Teens and "life without parole"

Your recall is not entirely right. The island you think about was featured in an outtake from one of Michael Moore's movies and I grew up watching the ferry dart between that island and my home town.

The island, Bastø, was originally used as a home for "naughty boys" and was infamous for abuse, molestation, and being a generally horrible environment. It was repurposed as a home for homeless alcoholics, then a maximum security prison, and finally a minimum security prison; Norway's first 'open' prison.

Currently it holds those convicts that are at the end of a long sentence and are considered not to pose a risk of escape. Prisoners are sometimes phased into society by being allowed to hold jobs in the various towns dotted along the Oslo-fjord, but returning to the island at the end of the work day.

There was a huge fire on the island a few weeks back, which destroyed a workshop the inmates used to build furniture.


Thank you for that information, PogoPedant. May I ask, does it seem to be an effective minimum security prison? Is it more like...I guess what we'd call a halfway house? I'm sure there are other island prisons as well. I think that later today I will have to read about them, now that my curiosity is piqued.

Thank you, I really appreciate you clearing up my wrong memory.
 
I'm afraid it's more depressing than that. These are early teenagers that end up living their life, from age 13-17 to death, in prison, for something stupid that they did. Tanzania has one such case, South Africa has four, and Israel has between four and seven. The US has two thousand, two hundred and twenty five such cases. Every other country in the world has zero. In fact, there are only a handful of countries that even have the legal allowance of such a sentence, but they rarely if ever use it.

The average age at admission to prison was eighteen years old; the youngest entered prison at age fourteen and the oldest was twenty-six years old. Nevertheless, 29 percent, or just under one-third of all the offenders studied, were admitted to adult penitentiaries while they were still children. I'll let you take one guess what happens to kids in an adult prison:





Penitentiaries in the United States are not designed to further rehabilitation, and youth offenders sentenced to life without parole are often barred from participating in the few programs that do exist. Youth offenders serving life without parole face an additional and daunting challenge in they must come to terms with the fact that they will live in prison for the rest of their lives. Unsurprisingly, the suicide rate is through the roof. LWOPs cannot participate in many rehabilitative, educational, vocational training or other assignments available to other inmates with parole dates . . . The supposed rationality is that LWOPs are beyond salvagability and would just be taking a spot away from someone who will actually return to society someday.

Other offenders serving life without parole dream of playing a positive, redeeming role in society at some hypothetical point in the future. Troy L., who was fifteen when he murdered his abusive father, was interviewed for this report at age twenty-four in June 2004. He wrote in a subsequent letter:



Some offenders manage to avoid drugs and alcohol in prison, a relevant accomplishment when substance abuse was a factor in their earlier criminal behavior. Thomas M., who was fifteen at the time of his offense and was interviewed in prison at age twenty, told a researcher for this report:



Criminal punishment in the United States can serve four goals: rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. The effectiveness of any punishment-whether life in prison or a week in jail-should be measured against the yardstick of these four goals and should accord with the widely accepted corollary that no punishment should be more severe than necessary to achieve these stated goals.

Sentencing children to life without parole fails to measure up on all counts.

Fishstick, thank you for taking the time to write all of that. It made me very sad, because we've just failed our youth in so many ways. I just see no reason for this.

Anyway, discussing facing entire lives in prison, last week I read an interesting book. I'm trying to learn a little more about Socialism, trying to get a better grip on it, rather, and so I went through some of my mother's books. I ended up choosing as my first read a book called Men in Prison, by Victor Serge. It is a fascinating account of his time in prison, but also...disturbing. But he had a cause, he wasn't just a young dumb kid that didn't realize what consequences his choices had.

Interesting book, if you haven't read it. I must admit that it has made me rethink prisons, but I've not resolved it in my mind yet.
 
I'm afraid it's more depressing than that. These are early teenagers that end up living their life, from age 13-17 to death, in prison, for something stupid that they did.

What are these kids in for?

In my mind, shoplifting or breaking windows would be 'something stupid' that some people do as kids. If you stretch it a little, getting drunk and stealing the neighbor's car will qualify. Murder or assault that results in serious bodily harm, no.
 
What are these kids in for?

In my mind, shoplifting or breaking windows would be 'something stupid' that some people do as kids. If you stretch it a little, getting drunk and stealing the neighbor's car will qualify. Murder or assault that results in serious bodily harm, no.

I would consider all of those things stupid. "Something stupid" was not intended as a qualifier for the severity, just that they are stupid. As for what they're in for, you can find the entire HRW report here: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/10/11/rest-their-lives
 
I find it sad that we would ever incarcerate a juvenile for life. With all of the strides in our understanding of what leads to certain behaviors and what kinds of influences really can help "reform" young people, it seems barbaric.

