It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High Court to Look at Life Sentences for Juveniles

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide whether a 13-year-old convicted of rape must spend the rest of his life in prison, a new front in the court's examination of whether sentences suitable for adults may be applied to teenagers.


source

Someone under the age of 18 should never face a life sentence. They should be punished appropriately but not sentenced to life. Before the age of 18, nobody is really mature enough to comprehend the extent of the damage they can or do cause. Life sentences for juveniles is a ludicrous notion and the Supreme Court should rule against it.


TA




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 



I wouldn't go as far as saying that at 13 and up life sentances should be taken off the table completely.

You can't tell me a 16 year old isn't mature enough to know that rape or murder is wrong.

13 year old given life for rape is extreme. But to take the sentance completly off the table for under 18 criminals is wrong too.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


Maybe.

I think the sentence should be appropriately harsh for crimes like rape. Say, 40 years, but not life for someone under 18.

For anything more heinous (multiple counts of murder, rape etc.) , yes, a life sentence should maybe be on the table.

I just think that the possibility of parole should always be in play when dealing with juveniles.


TA



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide whether a 13-year-old convicted of rape must spend the rest of his life in prison, a new front in the court's examination of whether sentences suitable for adults may be applied to teenagers.


source

Someone under the age of 18 should never face a life sentence. They should be punished appropriately but not sentenced to life. Before the age of 18, nobody is really mature enough to comprehend the extent of the damage they can or do cause. Life sentences for juveniles is a ludicrous notion and the Supreme Court should rule against it.


TA


In New Zealand we have thirteen year olds who murder pizza delivery people. I don't think minors should get off lightly on serious crimes.

I think it's more worrying that young kids are murdering people, because they're not going to change are they? They're sick excuses for human beings and they should be locked up for life.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by jd140
 


Maybe.

I think the sentence should be appropriately harsh for crimes like rape. Say, 40 years, but not life for someone under 18.

For anything more heinous (multiple counts of murder, rape etc.) , yes, a life sentence should maybe be on the table.

I just think that the possibility of parole should always be in play when dealing with juveniles.


TA



40 years isn't much differant then life.

Life is 25- to life with or without parole.

The crime and age of the criminal should be taken into account if parole is allowed or not.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Here are the facts in America as I see them.

Juveniles spend more time behind bars than adults do for similar crimes. Most states allow juveniles to be incarcerated until the age of 25.

And on the topic of Sex Offenses most states have a hearing to detain juveniles longer, if they believe the juvenile to still pose a significant risk to society, they can extend their sentence forever anyway. That's right forever!

Don't believe me here is a quote from the California law...




WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 1800-1803 1800. Whenever the Department of the Youth Authority determines that the discharge of a person from the control of the department at the time required by Section 1766, 1769, 1770, 1770.1, or 1771, as applicable, would be physically dangerous to the public because of the person's mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or abnormality which causes the person to have serious difficulty controlling his or her dangerous behavior, the department, through its director, shall request the prosecuting attorney to petition the committing court for an order directing that the person remain subject to the control of the authority beyond that time. The petition shall be filed at least 90 days before the time of discharge otherwise required. The petition shall be accompanied by a written statement of the facts upon which the department bases its opinion that discharge from control of the department at the time stated would be physically dangerous to the public, but the petition may not be dismissed and an order may not be denied merely because of technical defects in the application. The prosecuting attorney shall promptly notify the Department of the Youth Authority of a decision not to file a petition.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 



Whats your point?

If a 15 year old murders a man for his wallet and is tried as a minor. I expect at the end of his sentance to see if he is still a risk to society.

They do that with adults also. Except they accure extra time while incarcerated. Juviniles get extra time added at the end.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join