Full Version: LWOPP, Death penalty and juveniles
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_...kAEWCFNw9dH2ocA
DETROIT - It began as a feud only a child could invent — teenage chest-thumping over who had the right to sneak across a golf course after dark and scoop lost balls out of a pond. But by the time it ended in the pre-dawn blackness of a long-ago June morning, that juvenile bravado had exploded into a crime whose horror defied adult comprehension.
Buried inside the charred skeleton of a Saginaw home, three children lay dead. They perished at the hands of two local teens who hurled pop-bottle firebombs through the windows so one could settle a petty score.
For taking three innocent lives, a judge decided, Michael Lee Perry had to pay. Perry was 16 at the time of the fire, but for an adult crime he'd have to do adult time — and spend the rest of his life in prison, without any chance for parole.
In the recent debate over the blood transfusion debate- it was discussed about whether or not kids as young as 14 are competant to make life changing decisions.
Recent evidence suggests that they are actually QUITE bad at it, and function at would be a "diminished capacity" legally if the truth be known.
I have mixed feelings about this.
There is this case:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_...i_ufaHGY4JH2ocA
\
Not a good deal all around. the kid bludgeoned and stabbed a girl to death, hid her under his waterbed.
Got LWOPP. Since we are talking about letting this kid out now- everyone is making noises in this direction, it seems that LWOPP is not effective- because, eventually- someone is going to make moves, after 10-20-30 years to let these poeple out. LWOPP is a lie- they do get out of jail eventually. So, why not the death penalty again? These are NOT contested crimes, where guilt is the issue- the only issue, the age of the defendent.
Do killers, rapists, and general evil behavior that happen to be of an age less than say, 16, need to be incarcerated or killed to protect society, or even seek revenge ( I have no problem with state sanctioned revenge, personally) ?
Is this a good case for the death penalty- considering that LWOPP is not being held too, as promised?
Should we give leniency, due to the nature of the teen brain, which is clearly not developed until about 25, the same responsibility for hienous crimes, Lets NOT talk petty crime here- but hienous only- but should we give them another chance?
Does anyone deserve a second chance, when they have taken another life?
DETROIT - It began as a feud only a child could invent — teenage chest-thumping over who had the right to sneak across a golf course after dark and scoop lost balls out of a pond. But by the time it ended in the pre-dawn blackness of a long-ago June morning, that juvenile bravado had exploded into a crime whose horror defied adult comprehension.
Buried inside the charred skeleton of a Saginaw home, three children lay dead. They perished at the hands of two local teens who hurled pop-bottle firebombs through the windows so one could settle a petty score.
For taking three innocent lives, a judge decided, Michael Lee Perry had to pay. Perry was 16 at the time of the fire, but for an adult crime he'd have to do adult time — and spend the rest of his life in prison, without any chance for parole.
In the recent debate over the blood transfusion debate- it was discussed about whether or not kids as young as 14 are competant to make life changing decisions.
Recent evidence suggests that they are actually QUITE bad at it, and function at would be a "diminished capacity" legally if the truth be known.
I have mixed feelings about this.
There is this case:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_...i_ufaHGY4JH2ocA
\
Not a good deal all around. the kid bludgeoned and stabbed a girl to death, hid her under his waterbed.
Got LWOPP. Since we are talking about letting this kid out now- everyone is making noises in this direction, it seems that LWOPP is not effective- because, eventually- someone is going to make moves, after 10-20-30 years to let these poeple out. LWOPP is a lie- they do get out of jail eventually. So, why not the death penalty again? These are NOT contested crimes, where guilt is the issue- the only issue, the age of the defendent.
Do killers, rapists, and general evil behavior that happen to be of an age less than say, 16, need to be incarcerated or killed to protect society, or even seek revenge ( I have no problem with state sanctioned revenge, personally) ?
Is this a good case for the death penalty- considering that LWOPP is not being held too, as promised?
Should we give leniency, due to the nature of the teen brain, which is clearly not developed until about 25, the same responsibility for hienous crimes, Lets NOT talk petty crime here- but hienous only- but should we give them another chance?
Does anyone deserve a second chance, when they have taken another life?
Do killers, rapists, and general evil behavior that happen to be of an age less than say, 16, need to be incarcerated or killed to protect society, or even seek revenge ( I have no problem with state sanctioned revenge, personally) ?
