Crime and Punishment

[Valkenar]

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

Ran across this article today, and thought it might be interesting to bring up here. Often on these boards, strong stances against crime along with strict sentencing are often voiced. I'm curious what people think of this piece, which, despite its clear bias, does bring up some interesting facts.

"In the US, there are 2,270 prisoners who were sentenced as children to life without parole."

"[a 17 year old girl] got life without parole, with no forensic evidence tying her to the crime and entirely on the strength of [her boyfriend's] testimony."

What do you guys think of this? Is this just one of those articles that takes a few outlying cases and paints an unflattering picture, or are these anecdotes representative of the situation as a whole? Do you think that on the whole juveniles sentenced as adults are getting what they deserve based on the severity of their crimes, or are these sentences unnecesarily harsh?

My contention is this: If we believe that these children are mature enough to be held as accountable for their actions as we would hold an adult, then shouldn't we conclude that they're mature enough to drive, have sex, vote, etc? We should either cease that practice, or reduce the age we consider adulthood, because as it stands juvenile-as-adult sentencing doesn't really make logical sense.

In truth, I think that we treat teenagers as children for much longer than it really makes sense to. For most things, I think age 15 is a sufficient age. Certainly, a 15 year old does not have the same level of maturity, judgement and reasoning capabilities that they will when they're 18. But at the same time, when you're 18 you don't have the faculties they'll have at 21 either. People's brains continue developing well into what we currently consider their adulthood. If we're going to try some sort of "finished developing" notion, then it's arguable that nobody should be allowed to vote until they're grandparents. For example, here is one study that shows "continued development of moral judgment through adulthood"

Edit: Changed the link to a tinyurl because it was wrecking the thread format.

http://tinyurl.com/232e9w

(Was:www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/po ... rdDetails/
detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ426506
&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=EJ426506)

[cxt]

Val

I don't know, presumably the crimes for which they were convicted were probably murder--I would ask if their victems had the chance to do much with their lives either.

Its odd, in almost every such article I read--regardless of exactly what type of prisioner their talking about--the one glareing ommission of the narrative is the VICTEMS of their violence and greed.

We hear a handful of cases out of the 100's, we hear about their bad childohoods, we hear about everything in detail EXCEPT their victems.

Take this one dude---shooting a man and leaving him to bleed to death in his own home----anybody this callous should have gotten the death penality--IMO.

I think it hinges on if they should there or not---the abilty to free people wrongfully convicted thu DNA and modern methods of investigation ALSO enables us to establish exactly whom is really gulity or not.

And if they are............... well then I really don't care, sorry of that seems harsh to you.

I agree that how we look at age in the West is kinda mixed up.

In WW2 22 year old people were in change seriously important MILITARY mission, in charge of millions of dollars of equipment etc.
Now the "average" 22 year old is commenly viewed as being little more than a child by western society.

I have a buddy that lives in CA, a pretty liberal guy overall--his school district is seriously debating if military recrutiers should be allowed to even come on campus and SPEAK to seniors.

They argue that the "children" are far to "impressonable" and weak willed to even listen to a military recrutier speak---again, because of their tender ages.

Which I seriously disagree with---but OK.

His problem however is that the same people, in theh same district, in the same school ALSO think that his 14 year old daughter is adult enough and old enough to decide have an abortion without his knowloge, input--let alone his concent.

Its pretty screwed in terms of thought processs.

[Bill Glasheen]

I think it's worth mentioning that "children" aren't ROUTINELY tried as "adults." It's the exception rather than the rule, and it takes a special effort to change that rule. And that's probably the way it should be.

From the victim's standpoint - and the victim's family as well - there is something final about murder. The fact that these kids weren't instead given the death penalty says something I suppose...

It's difficult to know much about a collection of cases. My thought is that one would have to consider them one at a time. Can you tell by the age of 15 whether or not an act is so depraved that it speaks to the reformability of an individual? Yes, minds develop and mature from 15 on. But I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on the trend of criminal behavior from that age on. Can you tell whether or not an individual is headed for a life of crime by age 15? I grew up with kids who eventually became repeat rapists and involved in multiple convicted assaults. With 20/20 hindsight , it wasn't difficult to extrapolate their eventual fate. If only they had been stopped earlier... And I guess that's partly what folks are thinking.

And on the flip side... Ask any teacher today what it's like having to deal with delinquent teenagers in the public school classroom. You can't discipline them any more. The kids have most of the rights, and the power to make trouble if "things happen." A kid can assault a teacher, and get suspended. If the teacher gets involved in a physical confrontation with a student - regardless of who started what - it usually ends up with the teacher being dismissed.

And so society gets frustrated. And then one day that kid commits an act so heinous that...

- Bill

[RACastanet]

And on the flip side... Ask any teacher today what it's like having to deal with delinquent teenagers in the public school classroom. You can't discipline them any more. The kids have most of the rights, and the power to make trouble if "things happen." A kid can assault a teacher, and get suspended. If the teacher gets involved in a physical confrontation with a student - regardless of who started what - it usually ends up with the teacher being dismissed.

Yes, discipline is a challenge. For the most part though, physics classes have a better disciplined roster. I also teach a math course for 9th graders, and that is a different story. Plus, our school is in an older part of the county and is also designated as one of the schools that get 'troubled' children. As a result I get a share of students living in group homes or are fresh out of JV Hall!

I know of two recent cases where a teacher was forced to resign immediately after an incident of physical contact. One was in JROTC and one was the math teacher I replaced.

The bad ones will immediately say 'you can't touch me' if you need to intervene in a bad situation. I tell them that is not correct, I am not supposed to, but I certainly can... and you do not want that to happen. And I am allowed to defend myself or an innocent victim.

Also, I give a slide show to the kids early on to introduce myself. The show is full of pictures from my adventures as a USMC Martial Arts trainer. I also have a picture of me with Ken Shamrock on the wall. Most of the male students know all about the UFC and are generally impressed. The administrators have no problem with me letting the kids know I am not a soft target.

Rich

[Gene DeMambro]

To Bill's comment, SCOTUS abolished the death penalty for all juveniles since 2002, and since 1988 it has been illegal to execute those under 16.

Rich: Nothing wrong in walking softly and carrying a big stick!

Gene

[Glenn]

Yes, discipline is a challenge.

This is where I have been lucky. Teaching a class at the local community college 2 nights a week for four quarters a year at the local community college for over 9 years, I have never had any disciplinary problems with my students. Part of this is that while college instructors have their share of disciplinary issues, I suspect it is far fewer than public K-12 schools. Most college students have at least a bit more maturity, realize that they are more or less there by choice, and realize that if they screw up someone will be out the money paid for tuition, which they are often paying themselves. The other aspect is that my class is 7:30pm-9:25pm, so I tend to catch more mature students than I might if I taught during the day...I tend to get students, both traditional and non-traditional, who work during the day and take a class as late as mine because that is the only time they can fit a class in. If nothing else they are too tired by class to become disciplinary problems. The issue I deal with most is when students do not have the maturity or self-discipline to show up for such a late class and then they usually drop or simply disappear and then fail the course.

But even with this said, before teaching for the college I taught at various times during the day for the university and still do not recall any disciplinary issues. I know that such issues do exist as my wife use to work in the university's disciplinary office, and she was kept quite busy! So I would say I have been relatively lucky on this issue.