How should age factor into jail sentences?

[KrazyGlue]

The Topic Overview

Currently, there are 109 juveniles serving out life sentences in jail without any possibility of parole. The issue of jail sentences for minors recently flared up as a 13 year old, Joe Sullivan, was sentenced to life in jail without parole for ****** a 72 year old woman. The court case was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court.


Sullivan's lawyer argued that "To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel". A lawyer in a similar case argued that "At that age we cannot make a determination about whether or not the adolescent will or will not reform". Several justices supported these notions. Others, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, disagreed. "One of the purposes is retribution, punishment for just perfectly horrible actions," he said. "And I don’t know why the value of retribution diminishes to the point of zero when it’s a person who’s, you know, 17 years, 9 months old."


The Debate

The issue here is how to address age (for juveniles) when determining jail sentences. I think it's pretty obvious that there can't be a flat cut-off rate. There needs to be considerations for how horrible the crime is as well as age. Just for clarification, a juvenile can not be given the death penalty, so that isn't part of the issue. What we have here is an 8th amendment debate as to whether denying parole to minors serving life sentences is "cruel and unusual punishment".


In my opinion, it shouldn't be possible for minors to be denied parole. I believe that, as a juvenile, there is a lot of maturing still to come, and the opportunity to get out shouldn't be completely denied to them. I'm perfectly with teenagers receiving a life sentence with parole possibility, because that at least allows them the opportunity to correct and improve themselves.


Another interesting facet of the issue could be how exact age should effect jail sentences. Should a homicide by a 10 year old be different than one committed by a 17 year old? Should there be a minimum age where you can't be tried as an adult at all?


Happy debating!

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I agree with your points.

To put a child in jail with no chance of them ever getting out is quite possibly the worst thing you could do in that situation.

The fact that you're putting them away without them ever being able to redeem themselves just doesn't make sense to me. I mean this recent kid was 13 years old. He's only been through ~15% of his life so far. To send him to prison for the rest of his life, that other 85% of it, is to deny him the right to redeem himself in the real world. The purpose of prison is not to destroy the lives of individuals, it's to help them pay their debt to society. I think that putting him away for 50% of his life, or a life sentence with parole, accomplishes that just fine.

 

[CRASHiC]

The supreme court is about to rule on this, and it appears like it will be determined that this is essentially a death penalty for minors, which is considered unconstitutional.

However, it is also likely that this will come down to a case by case basis as well. Meaning that each minor will be forced to appeal their case, leaving the poorer children in jail for life.

I am under the assumption that we do not provide lawyers for appeals to those who can't afford it, do we?

 

[KrazyGlue]

The supreme court is about to rule on this, and it appears like it will be determined that this is essentially a death penalty for minors, which is considered unconstitutional.

Yeah, they're pretty much the same; the only difference is that one of them takes longer.

However, it is also likely that this will come down to a case by case basis as well. Meaning that each minor will be forced to appeal their case, leaving the poorer children in jail for life.

I am under the assumption that we do not provide lawyers for appeals to those who can't afford it, do we?

I believe that people who can't afford lawyers can request that the state provide them with an attorney. Not sure about that though.

 

[Lord Viper]

☆ Usually a child that's around 13 would know the laws, of course this include the do's and don'ts. Meaning he/she should take full responsibility of his/her action while committing a crime. However there are some minors that has an unstable mentality, should they deserve to go to jail? ☆

 

[Aesir]

Unlike Justice Scalia most people are not obsessed with retribution. Reforming a person is more favorable to killing them.

☆ Usually a child that's around 13 would know the laws, of course this include the do's and don'ts. Meaning he/she should take full responsibility of his/her action while committing a crime.

A 13 year old that commits the types of crimes explained in the opening post are the bi-products of bad parenting and getting mixed up in the wrong crowd. The lines of Do's and Don't's becomes blurred at that point. The reason I make this point; A 13 year old is still a developing human being. We shouldn't be ending their life because they were given a bad hand at it. If that's the way we're going to treat these kids then we might as well just execute them.

 

[KrazyGlue]

☆ Usually a child that's around 13 would know the laws, of course this include the do's and don'ts. Meaning he/she should take full responsibility of his/her action while committing a crime. However there are some minors that has an unstable mentality, should they deserve to go to jail? ☆

They obviously know at age 13 that **** is a crime, but as Aesir and I have stated, a child this age is still developing/maturing, and may not have had such poor judgment at an older age. Heck, a 5 year old would know that murdering someone is a crime, so should we lock them up till they die?

