What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
54 Comments
- snowrail, on 11/10/2009, -1/+58The real question is what is the goal of prison -- is it to punish (ie. revenge), or is it to rehabilitate (ie. to solve society's problems)?
- rjbeckjr, on 11/10/2009, -0/+30Life terms for anything other than murder is cruel and unusual. Say what you may, but I honestly feel that spending the rest of your natural life in prison when you are still a child is a tragedy only worthy of the most severe crimes. I'm talking about murder, multiple murder, rape-murder, and the like. I think the effort could be better used to debate on how sex-offender status for minors should be dealt with. A kid who takes naked pictures of himself should not be labeled a sex-offender for life.
- goomba323, on 11/10/2009, -2/+25It seems until they clearly and honestly answer that question, it will continue to fail at doing both...
- geoboy, on 11/10/2009, -0/+19I don't think the answer is as complicated as you make it out to be.
Juveniles' brains are not the same as that of a fully matured adult's. That is an undeniable scientific fact. Their brains are not fully formed and are still changing. In other words, a juvenile has the potential to become a different person when they reach full adulthood. That does not by any means excuse their behavior. It just makes a stronger case for rehabilitation (when done correctly).
I think any minor who is convicted of atrocious crimes such as rape should serve a minimum of 10 years in prison. That would give them time for their brains to reach maturity. I don't think they should serve time with little hope for their future. Prison ought to be an opportunity to turn a person's life around. It shouldn't be a place where dangerous individuals are treated as evil and kept from society for 50 years then released with little rehabilitation. THAT, my friends, is cruel and inhumane. - Lucas123, on 11/09/2009, -5/+21I don't think it's cruel and unusual. There just isn't a one-size-fits-all sentencing system, and it will never be perfect. But if a teenager commits a horrendous crime, what are you supposed to do -- chalk it up to youthful negligence? If they can be rehabilitated, great, but that really needs to be the criteria -- and part of an ongoing evaluation process that's not only reviewed but re-reviewed prior to a violent criminal's release. Even with that kind of a review process, I'm sure too many mistakes would be made, as there already are today, and criminals released would re-offend.
There just aren't any easy answers. - ace429k, on 11/10/2009, -2/+16 Those teenagers that are sentenced for 50-60 years cost us money when they could be educated for a fraction of that cost. Showing these kids what they did wrong and why not to do it is more important than giving them a cot and metal wall siding.
- 3nder99, on 11/10/2009, -0/+13The real goal of prison is to make the private prisons a butt load of money.
- UTSC, on 11/10/2009, -5/+14It is cruel and unusual punishment. They should be detained so long as they are a menace to society. You want keep someone in jail for 50-60 years? I'm sure most teenagers could be rehabilitated.
- captininsanity, on 11/10/2009, -1/+10What a lot of people don't realize is that people who commit crimes are still people. Being a teen makes you even more likely to commit a crime out of emotion. Not everyone who commits a crime is a sociopath. Kids who commit crimes are generally a product of a bad environment, and enter society pretty screwed up. However, this can be treated because their personality has not yet solidified.
- dstz, on 11/10/2009, -3/+10"is it to punish (ie. revenge), or is it to rehabilitate (ie. to solve society's problems)?"
Or to protect society. - Gareth321, on 11/10/2009, -0/+5I've said this before. When we don't consider children mentally capable of understanding the repercussions of sex, drinking and gambling, why do we consider them capable of understanding the repercussions of brutality? Children are capable of doing terrible things; but there is a reason we protect and restrict them within society. They're mentally immature. Either we allow them the free reign of adulthood, or we don't. Punishing them as adults, while simultaneously denying them the right to exercise adult rights and experience the world as an adult seems both hypocritical and unfair.
- snowrail, on 11/10/2009, -2/+7To protect society is the rehabilitation option.
If you disagree, then we should just give ALL criminals the death penalty. - spriggig, on 11/10/2009, -0/+5So, none of you clicked the link to find out that it was the wrong article? (I suppose it's possible NPR changed the link)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
Anyway, there are two specific cases cited IN THE ARTICLE that illustrate why this sort of sentencing is out of line. - omgwtflawl, on 11/10/2009, -2/+7Rehabilitation does not happen in jail, unfortunately. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- iknockindeboots, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4Only you can prevent wildfires.
- inactive, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4Other Western countries don't have life sentences for Adults let alone juveniles.