I have a problem with mandatory sentencing, mainly for this very reason. I have no desire to let a kid like this only get imprisoned until they are an adult, or even 21. The certainly need to do some serious time. In the case of the boy killing the girl supposedly because she was screaming after he hit her with a baseball, if that is the motivation for the crime, I would say life or death is a bit extreme. I don't know if I can put a number on it, but he made a juvinile decision and resulted in an adult crime.
With that said, we must take the victim and her family into consideration. Nothing is going to bring the little girl back, however justice must be served. This is where my inner conflict shows up. This little girl only lived to be 8 years old. Someone took her life from her and her family. I can only imagine how the family would feel knowing that the killer that shattered their lives one day is walking the streets with them a free man.
When we look at the case from the boy's perspective, of course we want to have some sympathy for him. He was just a child. When you look at the case from the victim's perspective, it seems to be more compelling to let the killer rot in jail.
Is this a good case for the death penalty- considering that LWOPP is not being held too, as promised?
I might have missed the point that he was being released early. I saw that the prosecutor and the judge wished there was a way to not have to sentence him for life, but no where did I see that he was facing release. Did I miss it?
With that said, parole in general is, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems in the correction system, at least in Iowa. Too many times I see that someone was sentenced to 10 years, but get released after less than two. What is the point of sentencing someone to 10 years if they aren't going to serve that time. One problem with parole is that I know going into it that I won't be locked up for the entire sentence. I know that I will be out soon. This does not prevent crime. Criminals know that when they go to prison, they will not suffer, so the fact that they won't really be punished for their crime, they aren't deterred from commiting that crime. If people actually had to serve their entire sentence, they might think twice about breaking the law. I know prisons would be overcrowded for some time, but if actually having to serve time deters any amount of crime, as time goes on, fewer criminals will be going to prison, and the overcrowding issue will be reduced. Of course the judicial system needs to re-evaluate who needs to do time, and who will get enough punishment with community service and stiff fines, but that is a different thread all together.
Should we give leniency, due to the nature of the teen brain, which is clearly not developed until about 25, the same responsibility for hienous crimes, Lets NOT talk petty crime here- but hienous only- but should we give them another chance?
I would have to err on the side of caution here. Take your first case as an example. Who, above the age of 10, would not expect a raging fire to errupt after throwing the fire bombs into a home? I don't know of anyone that would argue that a 14 year old would not expect a fire to errupt after throwing a bottle of flammable fluid, that is on fire, into someone's home. It is also hard to find anyone that would not expect the serious risk of death to the occupants of that home. I don't see any reason to give leniency to the perpatrators of this type of crime. The justice system is in place to protect victims and society primarily, not the criminal.
In your second case, I would still err on the side of caution. How many 14 year olds don't lie or expand on the truth? I am not saying that the reason he gave for doing what he did was a lie, but could it be? I would look for any forensic evidence that supports the motivation given. I know I told my share of lies to get out of trouble as a teen, and I am sure most everyone else has too. This doesn't stop at juveniles, but to give them special leniency because they are juveniles when they commit hienous crimes.
Does anyone deserve a second chance, when they have taken another life?
I have to say no to this. The judicial system is in place to protect society and victims, not criminals. There are limits placed on the judicial system to protect criminals, but the intent of the system is to punish those that committed the crime and to protect the victims.
I would like to point out that even though they are juveniles, doesn't mean that they will grow up and not continue their criminal ways. Jeffery Dahmer, according to a case study I read once, first started his life of destruction with a chemistry set his father gave him as a child. He would melt the flesh off of the bones of road kill. He then went on to kill animals in order to do the same. One day as a teenager, he picked up a hitch hiker. Dahmer ended up killing the man and burying the victim under his grandmother's house. I think most everyone knows the rest of the Dahmer story. If he had gotten caught after his first killing, would we be in a better place as a society today if we were lenient on him? He would have more than likely gotten out of prison and continued killing.
I have a problem with mandatory sentencing, mainly for this very reason. I have no desire to let a kid like this only get imprisoned until they are an adult, or even 21. The certainly need to do some serious time. In the case of the boy killing the girl supposedly because she was screaming after he hit her with a baseball, if that is the motivation for the crime, I would say life or death is a bit extreme. I don't know if I can put a number on it, but he made a juvinile decision and resulted in an adult crime.