 

[Lord Viper]

☆ I can agree to both post. To add, someone young wouldn't put much of a threat to someone older. But if a child were to not learn from their past mistakes of their crime later in the future, the consequences should be known to them from repeating the same crime. ☆

 

[Pr0phetic]

I'd say that age should factor majorly into jail sentences. Hell, who knows what things go on at home: family problems, lack of knowledge, etc etc

However, past 16, when your high school (permitting you received as much education), upper mild to severe crimes should be less tolerable.

At that age we cannot make a determination about whether or not the adolescent will or will not reform...

 

[.Marik]

There are already several guidelines currently followed for sentencing adolescent criminals.

In Canada, not sure about Europe or the United States, but you can be tried for an adult over the age of 14 if you commit a serious felony, such as aggravated sexual assault or murder.

If you're over the age of 16, you can still be tried as an adult for misdemeanors.

Now, apart from the legal perspective of things, most children who commit these crimes lack stable and supportive environments, and therefore should not be judged as "corrupted" because they were simply never given a chance, or rather, a suitable amount of chances deemed appropriate.

Of course, for serious crimes, a lack of a stable environment shouldn't be an excuse. Not -everyone- that suffers domestic violence grows up to be a serial killer or rapist, it's also a matter of personal morales and behavioural traits.

Simply put, unless otherwise ruled by judge in a court of law, people age 14 and up should be held liable for their responsibilities; and tried as adults.

For lesser crimes, I don't see the point. Children make mistakes, and they are supposed to learn from them.

 

[KrazyGlue]

There are already several guidelines currently followed for sentencing adolescent criminals.

In Canada, not sure about Europe or the United States, but you can be tried for an adult over the age of 14 if you commit a serious felony, such as aggravated sexual assault or murder.

If you're over the age of 16, you can still be tried as an adult for misdemeanors.

I was generally speaking about the US in terms of law; that's why I referenced the supreme court. Interesting that Canada has set a strict age cutoff though.

Simply put, unless otherwise ruled by judge in a court of law, people age 14 and up should be held liable for their responsibilities; and tried as adults.

The problem is, 14 years of age is a rather arbitrary cutoff. A 14 year old, like a 13 year old or any other minor, is still dependent on the care of a legal guardian and is an adolescent who has not fully developed their judgment yet.

The reason why 18 years of age is a fair cutoff is that when a person reaches that age, they assume many legal responsibilities. They are considered someone who has developed sufficient reasoning to have more rights and responsibilities than a minor.

Accordingly, the legal guardian (an adult, obviously) of a minor (i.e. a 14 year old) has to assume some responsibility for the child's actions. It should not be possible to remove a child from society with no chance of coming back because the legal guardian is partially to blame. The child needs to be given a chance to mature and, in the future, reflect on the issue. A 14 year old has not completed their education nor have they fully developed, and they need to be given the chance to do so.

 

[.Marik]

The reason why 18 years of age is a fair cutoff is that when a person reaches that age, they assume many legal responsibilities. They are considered someone who has developed sufficient reasoning to have more rights and responsibilities than a minor.

Accordingly, the legal guardian (an adult, obviously) of a minor (i.e. a 14 year old) has to assume some responsibility for the child's actions. It should not be possible to remove a child from society with no chance of coming back because the legal guardian is partially to blame. The child needs to be given a chance to mature and, in the future, reflect on the issue. A 14 year old has not completed their education nor have they fully developed, and they need to be given the chance to do so.

Very good argument you have provided.

However, I'm not talking about the child being incarcerated indefinitely, but they should be considered liable if they commit a serious crime.

Unless they suffer from mental disorders, where they'd most likely be not held accountable due to reasons of clinical insanity.

I also believe in the second part of your explanation, which I had already stated.

Now, apart from the legal perspective of things, most children who commit these crimes lack stable and supportive environments, and therefore should not be judged as "corrupted" because they were simply never given a chance, or rather, a suitable amount of chances deemed appropriate.

If a child has been severely abused leading up to violent behaviour, I'm sure the Supreme Court will recognize that and take it into consideration.

Children do need to develop, and fix their mistakes, hence why it's a very difficult situation.

However, children are fully capable of being malicious serial killers. Mary Bell? Ever heard of her? She was locked up for a while within a mental institution, her crimes and lack of any emotion regarding the killings were just too much of a safety risk. She was 11 at the time of her killing spree.

