Disgraceful: America's child prisoners

[Blue Velvet]

Michigan is one of 41 states in America that allows children under 18 to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. The US is among a tiny minority of countries (Somalia is another) that have refused to sign up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that expressly forbids the practice. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, only three other countries - Israel, South Africa and Tanzania - mete out the sentence and they have collectively just 12 prisoners serving it.

My emphasis... and by comparison: In the US, there are 2,270 prisoners who were sentenced as children to life without parole.


What is certain is that Blevins murdered the old woman, stabbing her several times and strangling her. Under police questioning he admitted it, saying he acted alone. But shortly before he went on trial he changed his evidence and put Dupure alongside him at the scene of the murder. In return, the prosecution agreed he should be given the lesser charge of second-degree murder and avoid lifelong incarceration. Under cross-examination, he conceded to the jury, "I never had intentions to pin it on her until I ran out of options."

Blevins got 20 to 50 years, with the hope of reducing his sentence through good behaviour. Dupure got life without parole, with no forensic evidence tying her to the crime and entirely on the strength of Blevins' testimony.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2140431,00.html

:(

[Applespider]

Just read the full article and it's truly horrific that children can be locked up without any hope - and denied access to education because they'd never get to use it. The Dupure case seems particularly extreme because of the lack of physical evidence but the 70 year old who has spent 54 years in prison is almost unbelievable.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished by being locked up but surely, after some years, if they show remorse, are not a danger to the public, they're more likely to atone for their crime and give something back to society on the outside rather than in a prison cell.

[SMM]

BV - Most associate the juveniles which receive life sentences, with those committing violent acts, usually homicides. But, in this country we have a federal statute called "three strikes and you are out". So, anyone guilty of 3 federal felonies can get automatic life without parole, just for three drug charges (for example). This also applies to minors.

Our country has lived virtually unsullied, untouched and opulently for so long, the citizens simply cannot deal with fear. Anything that appears threatening causes a knee-jerk reaction. The Office of Homeland Security and Patriot Act are two obvious examples. Our most conservative elements learned that America can be controlled by fear. That is why FOX news will spend days covering a missing teen; the message is clear - be afraid. More laws, tougher sentences, more prisons, drugs are behind all of it, etc.

There are bad people in the world, that cannot be denied. But, they constitute a very small percentage of society. But, we have many lawbreakers. Many of them were led down that path by environment, despair, a momentary lapse of judgement, etc. But the biggest cause nowadays is due to drugs. There is a very large percentage of Americans who want to, and do use various drugs. There is a small percentage of Americans who say, you cannot. Finally, there is another large group who side with the small group, because the small group is calling the shots.

This leads to a very large group of American who have been made criminals. Market economics makes the price to high for many to afford them, so they predate society. So, John and Alice get robbed on the way home from the movies, not because of the drug itself, but the fact that someone decided it should be illegal to have. Where did society benefit? But, I am getting off-subject...sorry.

[Brize]

I read that article this morning and it saddened me no end.

The discrepancy between Blevins' and Dupure's sentences is unfathomable.

[Ugg]

I read that article this morning and it saddened me no end.

The discrepancy between Blevins' and Dupure's sentences is unfathomable.

What's even more disgraceful is the blatant racism displayed by the nation's prosecutors, judges and juries.

[jsw]

Very chilling.

But, hey, at least I feel safe. I mean, 'cause all the bad people are locked up. Some people say that sending people to prison when they could have been rehabilitated instead is bad, but they're foolish. I mean, people who make mistakes should all just be sent away forever. Then the rest of us would be safe and life would be perfect.

[grafikat]

I've known violet 16 year olds that would just as likely kill you as walk on past. The true sociopath that resorts to rape and/or murder is someone that must be dealt with on an individual basis, or by emotional age. There are 18 year olds that really aren't ready for life, let alone life in prison, and 15 year olds that are just deadly...

[obeygiant]

This thread reminds me of Nathaniel Abraham, an 11 year old kid who shot and killed an 18 year old, not by accident. He was released from juvenile prison just recently and he gets a free college education.

PONTIAC, Mich. (Court TV) — When is a child too young to be charged with first-degree murder? At what point does society lose faith in a child and condemn him to life in prison?

No case illustrates these dilemmas more than that of 13-year-old Nathaniel Abraham. Abraham is on the trial for first-degree murder in the 1997 shooting death of 18-year-old Ronnie Lee Greene, Jr. Michigan prosecutors claim Abraham, only 11 at the time of the shooting, intended to kill Greene and should be prosecuted — and punished — as an adult. Abraham's past juvenile record, prosecutors argue, indicate that he is dangerous and society needs to be protected from him. One of the youngest murder defendants in the nation, Abraham has been charged under a controversial 1997 Michigan law that allows children under age 17 to be tried as adults for serious crimes.

