Today, at least 2,381 people in the US are serving life in prison without parole for crimes they committed when they were age 17 or younger. Most are in prison for taking another life. One such case is Michael Lee Perry. At age 16, Perry threw pop-bottle firebombs through a window of a house to settle a score in a game with his friend, killing three children. Now, he says, "I was wrong. I took people's lives who didn't even have a chance to grow up and experience life. But, I mean, I didn't even experience life myself. I'm not saying a child should go unpunished. ... (But) it's like I'm just abandoned, discarded, left for nothing." However, the question is, did these people suffer from a lapse in judgment as juveniles when they committed these crimes, and are they able to learn from their mistakes? Is putting them in prison for life too harsh of a punishment or can they be rehabilitated? Should we feel sorry for Perry, or was life in prison a fair punishment? (The judge had the option of releasing Perry from prison when he turned 21 or putting him in prison for life.) Should the punishment of life without parole be eliminated for all juvenile offenders? Many are hoping to reform the tough punishment law and believe these offenders should be given a second chance. They want to reconsider the life sentences that were dealt out to these people when they were juveniles.
19 comments:
I personally don't think that we should be putting people away for life if they committed a crime as a minor. I just feel like up to a certain point you shouldn't have to be completely responsible for your actions. Just because you made one mistake as a teenager, shouldn't mean you should have to spend the rest of your life in prison.
Yea, I think so too. Research says teenagers are still maturing mentally, so holding them accountable for a crime the rest of their lives seems a bit harsh. It might be better to send them to rehab, and then let them back into society when they're ready. I guess the bad part about this plan is deciding when they're actually ready. And maybe some can't be helped by rehab; it really depends on the person.
I am on the fence about this issue. Granted minors are legally, somewhat unresponsible for their actions, at 17 for instance i think it is safe to say you are pretty cognizant of your actions and can take responsibility for them. While it does seem crazy to ruin the rest of the minors life, they did commit a major crime and they need to be punished for it. It is a tough judgement call and i think it could easliy be argued that reform vs. life sentence could and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
I agree with you, Matt. How many times have we heard from out parents that "you wouldn't understand yet". If we can't understand the house politics, who's to say we would be able to understand all of our actions as a steadfast teenager? Even in the MSCBC article they claim that "sentencing juveniles to death is unconstitutional...". If it's unconstitutional, why is it place?
I strongly disagree with the concept that minors can be sentenced to life in prison- without parole . One flaw with the policy is, as Matt said, teenagers are still maturing mentally and can't be completely accountable for their actions, so sentencing them to life in prison for something they aren't completely accountable for is a bit harsh. And secondly, to not grant them parole is completely unreasonable. People can change and be rehabilitated, so you should at least make it possible for the person to be released if they do eventually become rehabilitated. And if you do grant parole, and they don't change what's the worst that could happen? You don't release them. So why not grant them parole? Also, if a criminal knows they can be granted parole, that gives them more incentive to want to change.
I feel juveniles should always be given a second chance to change their lives and the life sentences should be the last thing unless a really malicious crime occurs. I feel life in prison should only be considered with the help of a psychiatrist to see if the juvenile will commit a crime again. But otherwise, life in prison is too harsh for an immature kid to be punished with.
In most cases, giving life in prison to juveniles is ridiculous. Kids will be kids. Most of the time, passion overcomes reason when you are young, meaning that juveniles act before they think. When they get older, they become more mature and wiser, which allows them to make much better decisions. Ruining one child's life based on past deeds where the intention to harm or kill is ambiguous is wrong. They should be allowed a second chance, either on probation or close scrutiny, and let that decided whether or not they have changed.
I also disagree with locking minors up for life for a crime they committed when they were still mentally maturing. What's the point? To fill up jails with kids who made one mistake who will grow up to be absolutely unproductive citizens? I mean yes, some have committed heinous crimes. And they should be locked up. But in cases where the crime was committed by accident or without a malicious intent, I think they should be granted a second chance before life--so I agree with Kelsey on the case by case basis idea.
