Court questions juvenile life sentences

Typical Swamp coverage; the lawyers for the armed robber and the rapist are quoted extensively, but the lawyers for the state of Florida (and their arguments) aren't mentioned at all.

I've always foung this to be excessive to say the least. Trying a 13 year old as an adult, an 11 year old as an adult, even a 17 year old as an adult is rediculous! Teenagers hardly know from right and wrong and peer presure alone is a dominating factor. It's time to end these cruel laws and give these kids time to grow and learn how to be adults and integrate into society the right way!

Here's the states argument, keep things as they are. I think anyone with a minimum amount of reading comprehension could figure that out. That's not news, the arguments for a change are actually news.

"Here's the states argument, keep things as they are. I think anyone with a minimum amount of reading comprehension could figure that out. That's not news, the arguments for a change are actually news.

Posted by: Martin"

First off, "Martin", "anyone with a minimum amount of reading comprehension" would spell the word as "state's", and would never write "rediculous" as Martin's cohort "Scot" did. Mr. Savage, you get the followers you deserve.

The larger question is why defend-a-rapist Leftwing bloggers repeatedly defend journalists when they censor out points of view. Is Mr. Savage afraid to present both sides? Does "Martin" fear his side will lose if both sides are presented?

In fact it took me all of 30 seconds to find the opposing point of view. From the USA Today, "Florida and 19 other states counter that such laws effectively deter juvenile offenses. Victims' rights advocates, including the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, say the horror of a crime is not lessened by the youthfulness of a perpetrator.

...
On Florida's side are the 19 states and groups such as the National District Attorneys Association. The district attorneys group emphasizes in its brief that many "already-hardened" youths commit heinous assaults "with full knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions." See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-11-08-minors_N.htm for more.

First off, "Martin", "anyone with a minimum amount of reading comprehension" would spell the word as "state's",
Posted by: Bruce | November 9, 2009 4:13 PM

When you need to resort to spelling and punctuation, you have already lost the argument. Anal police need not apply.

Bruce finds the answer to his own question in 30 seconds.........

So it's as I said, the argument for the state is that the law should stay as it exists now. The article itself is about an upcoming decision by the Supreme Court, I thought it did a good job at describing the statements by the Justice's indicating how they may possibly vote.

And I hope you will forgive me for missing an apostrophe. If you do, I promise to do the same, as it should be "State of Florida," not state of Florida.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 9, 2009 2:19 PM
.
Scot,
.
I agree with you regarding what you wrote about 11 and 13 year olds. The law in many common law states creates a presumption that such children are incapable of forming criminal intent. In a prosecution of a child that age, a prosecutor is normally required to to rebut that presumption with evidence of the child’s mental sophistication and knowledge of right and wrong. Apparently Florida law doesn’t have that presumption, or it isn’t honored very well in practice. My own experience with juvenile offenders of that age is that they don’t really appreciate the gravity of their conduct. I think the aims of the criminal justice system are wasted, and even thwarted, by inflicting long sentences on such offenders.
.
However, I’m not sure I can agree with you entirely regarding 17 year old offenders. I have known 17 year old offenders capable of determining right from wrong, but who have deliberately committed heinous offenses. Many street gangs get their younger members to commit murder because they know the kids can’t get the death penalty. These kids know that killing is wrong. The problem is that they have been conditioned to disregard human life to further the goals of the gangs to which they belong. This is why the laws in a number of states have elected to have minors, sixteen and older, tried as adults for serious violent crimes if they exhibit a higher level of sophistication and histories of criminal behavior, and a lack of amenability to rehabilitation. I’m not sure that these laws are wrong. Why should age be a barrier to more severe punishment if the offender is just as sophisticated as an adult, just as much of a danger as an adult, and demonstrates no remorse or adaptability to rehabilitation? There is a point at which incarceration is a legitimate means of protecting the public even if it doesn’t particularly benefit the offender.

"Here's the states argument, keep things as they are. I think anyone with a minimum amount of reading comprehension could figure that out. That's not news, the arguments for a change are actually news." --Posted by: Martin
.
First off, Martin, "anyone with a minimum amount of reading comprehension," would spell the word as "state's," and would never write the word "rediculous" as Martin's cohort, Scot, did. Mr. Savage, you get the followers you deserve.
.
The larger question is why defend-a-rapist Leftwing bloggers repeatedly defend journalists when they censor out opposing points of view. Is Mr. Savage afraid to present both sides? Does Martin fear his side will lose, if both sides are presented?
.
In fact, it took me all of 30 seconds to find the opposing point of view. From the USA Today, "Florida and 19 other states counter that such laws effectively deter juvenile offenses. Victims' rights advocates, including the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, say the horror of a crime is not lessened by the youthfulness of a perpetrator. ... On Florida's side are the 19 states and groups such as the National District Attorneys Association. The district attorneys group emphasizes in its brief that many "already-hardened" youths commit heinous assaults "with full knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions."
See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-11-08-minors_N.htm for more.