- jp2535, on 11/10/2009, -1/+5Psychopaths should be killed or jailed forever, ***** rehabilitation! If they kill someone "not on accident", why give them another chance to do it again. Give peace of mind to the victims family, make the perpetrator pays with his life, and make the perpetrator a warning to others (if if it doesn't work for most psychopaths).
- Langford, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3Seems like a question of revenge vs rehabilitation. Are they sending them to prison for life in order to make victims feel satisfied, or do they honestly think there is no way that they will change their ways? Also, if it's considered too cruel for minors, isn't it also too cruel for adults? What is the exact moment in life where we say, "you're too old to learn better... now!"?
- pinchduck, on 11/10/2009, -3/+6What, they missed "don't kill people" day in school?
- PlatnumPlatypus, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3The argument also covers the life sentencing of minors committing non-homicidal acts.
Reports cover life charges for theft, arson, assault, and rape.
"One of the appeals is from Joe Sullivan, now 33, serving a life term without the possibility of parole in a Florida prison while confined to a wheelchair. He was sentenced for the rape of an elderly woman, committed when he was 13."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/09/scotus.juvenil ...
Lobotomy>Rape? - UTSC, on 11/10/2009, -3/+6That has a very simple answer. The main intention of incarceration is to deter future crimes and when possible rehabilitation.
- UTSC, on 11/10/2009, -2/+4What you fail to realize is teenagers haven't fully developed their character. They can more easily be rehabilitated and socialized to conform.
- russmeyer, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2Yeah..... right.... wonder if you all ever had the joy of growing up in the projects like I did. You might have had the opportunity to become a victim of a violent crime like I was in my neighborhood multiple times. Take this story for instance: After dark on June 18, the police say, as many as 10 armed assailants repeatedly raped a Haitian immigrant in her apartment at Dunbar Village and then went further, forcing her to perform oral sex on her 12-year-old son. They took cellphone pictures of their acts. They burned the woman’s skin and the boy’s eyes with cleaning fluid, forced them to lie naked together in the bathtub, hit them with a broom and a gun and threatened to set them on fire. http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2007/07/mother ... I'd like to know what your opinions might be of re-education, rehabilitation, and re-introduction into society would be for minors like those if you where to be victimized in such a fashion. I usually find that people who are the biggest proponents of such measures have never truly suffered.
- UTSC, on 11/10/2009, -1/+3wtf are you talking about. Obviously one of the main functions is to change the person so they don't commit a crime again.
- gotbannedagain, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2I've spent a lot of time doing research for an essay I'm writing involving the young and convicted in this country.
A vast majority of these issues are perpetrated at the incarceration level. It's very unlikely that a young offender who is sentenced to life without parole got that way because of bad wiring at birth (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that by and large those who become apart of the system stay in the system until they are put there indefinitely). Most of the time, it's issues that our criminal justice system creates all on its own because of how we treat our prisoners in this country.
I'd like to get into the non violent offenses that can carry ridiculous penalties (namely the use, possession, or distribution of drugs) - but I'd be up all night writing in this comment box and sticking one to how we federally view drugs in this country. (Hint: It's all ***** wrong). - ultraseamus, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2Not so sure they really care about changing the person when a life sentence without parole is involved.
- Nidy1, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1@nutsackninja-
I guess we need to agree on whether prison should be for punishment or rehabilitation first. For crimes that don't warrant life sentences, locking someone away for 10 years and then saying "Ok, you're punishment is over" and letting them go doesn't exactly turn them into productive citizens. They'll probably commit another crime. - pintomp3, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1That's our schizophrenic justice. We have correctional facilities in our penal system.
- nutsackninja, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1I don't think the answer is as complicated as you make it out to be either.
Prison should be for punishment and protection of the general public period. If you do a crime that warrants a life sentence then you serve a life sentence as punishment.
What is cruel and inhumane is the action that made the offender get a life sentence in the first place.
You people defend these scumbags, making excuses why they committed their crimes but you always forget about the victim who either got raped or murdered. Let it happen to someone in your family and I bet you would be singing a different tune. - inactive, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Feelings nothing more than feelings....sing along retardo libs.
- juslen, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1See you can speak from experience, others can only use common sense. But for some reason, apologists simply have no way of acknowledging facts. And what you just mentioned is a perfect example.
You don't need to commit murder in order to deserve a life sentence. Violent acts in which a person does not kill another almost always leads to murder at some other point in time.
Look the history of many serial killers, the first few times they only commit rape or assault and then they move onto more violent acts which eventually lead to murder and torture. - bungoman, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afaYTA2a4gA
Dave's got a point. Just sayin'. - juslen, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1You got that right. First off, if someone is given a life sentence its because they have done something horrific.
