Should Teens Be Able to Get Life Without Parole?
SodaHead News
2011/11/07 19:55:44
|
|
|||||
|
361 votes
|
|
62% | |||
|
224 votes
|
|
38% | |||
According to The Associated Press, there are currently around six dozen people serving life sentences (without chance of parole) for crimes they committed when they were 13 or 14 years old. However, the Supreme Court decided on Monday that it would look into the practice to determine whether juveniles should be able to receive such a harsh punishment.
Juvenile sentencing has witnessed two important reforms in the last decade: In 2005, it was decided that people under the age of 18 could not receive the death penalty; last year the courts took life without parole off the table, as well, as long as the convicted juvenile did no kill anyone. The court's most recent proposal would offer these criminals a chance at freedom, even if they're guilty of murder.
To make the decision, the Supreme Court is looking at the cases of Kuntrell Jackson, an Arkansas man who was convicted of shooting a store clerk to death in 1999, and Evan Miller, who burned down a neighbor's home (killing the neighbor) after the neighbor reportedly attacked him. Both men were 14 when they were convicted, and both face life sentences without chance of parole.
Bryan Stevenson, Miller's lawyer, said, "The identical analysis which led to the results in those cases logically compels the conclusion that consigning a 14-year-old to die in prison through a life-without-parole sentence categorically violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." (The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments address "cruel and unusual punishment" and equal protection.)
Want to know the dirty details on how people voted? Check out SodaHead's Recap for more info on voting demographics on this question.
Juvenile sentencing has witnessed two important reforms in the last decade: In 2005, it was decided that people under the age of 18 could not receive the death penalty; last year the courts took life without parole off the table, as well, as long as the convicted juvenile did no kill anyone. The court's most recent proposal would offer these criminals a chance at freedom, even if they're guilty of murder.
To make the decision, the Supreme Court is looking at the cases of Kuntrell Jackson, an Arkansas man who was convicted of shooting a store clerk to death in 1999, and Evan Miller, who burned down a neighbor's home (killing the neighbor) after the neighbor reportedly attacked him. Both men were 14 when they were convicted, and both face life sentences without chance of parole.
Bryan Stevenson, Miller's lawyer, said, "The identical analysis which led to the results in those cases logically compels the conclusion that consigning a 14-year-old to die in prison through a life-without-parole sentence categorically violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." (The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments address "cruel and unusual punishment" and equal protection.)
Want to know the dirty details on how people voted? Check out SodaHead's Recap for more info on voting demographics on this question.
Top Opinion
-
No+24What many do not seem to understand,mainly the ADULTS on sodahead is that teens still,for the most part,have a mind of a child,or just one step above that.Teens dont think as rationally as you would want to think.





















Of course, this all depends on the crime they are charged with.
21, but he was. Our screwed up laws is a good example of our own screwed up way of thinking. We have laws that are stupid in that they are literally unenforceable, or if they are enforced, they violate the individuals constitutional rights etc. We have a law here in Georgia, and other States probably has something similar, that says sex perverts must stay away from children and never come within 1000 feet of them. Where in the hell is there any common sense to this? Children are every where ! These sickos can't go to the grocery store, can't go to church, can't go to work, and in fact cannot really go any where for fear of running into kids along the way. That is only, of course, IF they are trying to be good little boys and obeying the law. But why should we expect them to obey such a law as the 1000 foot rule, if they didn't obey the rule that says you cannot violate little boys period.!? Can you just imagine a bunch of kids go bicycling through a neighborhood full of perverts, and they go scattering likes rats leaving a sinking ship. haha that would be funny. Anyway, Lawyers make the laws, Lawyers, defend those who violate them, and they are all made to where it is easy to violate them.
Actually I support the death penalty for ANY murderer no matter what the age.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Teens who do horrible things should be punished for what they've done, but once they grow up, they deserve a second chance.
notice how the focus is almost entirely on the criminal and their well-being....and nothing is being mentioned about the victim's ultimate loss of life, and the family's horrific loss of a loved ones. Seems like we should talk about victims at least as much as murderers.
The truth of the matter is that using prison as punishment makes it a breeding ground for new and improved criminal behavior. The twisted and backward notion that prison is for punishment ensures that more uber-criminals will be released into the world. We need to focus on this! Most of the time prison is not for life. Most criminals WILL get out of jail at some point- many murderers, rapists and child molesters will be coming to a neighborhood near you. Do you want them to be better or worse people than when they were first incarcerated?
There is no such thing as rehabilitation.