisions that would affect their lives?

Use the cigs, drinking, voting examples that you raised, though those are the obvious because most people are familure with them as being rights granted only by one reaching a certain age.

If a child has the ability/mental capacity to make the complex life decisions beyond just right and wrong that are involved with the crimes they commit (and the basis of what makes them "guilty" and "diserving" of such sentences) why would you deny their ability to make the same type of decisions when it comes to cigs, drinking, voting?

It is hypocritical to hold them up to one standard and then not apply the same standards to other areas of life.
The notion of people having rights and privelages in this nation is the root of your argument. In the U.S, living outside of a jail cell is a privelage, not a right. Unfortnately, the youth of this nation have the ability to make serious life choices at a very young age. It becomes someones right to drink/smoke/drive at a certain age. Before that, it is privelage.

They also have the privelage to murder at a very young age. Until they make it their right to murder, and do it. Therefore forfieting their right to stay out of jail for as long as this judicial system decides.