1. murder
2. torture
3. rape/assault
People don't understand that any time a vicious premeditated crime is committed which warrants a life sentence.. with no chance or parole, rehabilitation is probably not a realistic option.
So calm down Liberal bleeding hearts.. stop feeling and think..
I know it hurts.. but sometimes it allows you to see both sides of an issue without letting your personal and emotional bias get in the way. - UTSC, on 11/10/2009, -3/+4And you think I have no common sense. The main point of incarceration isn't punishment but rather deterrence and rehabilitation.
- Atario, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1DING DING DING. Thanks, privatizers.
- Apex3, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment
- appleseed1234, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1To argue that it's a fitting punishment to the crime is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be raped 100 times and "bear the emotional burden for the rest of my life" than rot for 50 years and die in prison.
- TheyCMeTrollin, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1hey don't rape and kill and you don't have to worry about being on the receiving end of that "cruel and unusual" punishment. there's nothing cruel about punishing those worthless scumbags. zero sympathy here, regardless of age.
- Yage2006, on 11/10/2009, -2/+2Ya do all that it will only costs hundreds of thousands and sorry but some people are beyond hope of rehabilitation.
- seanayb, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1Life sentences for teenagers? On one hand, people of that age are historically proven to be capable of running the world, and therefore their own lives (a smaller affair in every way) shouldn't be ruled out as a responsibility by virtue of age alone. The only way I foresee to get them out of life sentences with legal and moral consistency is to abolish them altogether (or at least reserve life sentences for *only* those people that pose a constant, imminent, and great threat to society.
- TMLF, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1Depending on the age and development, some minors are too immature to understand the full ramifications of their actions. They act on raw emotion and impulse, and don't think, "gee I might go to jail," so that type of deterrent doesn't work. But I realize that they are no less dangerous than someone older who does, and maybe even more so. The point is if they're minds are still moldable, then maybe there is some hope there to rehabilitate.
There's no clear answer.
Just like the matter of how I heard Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I don't think he did, but if he didn't, then why hasn't he signed an affidavit saying he didn't? - skztr, on 11/10/2009, -0/+0If you are going to remove someone from society with no chance of ever being a part of it, just kill them. Admit what you're doing and kill them.
don't want to do that? Then maybe you're admitting that what you're doing is wrong. - Apex3, on 11/10/2009, -2/+1I think the way they decide life terms now is fine. Obviously there are exceptions, as with anything, different cases involving different people and judges and whatnot. But in general I think they should keep it as life terms only for adults, except in special circumstances where the minor would be charged as an adult(ie at 16 or 17 but depending on the crime(s)).
When you're 13 you still have a lot of growing up to do and lessons to learn, and while there are things you should do some serious time for even for committing it at that age, I don't think there are many, if any, circumstances where life would be justifiable for a 13 year old. Really any case that extreme would mean that kid needs some SERIOUS help, whether or not he should ever be released in public again may depend on the circumstance, but I feel in the vast majority of cases the person can still be helped.
But on the other side of that, if you take away the life of another at any age, then you may not deserve to have your own life, no matter how short it may be outside prison, or maybe even in prison. I'm not sure really how I feel about this yet. Though I can't say I favor the death penalty, as even one person wrongfully executed is too many to justify it. - JohnnySoftware, on 11/10/2009, -2/+1There has to be something done to counter hardcore youth gangs. They are like the old mafia but more plentiful and more widespread and more violent. And the gangs are for life too.
- Yage2006, on 11/10/2009, -3/+2And what about their victims and future victims if you release some psyko back onto the streets.
- appleseed1234, on 11/10/2009, -5/+4That's one of the dumbest and inaccurate pieces of garbage I've ever read. Comparing a rape to a murder is absolutely ridiculous. A rape victim (don't start carrying that "rape survivor" *****) is just as likely to overcome the experience or even grow from is as they are become slightly debilitated.
You people treat rape like it's a ***** lobotomy. - rockytop9808, on 11/10/2009, -5/+4Showing them what they did wrong is all well and good, but the question is then whether or not they will actually use that knowledge and cease to be criminals.
- rockytop9808, on 11/10/2009, -4/+2Deterrence, yes, but realistically speaking rehabilitation is not much of a goal.
- jman491, on 11/10/2009, -3/+1If some idiot robs your house or shoots your dog, you will naturally want him put in a place where he can't do that sort of thing anymore. That's also a simple explanation of why cases are often "The People of the State of (State)." It's basically saying that society doesn't want you around to cause trouble.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is