With that said, we must take the victim and her family into consideration. Nothing is going to bring the little girl back, however justice must be served. This is where my inner conflict shows up. This little girl only lived to be 8 years old. Someone took her life from her and her family. I can only imagine how the family would feel knowing that the killer that shattered their lives one day is walking the streets with them a free man.
When we look at the case from the boy's perspective, of course we want to have some sympathy for him. He was just a child. When you look at the case from the victim's perspective, it seems to be more compelling to let the killer rot in jail.
Is this a good case for the death penalty- considering that LWOPP is not being held too, as promised?
I might have missed the point that he was being released early. I saw that the prosecutor and the judge wished there was a way to not have to sentence him for life, but no where did I see that he was facing release. Did I miss it?
With that said, parole in general is, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems in the correction system, at least in Iowa. Too many times I see that someone was sentenced to 10 years, but get released after less than two. What is the point of sentencing someone to 10 years if they aren't going to serve that time. One problem with parole is that I know going into it that I won't be locked up for the entire sentence. I know that I will be out soon. This does not prevent crime. Criminals know that when they go to prison, they will not suffer, so the fact that they won't really be punished for their crime, they aren't deterred from commiting that crime. If people actually had to serve their entire sentence, they might think twice about breaking the law. I know prisons would be overcrowded for some time, but if actually having to serve time deters any amount of crime, as time goes on, fewer criminals will be going to prison, and the overcrowding issue will be reduced. Of course the judicial system needs to re-evaluate who needs to do time, and who will get enough punishment with community service and stiff fines, but that is a different thread all together.
Should we give leniency, due to the nature of the teen brain, which is clearly not developed until about 25, the same responsibility for hienous crimes, Lets NOT talk petty crime here- but hienous only- but should we give them another chance?
I would have to err on the side of caution here. Take your first case as an example. Who, above the age of 10, would not expect a raging fire to errupt after throwing the fire bombs into a home? I don't know of anyone that would argue that a 14 year old would not expect a fire to errupt after throwing a bottle of flammable fluid, that is on fire, into someone's home. It is also hard to find anyone that would not expect the serious risk of death to the occupants of that home. I don't see any reason to give leniency to the perpatrators of this type of crime. The justice system is in place to protect victims and society primarily, not the criminal.
In your second case, I would still err on the side of caution. How many 14 year olds don't lie or expand on the truth? I am not saying that the reason he gave for doing what he did was a lie, but could it be? I would look for any forensic evidence that supports the motivation given. I know I told my share of lies to get out of trouble as a teen, and I am sure most everyone else has too. This doesn't stop at juveniles, but to give them special leniency because they are juveniles when they commit hienous crimes.
Does anyone deserve a second chance, when they have taken another life?
I have to say no to this. The judicial system is in place to protect society and victims, not criminals. There are limits placed on the judicial system to protect criminals, but the intent of the system is to punish those that committed the crime and to protect the victims.
I would like to point out that even though they are juveniles, doesn't mean that they will grow up and not continue their criminal ways. Jeffery Dahmer, according to a case study I read once, first started his life of destruction with a chemistry set his father gave him as a child. He would melt the flesh off of the bones of road kill. He then went on to kill animals in order to do the same. One day as a teenager, he picked up a hitch hiker. Dahmer ended up killing the man and burying the victim under his grandmother's house. I think most everyone knows the rest of the Dahmer story. If he had gotten caught after his first killing, would we be in a better place as a society today if we were lenient on him? He would have more than likely gotten out of prison and continued killing.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 8 2007, 07:03 PM) 
I have mixed feelings about this.
I have mixed thoughts on this, too.
As of now, people cannot be executed for crimes they committed before the age of 18. That was decided by a 5 to 4 U. S. Supreme Court case Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons, 2005
The Missouri Supreme Court had ruled that someone could not be put to death for a crime committed when they were a juvenile – under 18. The supreme court issued a writ of certiorari and affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision. If John Roberts and Samuel Alito had been on the court at the time, it might have been different, but since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and then Chief Justice William Rehnquist both dissented, the vote would probably not change.