I have always wondered why we can't, for juveniles, attempt rehabilitation as they do in other countries. In particular, my recall may be wrong, but I'm thinking of Norway...an island??? Why don't we create something similar, for juveniles, have them do labor, give them positive reenforcement, educate them continually, teach them to work with others to achieve community self-sufficiency, put them in a positive environment with qualified counsellors (not just guards), and let's see what happens? I don't know why we don't do that. Is it the size of our population that makes that impossible? Many juvenile offenders have never had a positive environment, and truthfully, for many of them, such a facility would be a vast improvement from their "normal" everyday environment. I think it's worth a shot. If ever there's at chance to "reform", it would be with young people.

At least in NY they are stopping such programs for juvenile offenders. They are pushing to keep them in the comunity until they turn 16 then they are charged as adults and go to prison.

My mother works at such a place, and it is likely it will be closed down soon.
 
I would consider all of those things stupid. "Something stupid" was not intended as a qualifier for the severity, just that they are stupid. As for what they're in for, you can find the entire HRW report here: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/10/11/rest-their-lives

I disagree.

There is a difference if the crime indicates a complete lack of empathy, like Cainkane's example.

I have friends who stole a car and went on joyride in their teens, and spend some time in jail over that.
That's a far cry from shooting someone in the head IMHO.

I'm sure that there are many very sad cases and these laws should be reviewed. But there certainly are individuals that we do not want back on the streets. Ever.
 
I do not think anyone is saying that there are not some people whom we are unable to rehabilitate, and who will remain a danger all their lives. But surely that is the point of parole reviews? They are not perfect and mistakes are certainly made: but I do not think that is a reason for abandoning the whole idea of parole.

Mary Bell was said to be without empathy and was described as a sociopath. Yet she was released on license in 1980 and granted anonymity for herself and her child (and later her grandchild). While there will always be suspicion about her, she has not committed any more crimes. I do not think there are many cases more chilling than hers yet to keep her in jail for all of her life would have served no useful purpose I can see.
 
So you think length of sentances should be decided by the fact you can be emotionaly manipulated?
Thats a hard question to answer. When something like this happens new problems arise as time passes. The young man never knew his mother. The girls parents are her husband are still grieving. The community is still outraged. I realise I'm not answering your question properly but the truth is I really and truly don't know how.

If you go to georgia inmate locater you will see a picture of this now grown man with what appears to be a tattoo of Satan on his neck. If this person lived in your country and he did this murder would you want him back in your society? I hate to answer your question with a question but I'm sorry.
 
...snip... If this person lived in your country and he did this murder would you want him back in your society? I hate to answer your question with a question but I'm sorry.

Isn't that best answered by people with the experience and expertise to make these kinds of judgements?
 
Thank you for that information, PogoPedant. May I ask, does it seem to be an effective minimum security prison? Is it more like...I guess what we'd call a halfway house? I'm sure there are other island prisons as well. I think that later today I will have to read about them, now that my curiosity is piqued.

Thank you, I really appreciate you clearing up my wrong memory.

No problem! :)

As to the efficiency, I'm afraid I simply don't know enough to tell. The general feeling is that it's an OK institution, and it never really features in the media, except when more horror stories from its past role surfaces. I guess that's a good sign...
 
Isn't that best answered by people with the experience and expertise to make these kinds of judgements?

Here in the Netherlands, these experts make mistakes at a regular basis.
I do not know in what percentage of the cases they err, but these cases make the headlines.

The public does not understand if someone gets raped by a released psycho deemed a low risk. They ask why this calculated risk had to be taken at all.

But, the Netherlands be comparatively soft and naive with regards to this matter, as some recent cases have shown.
 
Here in the Netherlands, these experts make mistakes at a regular basis.
I do not know in what percentage of the cases they err, but these cases make the headlines.

...snip...

That to me would suggest that the mistakes are rare - "dog bites man" and all that?


The public does not understand if someone gets raped by a released psycho deemed a low risk. They ask why this calculated risk had to be taken at all.

...snip...

Well I am "the public" and I understand the philosophy underlying such a system.
 
I do not think anyone is saying that there are not some people whom we are unable to rehabilitate, and who will remain a danger all their lives. But surely that is the point of parole reviews? They are not perfect and mistakes are certainly made: but I do not think that is a reason for abandoning the whole idea of parole.

Mary Bell was said to be without empathy and was described as a sociopath. Yet she was released on license in 1980 and granted anonymity for herself and her child (and later her grandchild). While there will always be suspicion about her, she has not committed any more crimes. I do not think there are many cases more chilling than hers yet to keep her in jail for all of her life would have served no useful purpose I can see.
Mary bell was a little girl herself when she committed that murder. My example Randy Dobbs was 15. He was young but his murder was premeditated while mary bell was just a angry kid. Or am I mistaken?
 
Mary Bell was a child. She murdered two little boys in two separate incidents. They appear to have been premeditated.

