[ihasa]

This story was picked up on the Beeb this morning....

Amnesty International has called for the US to stop sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole.

More than 2,500 adults are in US jails for crimes committed as a child - under current rules they will never be freed.

In its new report, Amnesty says the practice is incompatible with the basic principles of juvenile justice.

The US and Somalia are the only two countries not to have ratified a UN convention that bans life in jail without parole for under-18 year olds.

BBC News - US must stop jailing minors for life, says Amnesty

To simply give up on a child, no matter how troubled he or she may be, is inexcusable for a country with as much access to wealth, opportunity, and promise as the United States. Such a punishment goes well beyond any punitive measure and is simply a resignation and declaration that as a society we just don’t care about some kids. If that is the case, and if that is the truth, then we deserve to have Somalia as our companion on the world’s stage.

U.S and Somalia: Partners in Juvenile Justice | Care2 Causes

[Wheatfield]

As someone who lives with what is probably the weakest youth justice system in the world, I see first hand how a system that works on the theory of rehabilitation rather than retribution works.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Quite often the underage offenders treat the entire thing as a joke, right from the time they commit the crime to the time they are in front of a judge, simply because they know full well that what they did was wrong, they don't care, and they know that there will be absolutely no consequences for what they did, other than the temporary inconvenience of waiting a few days for the system to spit them back out.
Our Young Offenders Act treats anyone under the age of 18 the same way. I think a no punishment/rehabilitation system might work on a 9 year old, but by the time that same kid has been vomited through the system a dozen times, and he is now a 17 year old violent offender, perhaps it's time to take things more seriously.
At some point, the justice system has a responsibility to society to keep people who are a threat off the street so that they can't hurt innocent people, and if the level of threat is high enough, or the likelihood to re offend is high enough, it doesn't matter how old the offender is, they need to be taken off the street and kept off the street.

[redrockcoulee]

Bill

You are incorrect in several points. Firstly for serious crimes there are actually three age groups, the oldest will be treated like adults unless their lawyer can convince the court to try as a juvenille, the second age group is for the crown to convince the court to try as an adult and the youngest will be as juvenilles regardless of circumstances. We did foster parenting of kids in the age group of 11 to 15 and had a little experience with them going through the system. How they act in public and in private about charges are two separate things and if you remember being in high school impressing your peers was very important. But from a statistical point of view, over the last 30 or 40 years (as reported on CBC program) in Ontario the numbers remain about the same, 80% only see the court system once, 10% become repeat offenders and 10% commit violent crimes (more violent than they used to be).

How long do we lock up the 80% of one timers to protect us from the 10% repeaters and how many of the 90% should be locked up because there are some violent offenders out there. Crime rates have been decreasing not increasing over the last 4 decades. "Your" favourite government benefits from people being afraid of criminials, especially young ones.

There are means in place to lock up for ever one class of criminals, the habitial offender. But it can only be done after they have committed crimes not before they do any. We did go through phoning the police every time one of our charges missed curfew and he was then taken to spend the night in jail. Eventually he ended up doing his time for his original offence. He was one who did not seem to understand consequences, but for what he did good as well as what he did wrong. Now he is an adult and the last I saw of him he had a full time job and was walking his dog that he rescued from an abusive situation. I do not think he was an exception but from what I understand , and remember, of the system that is how it works most of the time. He did not make the news for getting a job and looking after this dog but if he had become a criminal he would have. So we hear much more of the 10% than the 80%.

But us they do look at it like a joke, at least in public. That is part of what being a teen is in many ways. Locking them up for long periods of time and having them spend it only with others in the same situation in those years that peer pressure and peer influence are at their greatest may not be in the best interest of either them or socieity for the bulk of young offenders. Of course there are those who are dangerous but there are laws in place but some times not the resources to deal with them. But teens have as much right as adults to not be punished for what they might do in the future. From my experience the courts should be quicker to act on parole and probation violations but overall the young offenders act was working more than it was not.

And for the record the only time our home was robbed was by a youth who was never caught so it is not like I do not understand the other side a bit.

[Wheatfield]

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarifications. I only really get to see what happens in the living hell that we call North Central, and how the system seems impotent to do anything.
BTW, please don't call it "my government". I think Harper is one of the most dangerous Prime Ministers we have had, and quite honestly, I don't think they are on the right track with regards to crime and punishment (mostly with what they want to criminalize). However, I also think that at some point, for the good of the collective, that the system needs to look at individuals with high recidivism and escalation of actions with an eye to taking their freedom from them for a very long time to protect everyone else from their actions, and I don't think it should matter if that person is 14 or 24 or 34 or whatever.
I see the little gang bangers, and I see how little respect they have for both themselves and for others, and it bothers me greatly. I don't have any answers, there are people who are far more expert than I, but I do think I should have a right to be able to live without fear from them without having to keep a pack of Rottweilers in my house (I would anyway, mind you).

