PUBLIC OPINION > Some Juvies Should Get Life Without Parole
SodaHead News
2011/11/09 19:00:00
Juvenile sentencing has gone through a lot of adjustments recently, and the latest development is a Supreme Court discussion on life without parole. The judges are examining two murder cases that involved 14-year-old offenders, both of whom were sentenced to life in prison without hope of parole, to determine whether or not the punishment is "cruel and unusual" for perpetrators that young.
We took the issue to SodaHeads to find out what the public thinks, and were struck with distinctly opposing views in many categories. We expected political disagreement and age differences, but we didn't expect it to be so pronounced.
We took the issue to SodaHeads to find out what the public thinks, and were struck with distinctly opposing views in many categories. We expected political disagreement and age differences, but we didn't expect it to be so pronounced.
Should Teens Be Able to Get Life Without Parole?
62% Say Lock 'Em Up
Nearly two-thirds of respondents think the option should be available, as long as the punishment fits the crime. A handful of comments invoked the death penalty, which was abolished as juvenile punishment in 2005, but most simply argued that teen criminals are still criminals. One commenter wrote, "Perhaps 13 or 14 is a bit young, admittedly, but certainly an older teenager should understand that murder is wrong and that you can get life for it. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
Men Show No Mercy
Presumably this shouldn't matter in a court of law, but if you're a teen looking for a light sentence, Judge Judy might actually be a good bet. Women were split right down the middle, but 72% of men were in favor of juvenile life sentencing. Now you know which parent to approach with your next confession.
Presumably this shouldn't matter in a court of law, but if you're a teen looking for a light sentence, Judge Judy might actually be a good bet. Women were split right down the middle, but 72% of men were in favor of juvenile life sentencing. Now you know which parent to approach with your next confession.Incoming Incarceration
There appears to be a strong, direct correlation between income and the answer to this question. Those who reported less than $25,000 a year were 48% in favor of juvenile life sentencing; voters making over $100K were 95% in favor. The lowest bracket does include students, but the percent rose steadily through the middle brackets.
There appears to be a strong, direct correlation between income and the answer to this question. Those who reported less than $25,000 a year were 48% in favor of juvenile life sentencing; voters making over $100K were 95% in favor. The lowest bracket does include students, but the percent rose steadily through the middle brackets.Conservatives Crack Down
The most striking difference was, of course, political. With 88% in favor, conservative voters were significantly more willing to support juvenile life sentencing than progressives (33%), liberals (43%), moderates (47%), and even libertarians (64%).
If you'd like to voice your own opinion on this poll or dig deeper into the demographics yourself, you can do so on our original question about juvenile life sentences. We'd love to hear from you.
The most striking difference was, of course, political. With 88% in favor, conservative voters were significantly more willing to support juvenile life sentencing than progressives (33%), liberals (43%), moderates (47%), and even libertarians (64%).If you'd like to voice your own opinion on this poll or dig deeper into the demographics yourself, you can do so on our original question about juvenile life sentences. We'd love to hear from you.
Top Opinion
-
BackRoadz 2011/11/09 21:28:03
+10Teens as young as 14 have committed some pretty horroriffic murders. Anyone that could do something so horrible to another humanbeing SHOULD spend the rest of their life behind bars or face the DP. At age 14 you're old enough to know right from wrong and if you choose to do wrong then you should pay the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
where IMO death penalty was deserved.
A 14 year old shoots a father who has been molesting him/her for years? Acquittal.
I understand your point & to a certain extent, I agree with you. But on a practical level, I don't think I want someone who's grown up & spent the majority of his/her life behind bars, learning how to handle relationships & daily situations by interacting with fellow prisoners & prison employees, walking around my neighborhood. I don't think it's fair to him/her or to the rest of society. The person would certainly have no practical social skills to deal with life "on the outside."
That being said, I do think that minimum security prisons, or even, in some cases, half-way houses might be used. But walking around on parole? I don't know... just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
in my opinion 40+ years for first degree murder seems right, 60+ if it was a family member, or if it was completely unwarranted
Prisons truly aren't rehabilitative. They're prisons, meant for punishment.
It's not an easy or black-&-white decision. But I'm going with the idea that I wouldn't want someone out in my neighborhood after growing up & spending 25 or more years in prison.
It isn't fair to the convict or to society.
Then, and ONLY then, release them. And I agree to the extent that I said only for 14 and under.
For a 15 yr old offender, don't release for at least 15 years, but also get them all the same kind of help and panel agreement release criteria.
For a 16 yr old, don't release for at least 20 years, but also get them all same kind of help and panel agreement release criteria.
For a 17 yr olds murderer, don't release for at least 30 years, but also get them all the same kind of help and panel agreement release criteria.
If that's how it worked, then violent youth who are in a bad life situation but have not yet murdered anyone would KNOW for sure, they will face a LONG time locked up, FOR SURE, without thinking they'll go play in juvie and then just get off.
It would be way better all way around the board.
that's the -biggest- reason the way things are with how the juvie murderers are handled has -got- to change. i'm not saying it has to change how i think it should, but it has got to change more than it has in any event.
and clearly, changed nationwide, not just certain states, or even worse, certain municipalities handling it so radically different from others. that contributes, severely, to a violent kid thinking they're gonna get away with it.
Three-year-old Jamie Bulger was killed in 1993 by two young boys who tortured Jamie, rubbed paint in his eyes, pushed batteries up his anus, then left him on train tracks. Both of the boys were juveniles at the time and, according to the story, are about to be released. A judge has granted new identities to them for their release. The email encourages petition-like emails be sent to the judge, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, protesting the decision because the boys have not paid for their crime.
The Truth:
(7/1/01) The story is true, but the decision the petition was hoping to affect has already been made, so the petition is now out of date.
The murder of Jamie Bulger infuriated citizens all over England. According to an article in the London Times at the time of their conviction, Robert Thompson and...
Three-year-old Jamie Bulger was killed in 1993 by two young boys who tortured Jamie, rubbed paint in his eyes, pushed batteries up his anus, then left him on train tracks. Both of the boys were juveniles at the time and, according to the story, are about to be released. A judge has granted new identities to them for their release. The email encourages petition-like emails be sent to the judge, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, protesting the decision because the boys have not paid for their crime.
The Truth:
(7/1/01) The story is true, but the decision the petition was hoping to affect has already been made, so the petition is now out of date.
The murder of Jamie Bulger infuriated citizens all over England. According to an article in the London Times at the time of their conviction, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were ten years old when they killed little Jamie. Police say they lured Jamie from his mother while on a shopping trip, marched him more than two miles away where he was then beaten and stoned to death and his body left on the train tracks to make it appear that he had died by being hit by a train. The reference to the batteries in the email story is slightly incorrect. There was no anal penetration and the batteries were found in Jamie's mouth.
Thompson and Veneables have been in custody and going through rehabilitation ever since and because of their ages at the time of the killing, they were not tried as adults and are eligible for release. At the end of June, the way was cleared by authorities for them to be released. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss says that the boys are in too much danger if people know who they are so she has issued a judgment that grants them new identities and prevents the British media from disclosing who or where they are. TruthOrFiction.com has obtained a copy of her ruling.
automatically, life with no parole, no matter what.
but with no record, YES lock them up for a LONG time, but try to rehabilitate them real hard, don't just say its hopeless to a child, because yes, they are children. some of them children who have done a horrible horrible evil evil act, but still children.
but, for further clarity, i do -NOT- refer to those with a history of violent crime.