I'd say it's up to the Court and legal proceedings to weight the case and its collaborated evidence when ultimately deciding a sentence for a minor.

14 and up it's -possible- for the child to be persecuted as an adult, but this usually doesn't happen.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, I heard of Mary Bell. Creepy stuff. Anywyas, she very well could have been:

a) Insane
b) From an abusive home which led her to believe it was excusable to hurt people
c) Trying to imitate something she saw in a movie/tv show
d) Trying to get attention

Now does that mean its ok? No. Sure, make her serve time and go to correctional programs and whatnot, but at least give her a chance to get out. Hey, if she's 21 and still acting the same way, don't let her out. But at age 11 she had to be given the chance of getting out.

Anyway, I agree with you that 14 year olds should be held responsible for crimes. Hell, a five year old should be subject to some form of discipline if they murder someone. The only sentences I am opposed to for minors are the death penalty (already illegal) and life in prison with no possibility of parole. But from what you've said I think we're in agreement.


I think you bring up an interesting point with your distinction between different ages of minors. Obviously a five year old who commits murder should be less liable than a 12 year old, who in turn should be less liable than a 17 year old. There might be a age cutoff for who can go to jail, I'm not sure. If there is, I believe that it says that children 7 years old or younger cannot go to jail. If there isn't such a law, I believe there should be one in place. Other than that, I think it would be best to leave it up to the courts to factor in things such as age, circumstance, mental stability, background, etc.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Hey guys, sorry for the bump, but something very relevant to this topic just happened.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court said yesterday that except for in the case of murder, a sentence of life without parole for minors violates the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Of the court’s 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that juveniles should be treated differently than adults and that the justifications for such harsh sentences, such as deterrence, don’t hold true for those under the age of 18. While he acknowledged that a life sentence is less severe than a death sentence, which was banned for minors in a 2005 ruling, he noted a very fundamental similarity: both deprive a young convict “the most basic liberties without giving hope.”

“A state need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Full story: http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/05/18/life-without-parole-cruel-and-unusual-to-minors/

So basically, no life without parole for minors EXCEPT in the case of murder.

It's kind of neat that we were just discussing this same issue roughly 6 and a half months ago.

 

[Sucumbio]

Good decision for the Court to make, it's obvious that kids being tried as adults is unusual, especially considering that many laws require the distinction and apply specifically to only minors.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Good decision for the Court to make, it's obvious that kids being tried as adults is unusual, especially considering that many laws require the distinction and apply specifically to only minors.

Well, at some age kids have to be tried as adults, in Australia, it's 14. I'm not sure on sentencing though, I think that's different. Of course, if a kid ends up in jail, it's often the case that he'll end up in jail again, so we should only use jail as a last resort for kids.

A life sentence for children, that's nasty, especially a 13 year old... The guy should have at least some hope of being let out, and reforming.

 

[Sucumbio]

14? Yeesh, that seems harsh. I do understand the general logic, though. If a "child" is able to commit an "adult" crime then they should stand justice as such, its just that I feel as if ... well that kids who even commit premeditated murder for instance, aren't adults, so they may not be as cognizant of the total ramifications of what they're doing. It's as if we're expecting kids to be as rational and informed as adults in matters of Law, which seems unfair, considering as previously stated that we in fact have Laws that literally say kids are -not- rational or informed enough for certain things (like sexual intercourse, drinking, driving, etc...).

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah and it's interesting both Canada and Australia have that 14 year old cutoff. Bob Jane, do you happen to know why that particular age is the cutoff? I wonder if there's supposed to be something special about that age...

Anyway, I still stand by my position that any person under 18 years old should not be able to be placed in jail for life without parole for any crime. With the possible exception of VERY extreme circumstances.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Anyway, I still stand by my position that any person under 18 years old should not be able to be placed in jail for life without parole for any crime. With the possible exception of VERY extreme circumstances.

What are these "extreme circumstances?" Personally I feel like no one under 18, no matter what the crime, should be put away for life. In my eyes, anyone under 18 should be allowed to correct their mistakes and go back into the outside world at one point or another, depending on how they act while in prison.

 

[KrazyGlue]

If someone is 17 and 11 months old and does something equivalent to the holocaust, that would be an extreme circumstance. I don't think the 18 year old cutoff should be so strict that it doesn't allow for any room for judgment on the part of the judicial system. Such a concrete number seems arbitrary to some degree.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

If someone is 17 and 11 months old and does something equivalent to the holocaust, that would be an extreme circumstance.

