Teens and "life without parole"

[Fnord]

I think that teens who commit capital crimes should be convicted of lesser crimes that will keep them in prison (or whatever) until they reach the age of 18, and then tried as adults for the capital crimes themselves.

Let's say Johnny uses a pistol to murder someone. The lesser charges might include:

- Illegal possession of a firearm
- Illegal tresspass while in possession of a firearm

At the very least, it would give the prosecution more than ample opportunity to gather evidence and present a failure-proof capital case, while ensuring that the perpetrator is tried as an adult for those capital crimes.

- Assault with a firearm
- Assault with intent to commit grave bodily harm
- Premeditated murder

And when you consider that the "Right to a speedy and fair trial" is often set aside to benefit the accused (way too often), this might not be any real abuse of judicial authority.

But, that's just my opinion. Yours may vary.

 

[Praktik]

How so? It used to be that bad guys were getting out of prison too soon. Look at the larry Singleton case. He should never have been let out of prison.

The fact that this animal only served eight years for raping a 15 year old girl and chopping her arms off and leaving her for dead and then when he got out he killed another woman is one of many reasons why we feel that violent criminals and career criminals should spend more time in prison.

Interesting that you would choose as an example to support your case the exact kind of thing I derided in my post: namely extrapolating a broader policy from one sensationalized case.

Its dumb when it comes to ferret ownership and is just as dumb when it comes to formulating criminal policy.

 

[Bikewer]

Interesting that many states are trying desperately to get people out of prison for financial reasons. While federal programs, sentencing guidelines, and policies seem to lean towards the "lock 'em up forever" idea, a lot of individual states are revisiting their own policies and trying programs like electronic monitoring, early release with more supervision, release of non-violent criminals... All to save a few bucks.

Of course, sometimes the kinks need to be worked out. We arrested a fellow for "car-clouting" (breaking into cars) a few months ago; he was wearing an electronic ankle-bracelet at the time.
Seems it was the type that he had to run by the at-home monitor before a certain hour or the parole officer would be notified. Other than that, he could do what he liked.
Another case involved a fellow who simply moved his drug-dealing business from "the corner" to his apartment so he wouldn't set off the electronic monitor...

Still, states are to be applauded for looking for something that might be more effective than keeping a million or so prisoners locked up and creating a permanent underclass.

 

[Fiona]

I think that teens who commit capital crimes should be convicted of lesser crimes that will keep them in prison (or whatever) until they reach the age of 18, and then tried as adults for the capital crimes themselves.

Let's say Johnny uses a pistol to murder someone. The lesser charges might include:

- Illegal possession of a firearm
- Illegal tresspass while in possession of a firearm

At the very least, it would give the prosecution more than ample opportunity to gather evidence and present a failure-proof capital case, while ensuring that the perpetrator is tried as an adult for those capital crimes.

- Assault with a firearm
- Assault with intent to commit grave bodily harm
- Premeditated murder

And when you consider that the "Right to a speedy and fair trial" is often set aside to benefit the accused (way too often), this might not be any real abuse of judicial authority.

But, that's just my opinion. Yours may vary.

This doesn't make much sense to me, Fnord. Surely the point of treating minors differently is the recognition that they are not fully responsible adults?

If we are going to act as if the crime was committed by an adult why not just abolish the distinction altogether?

 

[Fnord]

Fiona,

My reasoning (which may not be all that reasonable) is that if we ever get to the point where a person may be declared "Guilty, but Insane" of first-degree murder and then tried for their crimes only after they've been cured of their insanity, then we could also have a verdict of "Guilty, but Juvenile" and treat the criminal the same -- they get tried for their capital crimes once they reach adulthood. Thus, a child would receive "treatment" for being a juvenile criminal, and then face the full edifice of the law once their "treatment" has ended.

Now, aren't you glad Mr. Obama didn't appoint me to the Supreme Court?

 

[Praktik]

Another case involved a fellow who simply moved his drug-dealing business from "the corner" to his apartment so he wouldn't set off the electronic monitor..

Ah yes, the half-inflated air mattress of the drug problem at work: push down in one place, up it goes somewhere else. Except in this case curiously, both parts of the equation were manifested in one individual..

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

My reasoning (which may not be all that reasonable) is that if we ever get to the point where a person may be declared "Guilty, but Insane" of first-degree murder and then tried for their crimes only after they've been cured of their insanity, then we could also have a verdict of "Guilty, but Juvenile" and treat the criminal the same -- they get tried for their capital crimes once they reach adulthood. Thus, a child would receive "treatment" for being a juvenile criminal, and then face the full edifice of the law once their "treatment" has ended.

Now, aren't you glad Mr. Obama didn't appoint me to the Supreme Court?

If they commit a crime because they are insane then why would you wish to condemn them as if that was not the case?