[redrockcoulee]

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarifications. I only really get to see what happens in the living hell that we call North Central, and how the system seems impotent to do anything.
BTW, please don't call it "my government". I think Harper is one of the most dangerous Prime Ministers we have had, and quite honestly, I don't think they are on the right track with regards to crime and punishment (mostly with what they want to criminalize). However, I also think that at some point, for the good of the collective, that the system needs to look at individuals with high recidivism and escalation of actions with an eye to taking their freedom from them for a very long time to protect everyone else from their actions, and I don't think it should matter if that person is 14 or 24 or 34 or whatever.
I see the little gang bangers, and I see how little respect they have for both themselves and for others, and it bothers me greatly. I don't have any answers, there are people who are far more expert than I, but I do think I should have a right to be able to live without fear from them without having to keep a pack of Rottweilers in my house (I would anyway, mind you).

The "your" government was because I already knew how much you like Harper.

What you do not like the fact that we have to build prisons to house criminals who commit the unreported crime or the minister in charge says he does not care about the statisitics he knows what he knows?

Formerly protected by a brace of Britany Spaniels, best watch dogs in the world. They would watch to see if a burgler got anywhere near the treat cupboard in great anticipation.

[boriscleto]

Formerly protected by a brace of Britany Spaniels, best watch dogs in the world. They would watch to see if a burgler got anywhere near the treat cupboard in great anticipation.

My grandfather had a Brittany that was once bitten on the nose by a pheasant. After that he held a grudge against all pheasants. If you shot one you had to get to the bird before the dog did or he would bite right through the breast.

[redrockcoulee]

My grandfather had a Brittany that was once bitten on the nose by a pheasant. After that he held a grudge against all pheasants. If you shot one you had to get to the bird before the dog did or he would bite right through the breast.

Thanks for that, I can see them doing it

I miss my two. The one on my avatar was great with our foster kids. These kids were big tough characters with their friends but little boys with the dogs. I think my girls (dogs) were some of the best therpy these guys got. It let them be children at least

[Parallax]

As someone who lives with what is probably the weakest youth justice system in the world, I see first hand how a system that works on the theory of rehabilitation rather than retribution works.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Quite often the underage offenders treat the entire thing as a joke, right from the time they commit the crime to the time they are in front of a judge, simply because they know full well that what they did was wrong, they don't care, and they know that there will be absolutely no consequences for what they did, other than the temporary inconvenience of waiting a few days for the system to spit them back out.
Our Young Offenders Act treats anyone under the age of 18 the same way. I think a no punishment/rehabilitation system might work on a 9 year old, but by the time that same kid has been vomited through the system a dozen times, and he is now a 17 year old violent offender, perhaps it's time to take things more seriously.
At some point, the justice system has a responsibility to society to keep people who are a threat off the street so that they can't hurt innocent people, and if the level of threat is high enough, or the likelihood to re offend is high enough, it doesn't matter how old the offender is, they need to be taken off the street and kept off the street.

Who are you, and what have you done with Bill?
Seriously, you are absolutely right.

It all comes down to one simple principal. If the risk associated with a behavior doesn't sufficiently outweigh the benefit (either real or perceived), then the behavior isn't going to change.

[magkelly]

The problem here is the definition of the word "child" in a legal sense. An 8 year old who commits a heinous crime just might be saved via therapy and might go on to lead a blameless life. Not likely, but it's possible. A 15 year old who commits the same crime probably will not. You have teenagers committing multiple murders. Should those teenagers just end up with a stay in juvenile hall, get what amounts to a legal slap on the wrist because they are just after all "kids?" I think not.

There's a big difference between a child and a teen, IMHO. In my mid to late teens I was certainly more capable of knowing right from wrong than I was at say 8. A teenager is well on his or her way to becoming an adult. There's a point where a stay in juvenile jail isn't enough depending upon the crime. A "kid" who murders his whole family, who kills in the course of a robbery, who rapes multiple victims, or something like that isn't just a lost child, IMHO. Yeah, they are damaged in some way and I do have sympathy but I also want to see someone like that locked up, preferably permanently, in an adult facility if necessary, whatever keeps them off the streets, and yes, I do believe that after a certain age even a death sentence should be used.

I don't actually like the death penalty thing but I think a 15 year old teen is often no less capable of warranting one than a 30 year old man and I don't think only being 15 should exempt a person who does that level of a crime from being executed just because they are only 15. At 15 you are more than wise enough to know that committing mass murder isn't the right thing to do. Jeffrey Dahmer was a teenager too once upon a time and a serial killer is a serial killer even if he is still in high school. I'd never suggest executing or putting a little kid in jail for life but a 17 year old kid who's killed his whole family like Ronald De Feo did? Oh yeah, I mean what ELSE are you going to do with a kid like that? Turn them loose with a wiped record just because they hit 18?

Yeah, right, I don't think so...