Prosecutors say Abraham fits the description of the kind of child this law targets. At the time of his arrest for Greene's killing, the then-11-year-old Abraham had been suspected in 22 different crimes, ranging from burglary to assault with a metal pipe. But because of either lack of evidence or uncooperative witnesses, Abraham was never formally charged with the crimes. He was only arrested once — five weeks before Greene's shooting, police apprehended him for burglary.court tv (http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/abraham/101999_ctv.html)

detroit news (http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0507/26/A01-259357.htm)


But, hey, at least I feel safe. I mean, 'cause all the bad people are locked up. Some people say that sending people to prison when they could have been rehabilitated instead is bad, but they're foolish. I mean, people who make mistakes should all just be sent away forever. Then the rest of us would be safe and life would be perfect.

Assuming you're being sarcastic, would you really lump those who are truely a menace to society in your generalization?

[Desertrat]

My suggestion before making some blanket condemnation of "the system" is to ride with the cops for a while. See what sort of people these types of laws are intended to deal with.

Years back, I rode one night a week for some months with PD guys. We'd be driving along through an area, and there would be a steady stream of commentary about folks on the sidewalks or at houses about the numbers of arrests and the types of crimes. Truly eye-opening.

I always remember a Texas Ranger commenting one time, "I always had my gun out when I arrested that guy. I arrested him three times for murder, but he always got off because the witnesses either disappeared or changed their story." But, hey, the arrestee had always friendly toward me...

You catch a sociopathic murderer, age doesn't matter much. There's no such thing as remorse or rehabilitation.

'Rat

[Blue Velvet]

You catch a sociopathic murderer, age doesn't matter much. There's no such thing as remorse or rehabilitation.

What utter bilge.

[Applespider]

You catch a sociopathic murderer, age doesn't matter much. There's no such thing as remorse or rehabilitation.


A true sociopath, I'd agree with that statement since attempting to treat psychopaths tends to lead them to attempt to disguise their tendencies more - and since they lack empathy, remorse is going to be tough.

But not all murderers are inveterate sociopaths particularly children. Even those who have a string of juvenile offenses are likely to have em because because they're poorly educated and/or poorly parented. Those are the ones who can be rehabilitated and are likely to feel remorse (and not just for being caught) at a later date.

[skunk]

My suggestion before making some blanket condemnation of "the system" is to ride with the cops for a while. See what sort of people these types of laws are intended to deal with.It is a sign of the utter bankruptcy of "the system" if it cannot even attempt to deal with people humanely.

[IJ Reilly]

Define "child."

[skunk]

Define "child."Define "age of majority", "age at which credit agreements may be entered into", "age when you may enlist". Then take your pick.
Anyone under eighteen? Of course if you lower the voting age to 16, the definition of "child" would probably move with it.

[Blue Velvet]

Define "child."


Think the article does it pretty well.

All were under 18 when they committed the crimes. Six of them were 13, and 50 of them were 14 - an age at which US law forbids them to drive a car, give medical consent, vote, leave school, sign a contract, drink alcohol in a bar, serve on a jury, be drafted in the army, live away from home. Yet they were tried as adults in an adult court and given no possibility of a second chance.


Don't you find it duplicitous that USA won't ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.unicef.org/crc/) when your government is loudly touting the cause of human rights and freedom in support of foreign policy?

In the UK, in recent memory, we had the Jamie Bulger case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger), where a two year old was killed by two ten year old boys. They were also tried in an adult court, but were not sentenced to life without parole... the case makes interesting reading in the context of this discussion.

Anyway, this also makes interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#United_States_dissent

And who are the one of the loudest cheerleaders against? Our old friend, WorldNetDaily.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21590

[Applespider]

In the UK, in recent memory, we had the Jamie Bulger case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger), where a two year old was killed by two ten year old boys.

I remember the outcry when the boys were released as teenagers, the spurious chain emails that went round from Daily Mail readers which made up false details to make the crime even worse and claiming that they'd been given money to emigrate to Australia and they should have been locked up for life. Perhaps they should all move to Michigan...

[IJ Reilly]

Define "age of majority", "age at which credit agreements may be entered into", "age when you may enlist". Then take your pick.
Anyone under eighteen? Of course if you lower the voting age to 16, the definition of "child" would probably move with it.