She was 10: the boy you mention was 15. I am not sure where you wish to draw the line? For me the point is that rehabilitation is possible sometimes: I think we should try in all cases, adult and child. That is not to say we can always succeed, even in principle; I do not know. There are risks as well: we will get it wrong sometimes. Is that a risk worth taking? Depends on how much you trust the people making the decision: how much we can learn from and about the outcomes: what you perceive the aim of the justice system to be; how much you wish to weight the wishes of those who have been wronged ( the mother of one of Mary Bell's victims is still opposed to her release so far as I know). In short I suppose it comes down to what you are trying to do: and having decided that what is the evidence about how best to do it
 
I do not think anyone is saying that there are not some people whom we are unable to rehabilitate, and who will remain a danger all their lives. But surely that is the point of parole reviews? They are not perfect and mistakes are certainly made: but I do not think that is a reason for abandoning the whole idea of parole.

Mary Bell was said to be without empathy and was described as a sociopath. Yet she was released on license in 1980 and granted anonymity for herself and her child (and later her grandchild). While there will always be suspicion about her, she has not committed any more crimes. I do not think there are many cases more chilling than hers yet to keep her in jail for all of her life would have served no useful purpose I can see.
Ok I looked up the Mary bell case and it seems she murderes two little boys. She probably learned violent behaviour from her Prostitute mother who was into dominatrix sex.

Randy Dobbs on the other hand was older and was never mistreated by his parents who loved him dearly.
 
I have always wondered why we can't, for juveniles, attempt rehabilitation as they do in other countries.

because in America the mix of competing understandings of the role of the judicial system has come out with punishment/punitive/retributive models of justice in a more dominant role than in say, Canada or France, where models of rehabilitation and even the lefty type stuff of "restorative justice" hold more sway.
 
Mary Bell was a child. She murdered two little boys in two separate incidents. They appear to have been premeditated.

She was 10: the boy you mention was 15. I am not sure where you wish to draw the line? For me the point is that rehabilitation is possible sometimes: I think we should try in all cases, adult and child. That is not to say we can always succeed, even in principle; I do not know. There are risks as well: we will get it wrong sometimes. Is that a risk worth taking? Depends on how much you trust the people making the decision: how much we can learn from and about the outcomes: what you perceive the aim of the justice system to be; how much you wish to weight the wishes of those who have been wronged ( the mother of one of Mary Bell's victims is still opposed to her release so far as I know). In short I suppose it comes down to what you are trying to do: and having decided that what is the evidence about how best to do it
Actually I understand the Mothers sentiments. However a ten year old girl isn't as responsible as a 15 year old boy. Mary was in prison for how many years? Its my guesss that she responded to therapy.

Randy on the other hand did something in Prison to keep him from receiving parole. He has a tattoo of Satan on his neck which shows he has an attitude. Tattoos are not allowed in prison even though many prisoners get them on the sly.

Had randy finished highschool in prison and had learned a trade he might have been released.
 
Actually I understand the Mothers sentiments. However a ten year old girl isn't as responsible as a 15 year old boy. Mary was in prison for how many years? Its my guesss that she responded to therapy.

Randy on the other hand did something in Prison to keep him from receiving parole. He has a tattoo of Satan on his neck which shows he has an attitude. Tattoos are not allowed in prison even though many prisoners get them on the sly.

Had randy finished highschool in prison and had learned a trade he might have been released.

That seems like an argument that teens should have their cases reviewed on a case by case basis, which is all anyone's been arguing for on this.
 
because in America the mix of competing understandings of the role of the judicial system has come out with punishment/punitive/retributive models of justice in a more dominant role than in say, Canada or France, where models of rehabilitation and even the lefty type stuff of "restorative justice" hold more sway.
I actually know a girl who was rehabilitated. She finished highschool and got a certificate in beauty school. She and her boyfriend robbed a bank with a gun when she was 16 and a highschool dropout.

I have a black friend who robbed a bank at age 19 and he graduated from highschool in prison and learned culinary science. He worked for 35 years for the Ritz carlton hotel as a chef and is very well retired.

I keep seeing posts saying that American prisoners are not rehabilitated. Well some are and some aren't. Depends on the prisoner.
 
Actually I understand the Mothers sentiments. However a ten year old girl isn't as responsible as a 15 year old boy. Mary was in prison for how many years? Its my guesss that she responded to therapy.

Randy on the other hand did something in Prison to keep him from receiving parole. He has a tattoo of Satan on his neck which shows he has an attitude. Tattoos are not allowed in prison even though many prisoners get them on the sly.

Had randy finished highschool in prison and had learned a trade he might have been released.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about what a Parole hearing entails. A parole board does not hand pat you on the back and let you walk out the door (though being granted parole does, essentially, do that).

They decide whether or not to grant it. Thus, if they determine that Randy shows no signs of change or remorse, and is, in fact, the same psychopath he was when he went in, he can stay there longer (and parole hearings are often VERY infrequent - once every 5, or 10 years in some cases).

Every argument I've ever seen for leaving the law the way it is seems to conflate the possibility of parole with the certainty of parole.

Do you understand that parole is not automatically granted, and would not be automatically granted to this 'Randy' who you so despise?
 

Back
Top Bottom