11-13 years, considered initiation age. The age at which juveniles begin to test themselves against the "real world." The percentage of those who will go beyond simple marijuana or alcohol offenses on a path of becoming a career criminal is very small. These hardened juveniles are *conditioned* into a life of crime, considered "at risk youths" due to their poor background: minorities, single parent households, one or more parents incarcerated at some point, physically and mentally abused and/or neglected as children, transient homes and school life (usually with relatives or grandparents working long hours to make ends meet; not there), foster homes, they have been initiated into the system at an early age (learning their trade and attitudes), and lack role models . They might be able to know right from wrong at 17, but they are conditioned, made to believe they will beat the rap by their peers (their pseudo family to make up for the bonding they missed out as kids). At 17 to be waved on up to adult court is a serious matter. To send a juvenile to serve out a sentence for life, is to sentence them to death. Although, as big as an adult, they rarely have developed basic developmental, intellectual, and social skills. They are prime meat for incarnated adult criminals, and when victimized will lose any shred of possibility of rehabilitation in the system, that is over crowded and underfunded.

"Why should age be a barrier to more severe punishment if the offender is just as sophisticated as an adult, just as much of a danger as an adult, and demonstrates no remorse or adaptability to rehabilitation? "

Their pre-frontal cortex hasn't developed..... I will venture a guess. We can't execute juveniles, so why sentenced them to life in prison? There is still a chance that a hardened juvenile, given the chance, can still age out of a life of crime at some point during adult hood; rarely happens for people who have been in the system past 30, or committed more serious offenses as adults.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, unless he's an old man trapped in a young body with room to grow.

* * * * *
Posted by: I'll stab at it. | November 9, 2009 9:20 PM
.
You certainly have the correct theory to work with. The relative immaturity and lack of development in adolescents played a significant role in the Supreme Court’s decision to find the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment for minors under 18 in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). But that case dealt with the death penalty. The high court has been vigilant in reminding us, however, that the death penalty is always treated differently than other punishments because it is irremediably permanent. The case before the Court doesn’t involve the death penalty, in which case the rules for assessing the validity of a punishment are different.
.
In any event, the court in Roper decided the case on an assumption - i.e. that minors are not mentally mature enough to bear the same moral responsibility as an adult. Reality is different than that assumption. There have been many documented instances when minors, knowing the difference between right and wrong, have not only committed heinous crimes, but also crimes in which they engaged in levels of planning and sophistication beyond the ability of some adults many years their senior. In any event, it’s kind of absurd to suggest that one must have any particularly level of maturity to understand that murdering, robbing or raping another human being is profoundly wrong, or that it takes someone with ‘adult’ sophistication to refrain from savage brutality. Thus, even the premise upon which Roper was founded is dubious at best.
.
The assumption is even more dubious in non-capital cases where the maturity and sophistication of the minor is proven, and the state law gives individualized consideration to the particular offender in determining the sentence. (Of course, Florida doesn’t appear to have given the appealing minors that individualized consideration, and its absence may turn out to be the deciding factor.) Our nation doesn’t give much in the way of breaks to mentally retarded adult offenders or even those with borderline mental capacity - as long as they can discern the difference between right and wrong and their crimes were voluntary. Why, then (I ask again) should minors with adult mental capacity and maturity be given a break because of their chronological age (and, yes, they do exist)? I think age, at that point, becomes a distinction without a difference.
.
And furthermore, the age and relative immaturity of minors wasn’t the only factor, or even the dispositive factor, in determining whether the death penalty for minors was cruel and unusual punishment. The question the Court first sought to answer in Roper was whether there was a "national consensus," that allowing such executions contravene our modern "standards of decency." That determination, in turn, was based on "objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction" - namely, whether the various state legislatures had passed statutes that authorized or prohibited such punishment. The Court found it significant that approximately half the states prohibited, by statute, the execution of minors under 18 years of age.
.
This latter factor doesn’t work well in favor of minors trying to get out from under a life sentence. There is no well established national consensus for the proposition that life sentences for minors tried as adults who commit serious crimes contravenes our evolving standards of decency. Most states allow minors, tried as adults, to receive the same sentence as an adult for the same crime.