Take your pick, quite right. It's an almost completely arbitrary distinction. If someone wants to argue that our entire penal system is totally screwed up, then they won't get much of a fight from me. But to pin much significance on a 17-year-old being tried as an adult for a premeditated murder -- that's looking in all the wrong places for the problems, IMO.

[skunk]

Take your pick, quite right. It's an almost completely arbitrary distinction. If someone wants to argue that our entire penal system is totally screwed up, then they won't get much of a fight from me. But to pin much significance on a 17-year-old being tried as an adult for a premeditated murder -- that's looking in all the wrong places for the problems, IMO.Pinning the significance on the trial is certainly looking in the wrong place. What I find distasteful and utterly wrong is the punishment, and the refusal of parole.

[Desertrat]

Boyoboy, "child" sure varies with the views of the user.

Yeah, there's the voting-age thing, age of majority and legal independence. Then there's some point where a person is considered old enough to be aware of consequences of decisions and actions, as a separation point between "child" and for want of a better term, "other"--old enough to know better, not yet legally an adult.

Which of course is part of the problem with the legal aspects. Lotsa gray, from a practical and psychological standpoint, but black-and-white insofar as written law.

Some of these kids are lost-soul street animals by age ten or twelve. No hope for them. Others, if Lady Luck favors, can come out of it.

I've seen some edges of it; I feel fortunate not to have had to deal with it up close and personal. For those who have, it can be heart-rending. I don't see much answer in law beyond what we make-do with. Damfino...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Pinning the significance on the trial is certainly looking in the wrong place. What I find distasteful and utterly wrong is the punishment, and the refusal of parole.

As I say, no argument from me. I'm no expert in criminal law, but I'm certain in most states at least, a judge has to find that a child behaved as an adult in committing the crime of which they are accused, before they can be tried and sentenced as one. Otherwise, they fall under juvenile law. In principle I have no problem with this, any more than I have a problem with a court considering the actual mental and emotional capacity of a chronological adult in a trial and sentencing.

[imac/cheese]

What utter bilge.

Many of the sociopath murderers have some sort of reactive attachment disorder. This disorder is often caused by not being able to form any sort of bond or connection with other humans. It can be caused by drug exposure in the womb or as a child, trauma as a child, neglect as a child, mental disorders, being shuntted from foster home to foster hom, or anything that prevents an infant or young child from becoming attached to other people.

Anyone looking into adopting or fostering older children should look into this disorder with a keen interest.

Some children with RAD can be treated and eventually form a bond with someone who is trying hard to love and provide for them. Others, no matter how hard you try to love them and help them, will never form a bond and will never be able to have empathy or sympathy towards others. I have heard of many examples of foster children with RAD that were loved dearly and provided a stable caring home with good foster parents that were never able to form a bond with anyone. They went on to cause all kinds of problems in society and ended up in "treatment" centers.

If a child with RAD is convicted of murder and sent to prison and released on parole after a few years, there is a very good chance that they have still never bonded with anyone and will feel no remorse for their actions. There are few people who would be willing to try to create a bond with such a child and few chances for that child to ever become a normal person.

I still think locking a criminal child up for life with no chance of parole is not the way to solve this problem, but it is a lot easier than trying to get the children help they need (even it that help will probably never be successful).

And of course there are always the spiritual transformations that people can actually make, but since this isn't a religious post I will not delve into that aspect.

[mkrishnan]

Perhaps they should all move to Michigan...

In Michigan (the place where I was born!)'s defense, although it does allow for life sentences of minors, it was (and is) also the first English-speaking state in the world to ban the death penalty, more than 150 years ago....

[Peterkro]

In Michigan (the place where I was born!)'s defense, although it does allow for life sentences of minors, it was (and is) also the first English-speaking state in the world to ban the death penalty, more than 150 years ago....

Except for treason and what has "english speaking" have to do with anything,if you narrow it down far enough anywhere could be first at doing anything.

[mkrishnan]

Except for treason and what has "english speaking" have to do with anything,if you narrow it down far enough anywhere could be first at doing anything.

True, but even at large, Michigan has one of the longest surviving bans on capital punishment in the world. Which means that it isn't a totally regressive place. That's all I meant to say. :o

[Peterkro]

True, but even at large, Michigan has one of the longest surviving bans on capital punishment in the world. Which means that it isn't a totally regressive place. That's all I meant to say. :o

O.K. I do understand that, I'm a little tetchy today.:(

[johnee]

having seen first hand a close friend get caught up in a prosecutors zeal for winning a case instead of seeking the truth, I realize the judicial system is nothing more than a shill, a sham.

by virtue of the mere existence of a justice system, we feel better. The sad truth is there is no justice system, just record keeping and winning.

