Court rules out some life sentences for juveniles

from JoeUser Forums

Hmmm, you might picture me looking around a little, blowing off a little dust and remembering this area as one of my favorite hangouts...  It has been a while, and there's a variety of reasons for my not writing much in this category (some of which is covered in articles on my blog), but that's a different topic and needn't take up much space here since I do have an issue that I'm inspired to say a few words about...

As I check the news headlines I see today that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided yet again that juveniles need special protections.  How nice of them.  Headline below is linked to original article.

Court rules out some life sentences for juveniles

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled that teenagers may not be locked up for life without chance of parole if they haven't killed anyone.

By a 5-4 vote Monday, the court says the Constitution requires that young people serving life sentences must at least be considered for release.

(originally from AP writer MARK SHERMAN, more at linked article)

So, as I said, yet again the U.S. Supremes are going out of their way to protect poor little innocent and/or immature juveniles that have participated in criminal activity that would land persons over the age of 21 in jail permanently, but because of the ages of the individuals will not land juveniles in permanent tax-payer funded housing (with bars and such).

Gee, thanks again you bunch of old liberal coots.  Bleh.  They did it before in doing away with capital punishment for juveniles, and now they're doing it in saying that juries and courts can't send habitual juvenile criminals to jail forever.  They must be given a chance to get out of jail, despite having commited the same kinds of crimes that persons that may be just a few years older would get life in prison without parole for.  Rather than letting the juries and judges decide if the juveniles understood their actions and the possible consequences of them, they've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand again to say that unless you've hit a specific age you can't face such punishment.  I again, as I did in the capital punishment decision, call B.S. on the decision and call the Justices that made this decision a bunch of idiots.

In a perfect world, Karma would strike and one of these justices would have to deal with seeing a loved one hurt in a manner that would have resulted in capital punishment for whomever commited the crimes.  Sort of a Peter Parker with his Uncle Ben "with great power comes great responsibility" deal.  No, I'm not saying this should happen, and no I'm not wishing ill upon anyone else, but I am trying to point out that the decisions that these Justices have handed down are giving free passes to criminals.  Under-aged criminals, but criminals none the less.  Violent criminals in most cases, otherwise they wouldn't have been facing capital punishment or life without parole.  People that wouldn't spend a second thinking about the harm they are causing others in society, but which the U.S. Supremes say we must make special exceptions for because of their age and supposed maturity level that must somehow be tied to that age.

Sorry, but I much prefer the old ways of letting the judges and juries (and experts that are brought in for the trials) decide whether or not someone should face punishment commensurate with the crimes they commited.  Drawing arbitrary lines gives free passes to people that don't deserve it while coming close to providing ammunition for arguments by older criminals that they too should get a free pass because otherwise they've been denied equal protection under the law.  (Don't think that we're headed towards that slippery slope?  How can you be certain?!)

I wish I could say this is a decision that we shouldn't expect when the next new justice is seated, but I expect she won't make things any better in this area and we'll all be left paying the price for the benevolence of these justices for years to come.

5,467 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think it is over 18 (not 21).  But I kind of agree with the ruling in that juveniles are still too young to realize life is forever.  For a non-lethal case, they should be given a second chance, after serving some time and making them realize that actions have consequences.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Make it hurt, but if they aren't dangerous to others, don't give them life. One caveat, if upon reaching an adult age they commit another crime, nail them hard. Some folks just can't be rehabilitated.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think it is over 18 (not 21). But I kind of agree with the ruling in that juveniles are still too young to realize life is forever. For a non-lethal case, they should be given a second chance, after serving some time and making them realize that actions have consequences.
End of quote

You are correct, it's over 18 (or should we say individuals under 18 years of age).

That doesn't change my position though.  If someone has commited crimes bad enough that they would be tossed in jail permanently if they were 18+ years old, and they fully understand the crimes they commited and the consequences thereof, then I strongly believe they belong in jail and the key can be tossed away permanently.  Let the judge or jury decide based on expert testimony rather than having that arbitrary line drawn by liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

if upon reaching an adult age they commit another crime, bail them hard. Some folks just can't be rehabilitated.
End of quote

Agreed.

 

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

 and they fully understand the crimes they commited and the consequences thereof
End of quote

Key words in that paragraph. How do you make the determination that they actually do fully understand the crime the committed and the consequences of it? Shove them in a room and have them taught why what they did was wrong before the trial just so you can thow them into the already overcrouded american prison system forever?

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Key words in that paragraph. How do you make the determination that they actually do fully understand the crime the committed and the consequences of it?
End of quote

Good point, but then how do  you know that a criminal's intent was for any crime?  There has to be a standard used by reasonable people (we can get into the debate how many reasonable people there are at another juncture) to determine, yes, they knew.  There will never be proof beyond any doubt, but that does not enter into a court room.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Good point, but then how do you know that a criminal's intent was for any crime? There has to be a standard used by reasonable people (we can get into the debate how many reasonable people there are at another juncture) to determine, yes, they knew. There will never be proof beyond any doubt, but that does not enter into a court room.
End of quote

... and the standard had been that a court (Judge and/or Jury) would hear evidence presented by experts picked by both sides that would either support the idea that the juvenile understood the actions and consequences or didn't understand the actions and consequences because they were too immature at the time the acts were commited.

I was perfectly happy with that process as it left protection in the system for those that didn't understand what they'd done while allowing the book to be thrown at those that knew exactly what they did.  Drawing arbitrary lines does nothing but give a bunch of people a free pass when they very well may have been completely aware of what they were doing and what consequences they should have faced.

Worse still, what the Supremes have done is put even more encouragement out there for adults to use minors to do their dirty work because the minors face lesser punishment.  If the adult is able to obscure the evidence enough to avoid a direct link that would prove involvement in a conspiracy they can avoid jeopardy while the minor also avoids jeopardy for their actions because of the fact that they were a minor.

Until my hypothetical comes to play with the wrong person at the wrong time, nothing is likely to change, but I see this new decision as a breaking of the system, not a fixing of it.  What we had was fine before and really should have helped provide an incentive for minors to behave because they very well could have been facing adult punishments for their actions.  Now they get a free pass so the need to behave is greatly reduced.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Worse still, what the Supremes have done is put even more encouragement out there for adults to use minors to do their dirty work because the minors face lesser punishment.
End of quote

I think you are exaggerating a bit.  The ruling does not remove penalties for crimes, nor does it address capital crimes.  So juveniles are still going to jail, and it could be for a very long time as well.  Getting out when you are 60 may not be life, but most of  your life is over.

Adults can use juveniles, but I do not think that will enter into it since clearly the crimes they were being sentenced to life without parole usually do not get life without parole even for adults.