[MRRiley]

The problem here is the definition of the word "child" in a legal sense. An 8 year old who commits a heinous crime just might be saved via therapy and might go on to lead a blameless life. Not likely, but it's possible. A 15 year old who commits the same crime probably will not. You have teenagers committing multiple murders. Should those teenagers just end up with a stay in juvenile hall, get what amounts to a legal slap on the wrist because they are just after all "kids?" I think not.

There's a big difference between a child and a teen, IMHO. In my mid to late teens I was certainly more capable of knowing right from wrong than I was at say 8. A teenager is well on his or her way to becoming an adult. There's a point where a stay in juvenile jail isn't enough depending upon the crime. A "kid" who murders his whole family, who kills in the course of a robbery, who rapes multiple victims, or something like that isn't just a lost child, IMHO. Yeah, they are damaged in some way and I do have sympathy but I also want to see someone like that locked up, preferably permanently, in an adult facility if necessary, whatever keeps them off the streets, and yes, I do believe that after a certain age even a death sentence should be used.

I don't actually like the death penalty thing but I think a 15 year old teen is often no less capable of warranting one than a 30 year old man and I don't think only being 15 should exempt a person who does that level of a crime from being executed just because they are only 15. At 15 you are more than wise enough to know that committing mass murder isn't the right thing to do. Jeffrey Dahmer was a teenager too once upon a time and a serial killer is a serial killer even if he is still in high school. I'd never suggest executing or putting a little kid in jail for life but a 17 year old kid who's killed his whole family like Ronald De Feo did? Oh yeah, I mean what ELSE are you going to do with a kid like that? Turn them loose with a wiped record just because they hit 18?

Yeah, right, I don't think so...

Of course it's just a TV show, but one Law and Order - Special Victims Unit episode illustrated why some children should be tried as adults and others as children. In the episode "Juvenile" 2 boys are accused of raping and murdering a woman. The younger boy, age 12 is by far the smarter of the 2 and readily blames the older boy, age 14 who while not mentally handicapped is rather slow. During the course of the investigation the police and assistant DA realize that the younger boy was the instigator and that the older boy was pretty much a pawn. However, NY law prevents them from charging the 12 year old as an adult but allows the 14 year old to be tried as either at the discretion of the DA. Against objections by the assistant DA, the DA sends the older boy to adult criminal court where they use the younger boy's testimony to convict him, even though the younger boy all but admits on the witness stand that he was the actual killer. Unfortunately for the older boy, his mother turned down a plea agreement and her son was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in a adult prison while the younger boy, who planned and actually committed the rape and murder, went to Juvenile Detention for a max of 6 years (ie: till his 18th birthday).

What is missing in the equation is the "context" and "equity." In the show, the younger boy was almost evil incarnate while the older was a slow boy who basically sought the friendship and approval of the wrong person. Of the 2, the 12 year old was the more culpable but artificial legal prejudices allowed him to escape justice while throwing the whole library at the 14 year old, but less culpable boy.

For a better recap, see http://www.tv.com/shows/law-order-special-victims-unit/juvenile-203594/

Mike

[GeneV]

What is missing in the equation is the "context" and "equity." In the show, the younger boy was almost evil incarnate while the older was a slow boy who basically sought the friendship and approval of the wrong person. Of the 2, the 12 year old was the more culpable but artificial legal prejudices allowed him to escape justice while throwing the whole library at the 14 year old, but less culpable boy.

For a better recap, see Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Juvenile Episode Summary - TV.com

Mike

What was missing from the show's writers is prosecutorial discretion. No prosecutor is required to prosecute a 14 year old as an adult. I also suspect that a state court judge in real life would do something different than send a barely-competent 14 year old up for a life sentence when he killed a possible drug dealer, and a prosecutor who offered a lighter sentence under the reservations the character in this episode had would not press for the heavier sentence. However, it could happen.

[MRRiley]

Gene, In the show, the assistant DA said the older boy should be tried as a juvenile however the DA and Senior ADA forced him to be tried as an adult. The DA's discretion here suffered from political correctness and expediency in the face of the public's lust for vengeance. Basically, they couldn't get the younger boy so they had to get someone and the barely competent but chargeable 14 year old took it in the teeth.

I have no idea if that happens with any regularity in real life, but the point I wanted to make is that certain underage children should be charged as the monsters they are regardless of their age, while others who may meet the statutory requirement to be tried as adults deserve the consideration due their immaturity.

And finally to tie this back to the OP, I don't believe we have anything to explain to the rest of the world when it comes to juvenile justice. While it may seem cruel to lock minors up for life, sometimes it is appropriate and necessary to protect society. If anything we ere on the side of leniency all too often and monsters like the 12 year old in this L&O episode are unleashed on society just when they are at their physical peak.

Mike

[GeneV]

Mike, I saw the episode, but I thought it was a bit iffy that the NY DA would find more political support in putting away that 14 year old against the will of the trial attorney.

I don't know what we do with "bad seeds." Neither option seems terribly appealing.