[mkrishnan]

O.K. I do understand that, I'm a little tetchy today.:(

Yeah, I think I am too for some reason, so I can sympathise. :o

[Sun Baked]

Lionel Tate proved that sometimes releasing a screwed up child murderer can be a problem.

Especially if the mental problems are left mostly intact when released.

Note: Personally I don't feel bad that he screwed up a get out of jail card, and got stuffed back in jail for 10-30 years.

[sushi]

Just read the article.

There seems to be something missing and we are not seeing the whole picture.

[skunk]

Just read the article.

There seems to be something missing and we are not seeing the whole picture.One of the clearest things being missed is that none of the prisoners concerned appears to pose any threat to the world at large. A sentence of life without parole is probably as inhumane as the acts which these people were said to have committed.

[obeygiant]

One of the clearest things being missed is that none of the prisoners concerned appears to pose any threat to the world at large.

Except, of course, to that one person that was stabbed and strangled.


A sentence of life without parole is probably as inhumane as the acts which these people were said to have committed.

What would you do with someone who has commited murder? The other side of this is the families who's love ones have been murdered. You can't expect them to stand by while the one who killed their family member runs free.

[skunk]

Except, of course, to that one person that was stabbed and strangled.Twenty years should be enough to satisfy the need for retribution. However, it's not meant to be about revenge anyway. That is why we use courts and police instead of vendetta.
What would you do with someone who has commited murder? The other side of this is the families who's love ones have been murdered. You can't expect them to stand by while the one who killed their family member runs free.See above.

[juanm]

Exactly, it shouldn't be about revenge nor punishment, but, on the contrary, more about dissuading future murderers. And it starts by education.

Has anybody watched "The boys of Baraka"?

On this topic, our dear président de la république stated some time ago that he would like to see some kind of filing of small children (3 years and up, I think) of the low class suburbs so they can be controled, being potentially dangerous. :rolleyes:
He retracted shortly after, but we all know how sincere are politicians when they retract their words...

[Stampyhead]

One of the saddest things I have ever read. When I was younger I was very much pro-prison and believed in harsh punishments for all crimes. Now age and certain experiences of my own have made think there must be a better way.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>What would you do with someone who has commited murder? The other side of this is the families who's love ones have been murdered. You can't expect them to stand by while the one who killed their family member runs free.

Counseling and a donut followed by a lifetime of unemployability until he's sufficiently frustrated enough to kill again.

[skunk]

Counseling and a donut followed by a lifetime of unemployability until he's sufficiently frustrated enough to kill again.What a sad failure of imagination.

[sushi]

Twenty years should be enough to satisfy the need for retribution. However, it's not meant to be about revenge anyway. That is why we use courts and police instead of vendetta.
So Skunk, let me see if I understand you.

For example, some youngster kills you. Your family would be content that your assailant would only get a 20 year sentence. In your dying breath as you see your life slip away, you would be happy that there is no option for the death penalty, or life in prison as that would be considered too cruel. You would die happy knowing that your assailant was only going to receive a 20 year sentence.

Am I understanding your position correctly?

[skunk]

So Skunk, let me see if I understand you.

For example, some youngster kills you. Your family would be content that your assailant would only get a 20 year sentence. In your dying breath as you see your life slip away, you would be happy that there is no option for the death penalty, or life in prison as that would be considered too cruel. You would die happy knowing that your assailant was only going to receive a 20 year sentence.

Am I understanding your position correctly?Absolutely. I would offer you a cigar, but I don't have any. :)

[solvs]

What a sad failure of imagination.

The world is black and white dontchaknow. There's nothing in between death penalty/life in prison, and letting someone go with no punishment. Even children. They're all evil and we must be protected from them so they don't come and get us while we sleep.

[j26]

Ah, the old vengeance v rehabilitation debate.

I think it's ridiculous that people can get locked up for life for one bad decision. I can see the point of segregating sociopaths, and such like, people who will be a danger to others if loose, but not in the destructive environment of a prison. Imprisoning people is just more likely to make them recidivists - it does nothing more than satisfy out thirst for vengeance. Especially not children - there's always a chance for them to return to society.

