Supreme Court rules life sentences for teens are wrong

cawacko said:
What would/should be an appropriate punishment for a teenager who murders someone?
Click to expand...

The chair...a rope. Maybe the firing squad ... or perhaps life in prison. Our community is dealing with a teenager charged with first degree murder ... being tried as an adult. We are finding it hard to find compassion for someone who took the life of a mother of two young (3rd & 4th grade) girls. My mind frame is probably not the best to discuss this right now though.
 
NOVA said:
Maybe they shouldn't be voting either.......:palm:

or fighting wars.....or getting married.....lmao
Click to expand...

point taken, but those ages are arbitrary and do not deny life and liberty - and the 25 year for brain development is an organic
maturation point
It's the mandatory sentence without a hope for review that is onerous. They can still get life, but subject to parole
 
leaningright said:
The chair...a rope. Maybe the firing squad ... or perhaps life in prison. Our community is dealing with a teenager charged with first degree murder ... being tried as an adult. We are finding it hard to find compassion for someone who took the life of a mother of two young (3rd & 4th grade) girls. My mind frame is probably not the best to discuss this right now though.
Click to expand...
I think it should be assessed by the parole board just like adult prison. There are some humans who can be reformed, there are others that are a nuisance to society and should not be released.
 
anatta said:
point taken, but those ages are arbitrary and do not deny life and liberty - and the 25 year for brain development is an organic
maturation point
It's the mandatory sentence without a hope for review that is onerous. They can still get life, but subject to parole
Click to expand...

The Judges in each case should have the ability to judge. Legislating mandatory sentencing ties their hands. Look at the Hammond case in Oregon. The Judge wanted to go a little easier on them and he couldn't.
The law said 5 years and that's what they had to get..
 
Leonthecat said:
The Judges in each case should have the ability to judge. Legislating mandatory sentencing ties their hands. Look at the Hammond case in Oregon. The Judge wanted to go a little easier on them and he couldn't.
The law said 5 years and that's what they had to get..
Click to expand...
I hate mandatory sentences
 
Eno L. Camino said:
Yeah, and the crime wasn't really a big deal, anyway...
Click to expand...

Whether it was or not, the judge had no choice because the sentence was mandated by legislators.
It an ironic case of congress Judging from the legislature, when we are used to hearing about judges legislating from the bench.
 
Well, it was 1963, so the legislature has been doing it for some time. Then again, making law is kind of the job of the legislature...
 
christiefan915 said:
The U.S. practice of sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without a possibility of parole violates international standards of justice, as well as treaties to which the U.S. is a party. Each state must ensure that its criminal punishments comply with the United States' international treaty obligations:

  • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the oversight Committee instructed the U.S. to: "ensure that no such child offender is sentenced to life without parole [and] adopt all appropriate measures to review the situation of persons already serving such sentences".
  • The United Nations Convention Against Torture; the oversight Committee warned the U.S. that juvenile life sentences without a possibility of parole could constitute "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" for youth.
  • The oversight body of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that juvenile life without a chance of parole is applied disproportionately to black minors, and the U.S. has done nothing to reduce what has become pervasive discrimination. The Committee recommended that the U.S. discontinue the use of this sentence against persons under the age of eighteen at the time the offense was committed, and review the situation of persons already serving such sentences.
The United Nations General Assembly has called upon governments to: "abolish by law, as soon as possible...life imprisonment without possibility of release for those below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense".

International standards of justice hold that a juvenile life imprisonment without a possibility of parole is not warranted under any circumstances because juvenile offenders lack the experience, education, intelligence and mental development of adults and must be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.[SUP][19][/SUP]
Click to expand...

Leftists are always more concerned with criminals than victims. The odds of someone that young committing a crime serious enough to getting a life sentence doing it again are way to high to subject them to more victims. There is something they are born without that isn't going to come later.

And the role of the Supreme Court is not to make law based on how they feel
 
kaz said:
Leftists are always more concerned with criminals than victims. The odds of someone that young committing a crime serious enough to getting a life sentence doing it again are way to high to subject them to more victims. There is something they are born without that isn't going to come later.

And the role of the Supreme Court is not to make law based on how they feel
Click to expand...

What a dumb comment. Every murderer doesn't get life without possibility of parole. And your comment about the young going on to commit more crime after the first because they were born without something is opinion. People, even children, have committed murder on impulse and regretted it immediately. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get prison time, even life, but it doesn't mean they were born to commit a second crime either.
 
christiefan915 said:
What a dumb comment. Every murderer doesn't get life without possibility of paroleither.
Click to expand...

Exactly you stupid piece of shit slut who makes your living getting your head banged on headboards.

Agreeing with my post is a great way to refute it. Not.
 
kaz said:
Exactly you stupid piece of shit slut who makes your living getting your head banged on headboards.

Agreeing with my post is a great way to refute it. Not.
Click to expand...

Boy when you get hateful and disgusting you sink straight to the bottom. Typical con piece of shit.

I'm not agreeing with your comment that juveniles are born with a defect that would make them kill again just because they killed once. If you have proof of that, cite it.
 
kaz said:
Exactly you stupid piece of shit slut who makes your living getting your head banged on headboards.

Agreeing with my post is a great way to refute it. Not.
Click to expand...

Kaz's lexicon; you stupid piece of shit slut who makes your living getting your head banged on headboards. = He needs to demean any woman smarter than him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top