Supreme Court rules juvenile life without parole cruel and unusual

There is no "same" length of time for the young if you give no chance for parole. Their punishment will always be longer, and the changes to their lives and minds more significant.

Is the punishment really going to be that big of a difference if a 16/17 year old (minor) commits the same murder compared to a 19/20 year old (adult)?
 
Do you see how full our jails are with adult murderers compared to kid murderers? If your senario was the case those numbers would be reversed.

You're right that most adult murders are also committed in anger and impulse. So my position is that no one should be jailed for life without parole unless they're 21 or over. I realize this is an arbitrary decision, but agree with the following viewpoint based on my own experience with teens:

For many parents the term legal adult does not mean their children possess certain adult characteristics. For example, being an adult implies being able to make mature decisions, participate in civic matters, have self-control, and be responsible. Some 18-year-olds simply lack these characteristics and need further time to develop them. It concerns some parents that an 18-year-old can make life-altering decisions, like marrying early or joining the military, which may not have been made with significant forethought.adults in the eyes of the law.
 
So what should the punishment be for a 16 year old murderer who comes from a f'd up background?

Who can possibly know without being aware of all the facts regarding the case?

Look at women who suffer from battered wife syndrome. I think it was last year I read about a woman who shot her husband while he was sleeping in his pick-up. (New Brunswick, Canada?) Obviously, only a woman can use that defense. I have yet to see a guy use the battered husband defense. The point being every case is different.
 
Who can possibly know without being aware of all the facts regarding the case?

Look at women who suffer from battered wife syndrome. I think it was last year I read about a woman who shot her husband while he was sleeping in his pick-up. (New Brunswick, Canada?) Obviously, only a woman can use that defense. I have yet to see a guy use the battered husband defense. The point being every case is different.

That is a very different senario than a kid who's had a messed up childhood who goes and kills someone random. Having a messed up childhood is not going to get you off.
 
This is just me but I don't think all kids charged with murder should get mandatory life in prison without. Adults don't get it so I don't believe minors should get it either. To a family that lost a loved one murder is murder and their loved one is never coming back. But there's a reason courts distinguish between pre-meditated first degree murder and manslaughter.

Now when apple starts talking about interviewing parents and finding out if the murderer beat animals in terms of how the kid is sentenced I think it is ridiculous. Punishment should be based on the act.

So you don't agree with the battered wife syndrome defense?
(I posted this before I saw your post # 45.)
 
That is a very different senario than a kid who's had a messed up childhood who goes and kills someone random. Having a messed up childhood is not going to get you off.

Mitigating circumstances. Age. Home life. They all play a part.

Why can an adult be held responsible if a minor gets his gun because he didn't lock it up?
 
This is just me but I don't think all kids charged with murder should get mandatory life in prison without. Adults don't get it so I don't believe minors should get it either. To a family that lost a loved one murder is murder and their loved one is never coming back. But there's a reason courts distinguish between pre-meditated first degree murder and manslaughter.

Now when apple starts talking about interviewing parents and finding out if the murderer beat animals in terms of how the kid is sentenced I think it is ridiculous. Punishment should be based on the act.

The point is if an adult sees their child exhibiting strange behavior it should be incombent upon the adult to seek professional help. That's the point. Obviously you can't differentiate between an example/analogy and the topic.
 
You mean you went and made this decision, without checking into the past home life of the delivery person.
Here you went and deprived this person a portion of their income, without taking all the possibilities into consideration.

That was the responsibility of the newspaper. Nice try though.
 
The point is if an adult sees their child exhibiting strange behavior it should be incombent upon the adult to seek professional help. That's the point. Obviously you can't differentiate between an example/analogy and the topic.

Every kid displays strange behavior. It's called being a teenager. Are you suggesting every parent turn their kid over to the government for help?
 
An analogy of what? It's an analogy with kids who beat animals?

Studies have shown that kids who are cruel to animals tend to exhibit other anti-social behavior. If it is known ones child is cruel to animals and the parent does not seek professional help/counselling and the minor then commits a crime later on the parent should be held responsible for not seeking help for their child earlier.
 
The newspaper company hired him/her. It's all about taking responsibility. :)

You appear now to be trying to say that the company told him to deliver the paper to you that way.
How do you know the company didn't try their best and the person delivering the paper had social problems and problems with authority figures.

Or maybe you were just always late on your payments and a lousy tipper. :D
 
Back
Top