[mpw]

...For example, some youngster kills you. Your family would be content that your assailant would only get a 20 year sentence...
Is any family ever really content when they lost a loved one whether the person responsible is fined, jailed or killed? I've thankfully not been in that position, but I wouldn't be surprised to find I'd want the person dead at first, and happily offer to take care of the details.... then I imagine I'd forego the lust for revenge and would find more contentment in knowing the person actually felt remorse, was sorry had bettered themselves through the experience somehow and could better contribute to society living with a knowledge and understanding of the consequences of their actions.

I think jail time is appropriate, but how long depends not only on the severity of their criminal actions, but also the sincerity of their actions following.

[Swarmlord]

Absolutely. I would offer you a cigar, but I don't have any. :)

Yeah, I bet you'll be thinking about the guy's probability of recidivism after 20 years of incarceration as your life drains out of your body. :rolleyes:

[mpw]

Yeah, I bet you'll be thinking about the guy's probability of recidivism after 20 years of incarceration as your life drains out of your body. :rolleyes:

So should all punishments be thought up by the victim immediately after the crime?

Sounds like a recipe for chaos to me: Somebody gets hit in a drunken bar-fight, is that a clear cut case of assault? A glassing sound fair to the victim. Oooo I can see that ending well, what about the original drunk lodging an appeal and while the medic patch him up he's found not to have started the fight, does he get to knee-cap the glasser?

[mactastic]

Yeah, I bet you'll be thinking about the guy's probability of recidivism after 20 years of incarceration as your life drains out of your body. :rolleyes:
So in other words, the point of the justice system should be revenge, not justice or rehabilitation?

[skunk]

So in other words, the point of the justice system should be revenge, not justice or rehabilitation?Swarmlord is obviously just an Old Testament sort of guy. Probably doesn't do raiment in mixed cloth either.

[mactastic]

Swarmlord is obviously just an Old Testament sort of guy. Probably doesn't do raiment in mixed cloth either.
I'm surprised he can say with any degree of certainty what anyone would be thinking "as the life drains out of [their] body".

Who knows, maybe Jesus is there telling the dying person "don't worry, you will be at peace and your murderer is forgiven".

Or maybe they are just concerned about their loved ones. Who knows? Has our good friend Swarmlord ever had his lifeblood drained?

[Swarmlord]

So in other words, the point of the justice system should be revenge, not justice or rehabilitation?

It depends on the crime, doesn't it? Sentences also reflect it. Manslaughter has a much smaller sentence than Murder I with special circumstances.

The point of the justice system is justice, incarceration, protecting the lawabiding public and providing a deterrent to others. If rehabilitation is possible, then fine, but it's not the primary role of the justice system.

[mactastic]

It depends on the crime, doesn't it? Sentences also reflect it. Manslaughter has a much smaller sentence than Murder I with special circumstances.

The point of the justice system is justice, incarceration, protecting the lawabiding public and providing a deterrent to others. If rehabilitation is possible, then fine, but it's not the primary role of the justice system.
It depends on the crime whether we seek vengence or justice? Please tell me you were just being less than clear with your writing...

[imac/cheese]

I think jail time is appropriate, but how long depends not only on the severity of their criminal actions, but also the sincerity of their actions following.

I agree in theory, but how do you actually determine the sincerity of their actions?

[solvs]

I wouldn't be surprised to find I'd want the person dead at first, and happily offer to take care of the details
Which is why we don't let families and friends sit on juries. It wouldn't be justice, it would be revenge. I remember watching a woman on TV sitting face to face with her son's killer. And forgiving him. I hope I never have to find out what I'd be like in that situation, doubt I could be so kind. But I have forgiven a lot in my life, probably more than I should, because I know if it was me in that situation, and I was truly remorseful, I'd want to be forgiven. If I was the victim, and my killer showed remorse, I'd want them to be forgiven. Part of that whole empathy thing some of us seem to lack.

Not saying we should let all killers go, obviously we shouldn't. There are some people who need to be locked up forever. And I'm still torn on the death penalty. But frankly what I hear from some of you doesn't sound like a very civilized way to deal with those who commit crimes, let alone a Christian way.

[EricNau]

That's quite disturbing.

Life sentences and the death penalty should be reserved solely for chronic violent offenders and murders (respectively) who have no hope for rehabilitation.

...And I've always thought it absolutely horrid that laws, no matter how foolish or heinous, have complete control over our legal system.

[mpw]

Which is why we don't let families and friends sit on juries...
That was kinda my point.

...let alone a Christian way.
Christianity, or any religion, has nothing, NOTHING to do with justice.

[solvs]

That was kinda my point.
I know, I was agreeing with you. ;)

Christianity, or any religion, has nothing, NOTHING to do with justice.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who think it does.