I find it hard to believe that anyone under 17 years of age would be able to commit something like the holocaust.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Then consider a 17 year old doing something equivalent of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. That's certainly possible. I'm just saying that such a strict cutoff is too trivial/arbitrary.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Then what do you propose? Personally I agree that it shouldn't be based strictly on age, but there's really no way to base jail sentences off of "maturity," because there's no specific formula to test for maturity or something of that nature.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Right. I propose we give the jury some leniency to determine if the case is extreme (many deaths, very close to 18 years old) enough that such a sentence could be proposed. They also have to consider the circumstances under which the kid was living, or what made him/her do the crime.

 

[Sucumbio]

In point of fact juries have to contend with this all the time. Gangland violence often stems from 15-17 year old gang members involved in gang wars, shootouts, hits, and killing innocent people, many times children. In many of these cases the jury will find the party guilty, even if the state is seeking life in prison, and even if the defendants are "kids." It's not until more recently that a closer look has been taken to see just why it is that a middle-teens child is not only capable of murder, but seems to think they have no other choice, nor do they seem to express remorse. The examination is into the strict cause and effect relationships between gang members and their social and familial environments. The question still remains, however, if you meditate on killing, then kill, regardless of why you're doing it, should you be subject to the same penalty under the law even if you're not 18 yet? A gang member of say, 26 years of age, is he/she necessarily that much more mature in mind and experience than an 18 yo gang member? In terms of murdering, perhaps its the 18 yo who has the most experience. It's a tough call. But it's definitely a strong debate topic among legislators, whose wisdom spent years and years deciding that 21 was a "better" drinking age for instance.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah and it's interesting both Canada and Australia have that 14 year old cutoff. Bob Jane, do you happen to know why that particular age is the cutoff? I wonder if there's supposed to be something special about that age...

Anyway, I still stand by my position that any person under 18 years old should not be able to be placed in jail for life without parole for any crime. With the possible exception of VERY extreme circumstances.

Well, a large amount of Australian law comes from the UK, I'm imagining that that is the same in Canada, both being Commonwealth nations. Of course, I'm not sure why 14. Also, it should be noted that if you're 10-14, in Australia, you can still be tried, but in order for you to be proven guilty, you need to be proven to know that what you did was wrong.

And also, let the judge decide whether the case is extreme, juries, are fallible at best.

 

[Riddle]

Well, a large amount of Australian law comes from the UK, I'm imagining that that is the same in Canada, both being Commonwealth nations. Of course, I'm not sure why 14. Also, it should be noted that if you're 10-14, in Australia, you can still be tried, but in order for you to be proven guilty, you need to be proven to know that what you did was wrong.

And also, let the judge decide whether the case is extreme, juries, are fallible at best.

(emphasis mine)

And judges aren't? Anything like this that is subject to interpretation needs to be defined by law or there will be inconsistencies.

I think it would be a hard thing to set a specific cut-off point since then you open yourself to slippery slope. 18? Nah, they're still to fresh out of their old homes to have really found themselves. 19? What really distinguishes a 19 year old from an 18 year old. And so on and so forth. Similar ages are mostly indistinguishable. I think what really needs to be looked in to is some method to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze living conditions and mental capabilities and things of that nature to set a fair punishment for everyone.

 

[.Marik]

My opinion still matches the one I had in November 2009.

I'm not sure what else can be added to this discussion, since it's solely based on perspective.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

(emphasis mine)

And judges aren't? Anything like this that is subject to interpretation needs to be defined by law or there will be inconsistencies.

Well, juries don't spend entire lifetimes learning about law, and trying to be impartial and unbiased.

 

[BSP]

My opinion:

We should have a set age, like 18 for example, to serve as the defining line between being tried as an adult and tried as a juvenile. If you are under this age, you are automatically entitled to being tried as a juvenile. However, it should be the right of the judge, and/or other qualified law enforcers, to decide on whether or not the defendant deserves to be tried as an adult. This decision should be based on several factors, including the degreee of the crime, how far away the defendant is from 18, etc. Obviously, murder is an extreme crime, and is more serious than, say, an unarmed robbery. And of course, age is pretty important too: A 16 year old has a less developed mind than a seventeen year old, and a 15 year old less than a 16 year old. Once considering factors such as this, then the defendant can be judged whether or not they should be trialed as an adult. Why a judge? Judges spend entire life times studying and practicing law; they of all people would be the most qualified to make these decisions.

Just my opinion.