And to your last point: if you are serious then the answer is yes

 

[Brainster]

Apparently this was on NPR because a case on whether LWOP for non-murder cases is constitutional has reached the Supreme Court. The WaPo covers it:

Attorney Bryan S. Gowdy, who represents a man who was sentenced to life without parole at age 17, told the justices that his client and others imprisoned as juveniles deserve a right to prove that they have changed.

He said his client, Terrance Graham, now 22, seeks a "meaningful opportunity" at some point to show that he is "fit to live in society. That's all -- that's all we're asking for."

Graham was sentenced after he violated his probation by taking part in a home invasion. A year earlier, he had been convicted of armed robbery.

This particular cohort is not nearly as large as the ones serving LWOP for murder or felony murder:

Across the country, 111 people are serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles that did not result in a death, according to one report. More than 70 percent of them are in Florida, and only six other states have sentenced juveniles of any age to life without parole in cases that did not involve homicide.

 

[Fnord]

If they commit a crime because they are insane then why would you wish to condemn them as if that was not the case?

Because a crime was committed, regardless of the perpetrator's mental state. Even if capital punishment is abolished, there should still be the re-examination of the crime through the trial process once the perpetrator is deemed capable of understanding the charges, and life imprisonment should be a real possibility. Because if the perpetrator (Mr. Strawman) has a relapse of insanity or reverts to a child-like state of mind that causes him to lose his ability to perceive right from wrong, he could very well become a threat to others. Mr. Strawman has already demonstrated his murderous inclination while in that state, so why not protect the rest of us by keeping him locked away for life?

And to your last point: if you are serious then the answer is yes

Actually, I was hoping for U.S. Attorney General...

 

[Bikewer]

I suppose this deserves another thread... I'll let others make that decision. Right now, in many states, we have a situation where individuals who commit crimes while suffering from psychotic episodes may be remanded to treatment for same.
Upon achieving some semblance of mental stability, they may then be remanded back to the criminal justice system for trial for the original crime.

Using Fnord's contention, this is just fine. A crime was committed, after all. However, we have always had the legal principal of diminished capacity... A person suffering from a psychotic episode may well believe that say (as in a case we studied here), his parents are in fact possessed by malign alien beings, and that the only way to "save" them is to brutally murder them with a butcher knife. (actual case)
This particular individual was in fact found not guilty by reason of insanity and remanded to a mental-health institution. He had been suffering these schizophrenic delusions for years and there was plenty of psychiatric evidence to the effect that he was in fact psychotic.
However, this is not always the case. In fact, it's rather seldom the case considering the state of mental-health care in this country.

Since we are not capable of "curing" such people at present, institutionalization seems the only decent thing to do. However, imprisonment, where there will likely be little or no treatment...

As I mentioned in passing in my earlier post, where does this leave us in the theoretical case where on one fine day we are able to actually cure mental illness? Let's take our actual murderer/patient described above. He's murdered his parents in a violent psychotic rage, under the impression that they are actually evil aliens. We take him to the hospital and give him a series of injections and wah-lah, he's cured.
Now what? Yes, he's committed a heinous murder. However, the mental illness that compelled him is now gone.
Do we imprison this fellow for the crime?

 

[pgwenthold]

Personally, I have a problem with the "try juviniles as adults" concept in the first place. My problem is the one-sidedness of it. If the state can argue that a person not of age can be held responsible for a crime as an adult, why can't the person not of age argue they are responsible as an adult to obtain benefits of the majority? Including, but not only driving, drinking (not at the same time ), posing for pornographic pictures, or even voting (for a non-risk activity)?

If an accused pedophile tried to claim that a psychiatrist determined that the victim was in control of his/her facilities and therefore should be considered an adult, they would be given no credence so long as the victim was underage. But the state can claim that a perp was thinking like an adult and therefore is subject to adult laws?

When the state allows a minor the right to argue that they responsible adults and should be allowed to drink alcohol, then I'll be more willing to consider treating juvies as adults. But right now, it is too one-sided.

 

[The Fool]

I am really uneasy with life without parole. There is a Judicial system that is supposed to be an advancement in society, which it is. I just can't see any benefit whatsoever in proclaiming that this system is not allowed to apply to certain cases. It has the same smell as mandatory sentences....it takes away the power of common sense judgement that an effective judiciary is supposed to provide.

 

[Praktik]

Well isn't that the issue The Fool?

The judiciary isn't trusted when there's a whole week of judge-bashing when some elitist know-nothing judge makes a mistake - and the case is plastered across the tabloids and the Nancy Grace/O'Reilly/Sustren nexus....

Then the glorious politicians descend on their steeds of justice and promise to "get tough" - because in fact, their constituents have been trained by the 5-min news cycle to believe these individual incidents are signs of a general problem with the justice system and the only fix we can be certain of is regulating the job of a judge so the sentences are predetermined.