I feel that if you are tried as a minor then you shouldnt be punished for life but you should definetly get off when your 21 if you murdered someone. But if you are a minor who committed a big enough crime that you were tried as an adult for committing a crime that was that horrific i dont think you should be let off because at age 16 and 17 you should have enough common sense not to go out and do these type of things.
I definitely do not support putting minors behind bars for long durations for punishment. All people make mistakes and thats why we give minors second chances. Also the evidence is there in research as Matt said, teens are at the height of maturing and change, which can lead to actions they may not be accountable for as a result. But for some serious cases such as a double homicide I would consider intensive care to try and turn there lives around.
I agree with Garrick Li on the matter that juveniles should be given a second chance. I'm sure many of us have done some stupid act and would be devastated to have to spend the rest of our life in jail because of it.
I don't think that juveniles should receive life without parole because research shows that the brain is still not fully developed at this age. A juvenile may not fully understand the differences between right and wrong, and therefore shouldn't have to face the full extent of the law.
I think that if the crime is "bad enough" than the punishment has to fit the crime. Teenagers are perfectly capable of recognizing what they do. Of course, this would have to be looked at, just as many people said, on a case-by-case basis.
i just have a question for everyone. how would you feel if a 17 year old kid killed both your parents, but because he was a minor he should be given another chance. would you want that kid to not have to serve time just because he was a minor? and would you want him outside of jail were he could do it to someone else.
I feel that if minors committed a strong crime like murder, they should be put away for life. How are we going to let someone walk away from committing such a horribe crime? As matt said, teenagers are still maturing mentally and can't be completely accountable for their actions, however this seems more of an excuse for teenagers. So if I decide to kill someone, I can say that I'm still maturing and that I deserve a lighter punishement? Teenagers should be accountable for all their actions and deserve harsh punishments for their crimes.
I feel that as a teenager you certainly possess the state of mind to understand if your actions were wrong. I think a life sentence is acceptable if it fits the crime. Legally, I think the age where minors are considered in control of their actions is 14, so sixteen and seventeen year olds definitely know its wrong to murder someone. Therefore I don't think we should be lenient on minors unless it can be shown beyond a doubt that the minor didn't have the capacity to understand what the were doing.
I feel that as a teenager you certainly possess the state of mind to understand if your actions were wrong. I think a life sentence is acceptable if it fits the crime. Legally, I think the age where minors are considered in control of their actions is 14, so sixteen and seventeen year olds definitely know its wrong to murder someone. Therefore I don't think we should be lenient on minors unless it can be shown beyond a doubt that the minor didn't have the capacity to understand what the were doing.
I agree that life without parole is a very harsh sentence for a crime committed as a minor, but I think the sentence should depend on the crime. I am confident that right now I am aware of the difference between good and bad decisions. I dont think that because someone is seventeen when they committed a murder, or a crime of that degree, that they should be let off the hook because they are a year younger than a legal adult. I do think that the sentence should depend on how bad the crime was. I think that age should be taken into account, but I dont think it should be used as an excuse for committing a crime.
Whoa, the courts should definitely NOT be lenient on these kids. The punishement should fit the crime, 100 percent. In saying that, these kids committed murder. Since it wasn't third degree murder (maliciously planned murder), the punishment should accordingly not be as harsh as it would for 3rd degree. But they still murdered three people. While there are some people who try to claim that these kids don't know what they're doing, they can't understand murder- in most cases that is utterly false. Can you remember how old you were when you realized what murder is and that it is wrong (do not count self-defense)? I bet you weren't older than 16, the age Michael Lee perry was. Kids start to understand these things at a very young age, and saying that they don't is an excuse for anyone not mentally disabled. Also, saying that once a child turns 18 or 21 or whatever they should get off- isn't that giving the message that kids should murder people as soon as possible so that they'll be excused for it later?
For those of you interested, I found another blog that has a really heated debate about this topic. I encourage all of you to check out at http://www.bertelsen.ca/journal/james-bulger-murder-debate.
Post a Comment