I generally don't favor the death penalty for a number of reasons. I’ll list just two of them. First, when the state pursued capital cases they usually end up paying both the state's and the defendant’s legal fees. This includes the lengthy appeals process. It would be better use of resources to just lock them up. Second, through the Innocence Project, 209 wrongfully convicted inmates have been cleared by DNA evidence. If an innocent person is locked up they can be set free and possibly compensated. If they are dead, it's just a bit too late.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
Some argue that it has never been proved that an innocent person has been executed. However, true that might be, I think the odds suggest that it has happened. We generally don't dig up corpses and run DNA tests. That did happen in the case of Roger Keith Coleman. He was guilty as charged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman
Let’s get back to juveniles. Texas enacted a life-without-parole provision in 2005. Before that, one had to spend at least 40 years behind bars before even being "eligible" for parole. After Roper, Governor Rick Perry sentenced those convicted of capital murder before the age of 18 to life -meaning they must serve at least 40 years before release. The new life without parole provision cannot apply to them, but they will be reasonably old people if and when they are released.
Texas is a tough state. I don't see any of the people whose sentences were commuted because of Roper being released until they have served at least 40 years. Unless things change, I don't see those sentenced to life-without-parole getting out in Texas.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 8 2007, 09:03 PM)
Do killers, rapists, and general evil behavior that happen to be of an age less than say, 16, need to be incarcerated or killed to protect society, or even seek revenge ( I have no problem with state sanctioned revenge, personally) ?
Is this a good case for the death penalty- considering that LWOPP is not being held too, as promised?
Should we give leniency, due to the nature of the teen brain, which is clearly not developed until about 25, the same responsibility for hienous crimes, Lets NOT talk petty crime here- but hienous only- but should we give them another chance?
Does anyone deserve a second chance, when they have taken another life?
Is this a good case for the death penalty- considering that LWOPP is not being held too, as promised?
Should we give leniency, due to the nature of the teen brain, which is clearly not developed until about 25, the same responsibility for hienous crimes, Lets NOT talk petty crime here- but hienous only- but should we give them another chance?
Does anyone deserve a second chance, when they have taken another life?
I don't see the use in incredibly long prison sentences, especially life, in the case of heinous violent crimes. I don't believe that many of those people are fixable. You can sequester them in jail forever, at great expense, or you can keep them for 30-40 years (also at great expense) until they become docile - but they will never add anything to society, either way. So I am in favor of the death penalty. I think the state has the moral standing to do that in the name of protecting society, as long as the prosecution is fair and thorough. But I am greatly troubled by the many mistaken prosecutions overturned lately. What could be worse than executing an innocent person?
I also can't really see granting leniency, even for young murderers. Again, I just can't picture a productive life coming from anyone who knowingly commits murder at any age. Even if they truly regret their actions, they will be forever warped by them. So you weigh the questionable benefits of those damaged people roaming free against the inevitable recidivism that will occur in some (high) percentage of them, and it seems clear that society would be far better off just being rid of them forever. (Obviously, I believe that society's interests far outweigh those of the individual, once it has been established that the individual is guilty.)
And as long as we are on the subject, I don't agree with the notion that you shouldn't be able to execute the mentally incompetent for those same violent crimes. My reasoning is the same as for juveniles - the execution (or incarceration) is for the protection of society, not the punishment of the criminal. So their diminished ability to understand their actions doesn't really come into consideration.
That being said, I wouldn't be in favor of executing people until they turn 18, at least. I'm not without a heart.
Ah- here is a good one for this debate- the 15 year old serial killer known as Price-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071216/ap_on_...snLbalX0zJH2ocA
Then, one summer night in 1987, Craig Price crept across his neighbor's yard, broke into a little brown house on Inez Avenue and stabbed Rebecca Spencer 58 times. She was a 27-year-old mother of two. He was 13.
Two years passed before Price struck again.
Joan Heaton, 39, was butchered with the kitchen knives she had bought earlier that day. The bodies of her daughters, Jennifer 10, and Melissa 8, were found in pools of blood, pieces of knives broken off in their bones; Jennifer had been stabbed 62 times.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071216/ap_on_...snLbalX0zJH2ocA
Then, one summer night in 1987, Craig Price crept across his neighbor's yard, broke into a little brown house on Inez Avenue and stabbed Rebecca Spencer 58 times. She was a 27-year-old mother of two. He was 13.
Two years passed before Price struck again.
Joan Heaton, 39, was butchered with the kitchen knives she had bought earlier that day. The bodies of her daughters, Jennifer 10, and Melissa 8, were found in pools of blood, pieces of knives broken off in their bones; Jennifer had been stabbed 62 times.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.