 

[Darat]

Well isn't that the issue The Fool?

The judiciary isn't trusted when there's a whole week of judge-bashing when some elitist know-nothing judge makes a mistake - and the case is plastered across the tabloids and the Nancy Grace/O'Reilly/Sustren nexus....

Then the glorious politicians descend on their steeds of justice and promise to "get tough" - because in fact, their constituents have been trained by the 5-min news cycle to believe these individual incidents are signs of a general problem with the justice system and the only fix we can be certain of is regulating the job of a judge so the sentences are predetermined.

Sadly I have to agree with you.

According to the media in the UK we are too soft on crime "these days", yet the number of people given prison sentences has at least doubled since the 1970s!

 

[jeb8757]

Why is it that people take on isolated aspect of a whole story and make that the single factor for judging and individual or and action.

I know about Ms Loxano's case. I am a friend of hers . I know the people that are working very hard to get SB399 passed so that 1000's of people can at least have a ray of hope in there live.

The first knee jerk misconception to SB399 is that the bill advocate opening the prison floodgates and allow thousands of habitually violent criminals free. That is not what the bill is about. The bill is about allowing post conviction juveniles, who qualify, that have made mistakes in their live a second chance.

Now about Ms Lozano's case and subsequent conviction.
1. MS Lozano was 16 at the time the crime was committed. That is a fact in this case. California allows juveniles to be tried as adults for certain types of crimes. I am saying whether this is bad or good it is a fact of the law.

2. Ms Lozano was growing up in Los Angelos. Helping her dada take care of her 5 younger brothers. She felt trapped in an very unfulfilling life as young people being inherently impatient sometimes do. A young gang leader start paying attention to her. She became enamored with the more exciting extravagant lifestyle he led. She became his girlfriend for about a month. On night he tell her he is going to collect a debt someone owes him. An argument pursues and the person that allegedly owes the debt is shot and killed by her boyfriend. Liz is subsequently raped and threatened by her boyfriend.

3. MS Loazano was not the shooter or murderer in this case (This fact is in the court record). If the courts would have had to show criminal intent too commit murder they probably could not have gotten a murder conviction. But thank god California has the "felony murder rule". So the prosecutor was able to tie her to the crime and add the additional crime of first degree murder which carries a mandatory life sentence.

4. As you so adeptly pointed out Ms Lozano fled to another country therefore proving her guilt. You are correct this fact was the most damaging to her case. But it you stop to think about how this might have come about. Ms Lozano at the time of the crime did not know about the "felony murder rule" Her fear was not from law enforcement. Her father made the decision to send her to her mother who was living in Mexico to get her away from her murderous boyfriend and the gan he was involved in. The proof that Ms Lozano was ignorant of the law is that she came back not suspecting that she would actually be implicated in a murder, that California already convicted the person who actually committed the murder.

6. During her trial her public defense never present a viable defense. The batter woman defense was never used. The prosecution use her boyfriends testimony which he change during the trial because he found out that he was not going to get a deal to reduce his sentence. But the image the state, who is after all so public safety conscious was contemplating cutting a deal with actual killer to convict a virtual bystander. her guilty verdict was a forgone conclusion.

No one is asking for the conviction to be overturned. Ms Lozano is a murderous felon under California law. The streets of LA are probably very safe without the likes of her lurking around every corner.

What is being asked for here is for a juvenile who was convicted of a felony but was not the principle in the commission and was issue a LWOP sentence. If they can prove that they are suitable for release after serving 10 or more years. They should be give a chance to be considered for parole.


Can you actually sit back with a clear conscience a say that the punishment fit the crime here. That because of fear for her life her father sent her to Mexico she deserves top die in prison with no hope of ever getting out.

 

[calebprime]

... We know now that promiscuous children are very likely to have been molested or otherwise exploited...(they aren't just evil kids.)
....

I agree with the general thrust of the rest of your post, but this?

Surely there are boys who have as much sex as they can at whatever age they are ready to have sex. This doesn't mean they were abused or exploited.

But probably by 'promiscuous' you mean something truly monstrous that would appall even me.

 

[roger]

The trouble is these people know the law and the consequences of breaking the law the third time. So they steal a cookie, so they get caught with a bag of marijuana. Ok they knew this was against the law. So why were they stupid enough to do it?

I recognize that you are speaking colloquially, but what makes you think "stupid" has anything to do with it?

A huge percentage of people in prison have mental health issues. Unsurprisingly, they often exhibit uncontrollable anger, inability to do long term planning, exhibit manic phases, etc. It has nothing to do with intelligence or whatever.

For example, here is an interesting article of a guy in Denver who is manic (in some form or another, diagnosis varied) and completely incapable of acting with any idea of the consequences. Another article cites research showing about 1/4 of the Colorado prison population has a 'significant need' for mental health treatment, with 15% diagnosed with severe mental illnesses, and many more undiagnosed.

 

[Bikewer]

Prisons have become the de facto warehouse for people with mental health problems.
NPR reported on the LA County jail a few months ago, indicating that it was the single largest mental-health facility in the nation.
That only because of the numbers of inmates with mental health problems; there is little in the way of treatment available for them.

 

[fuelair]

Short segment on NPR's Weekend Edition this morning about the fact that the US criminal justice system is unique among "civilized" nations for sentencing juvenile offenders to "life without the possibility of parole".

They profiled a young woman (now 34) who was sentenced at 16 under the felony murder provision; her boyfriend had murdered a rival gang member while she was present.

Now 34, she has a GED, is enrolled in college courses, and is part of a mentoring program for gang members. Hispanic, she came from an area where you had little choice but to be in a gang...
So, for poor decisions (perhaps not even poor...) made as a 15-year-old, she's now in prison for life.

There are legislations pending in some states that would allow judicial review of these sentences after varying periods, usually 10 years. This seems only sensible to me, especially since we now understand that the juvenile brain is in a process of development and is often subject to poor decision-making and choices.
Still, they spoke with an "anti" type who maintains the "if you do the crime, do the time" philosophy; that juveniles who commit "adult" crimes should be subject to adult punishments.
Seems to me in many cases to be both a waste of a young life and a considerable chunk of the taxpayer's money.

If it was a gang member. I have no quibble with her being out before now. Gang member deaths do not affect me and she did not kill it.

 

[jeb8757]

If it was a gang member. I have no quibble with her being out before now. Gang member deaths do not affect me and she did not kill it.

Why is it that people take one isolated aspect of a whole story and make that the single factor for judging and individual or and action.

I know about Ms Lozano's case. I am a friend of hers. I know the people that are working very hard to get SB399 passed so that 1000's of people can at least have a ray of hope in there lives.

The first knee jerk misconception to SB399 is that the bill advocates opening the prison floodgates and allows thousands of habitually violent criminals free. That is not what the bill is about. The bill is about allowing post conviction juveniles, who qualify, and have made mistakes in their lives to have a second chance.

Now about Ms Lozano's case and subsequent conviction.
1. MS Lozano was 16 at the time the crime was committed. That is a fact in this case. California allows juveniles to be tried as adults for certain types of crimes. I am not saying whether this is bad or good it is a fact of the law.

2. Ms Lozano was growing up in Los Angeles. Helping her father take care of her 5 younger brothers. She felt trapped in a very unfulfilling life, as young people being inherently impatient sometimes do. A young gang leader started paying attention to her. She became enamored with the more exciting extravagant lifestyle he led. She became his girlfriend for about a month. On night of the crime he tells her that he is going to collect a debt someone owes him. An argument pursues and the person that allegedly owes the debt is shot and killed by her boyfriend. Liz is subsequently raped and threatened by her boyfriend not to tell anyone.

3. MS Lozano was not the actual shooter or murderer in this case (This fact is in the court record). If the courts would have had to show criminal intent too commit murder they probably could not have gotten a murder conviction. But thank god California has the "felony murder rule". So the prosecutor was able to tie her to the crime and add the additional crime of first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

4. As you so adeptly pointed out Ms Lozano fled to another country therefore proving her guilt. You are correct, this fact was the most damaging to her case. But stop to think about how this might have come about. Ms Lozano at the time of the crime did not know about the "felony murder rule". Her fear was not from law enforcement. Her father made the decision to send her to her mother who was living in Mexico to get her away from her murderous boyfriend and the gang he was involved in. The proof that Ms Lozano was ignorant of the law is that she came back not suspecting that she would actually be implicated in a murder, that California had already convicted the person who actually committed the murder.

6. During her trial her public defense never presented a viable defense. The battered woman defense was never used. The prosecution used her boyfriends testimony, which he change during the trial, because he found out that he was not going to get a deal to reduce his sentence. Imaginer the state, who is after all so very public safety conscious was contemplating cutting a deal with actual killer to convict a virtual bystander. Her guilty verdict was a forgone conclusion.

No one is asking for the conviction to be overturned. Ms Lozano is a murderous felon under California law. The streets of LA are probably very safe without the likes of her lurking around every corner.

What is being asked for here is for a juvenile who was convicted of a felony but was not the principle in the commission of that crime and was issue a LWOP sentence. If they can prove that they are suitable for release after serving 10 or more years. They should be given a chance to be considered for parole.


Can you actually sit back with a clear conscience a say that the punishment fit the crime here. That because of fear for her life her father sent her to Mexico she deserves to die in prison with no hope of ever getting out.