Teens and "life without parole"

[Praktik]

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.

Right, I'm just saying from a pop culture perspective, the "punitive" strain is stronger there.

And this is not to say we dont have that strain up here in Canada - we do, its just competing with a much stronger lefty approach to justice. Our current PM is looking to redraw the balance but has had not had much luck in a minority parliament.

For example, at federal prisons there was a program to get prisoners gardening on patches of land on the prison sites. They'd eat what they were growing too.

But because of the legislation they have on the table (not all of which will pass) that will raise minimum sentences, raise punishments for juveniles and generally be "tougher" on crime, these programs are ending so that prisons can be expanded to accept the increase of prisoners they expect and this one-hundred year program is on its way out.

So the mix is ever changing and Harper is looking to promote his particular view of justice which meshes more closely with that of our southern neighbours but thankfully as much as there is part of our electorate that responds to the facile "tough on crime" approach there are many people turned off by the approach and this agenda is not likely to go through on all counts.

We'll see where we end up but I highly doubt that we'll swing too far in the punitive direction with the kind of "mandatory minimums" and three strikes laws we've seen down south.

 

[Praktik]

I mean, it shouldn't be all that controversial to say that America has a stronger "punitive bent", you don't get some of those crazy statistics about the numbers of people imprisoned and overcrowding with a rehabilitative/restorative model!

 

[Fiona]

Actually I understand the Mothers sentiments.

Yes I think they are understandable: that does not mean they should carry a great deal of weight. Sadly the victims are often in a poor position to make rational decisions (depending, of course, on what you are trying to achieve)

However a ten year old girl isn't as responsible as a 15 year old boy.

Certainly. Gender does not seem all that relevant to me. But I do not think that a 15 year old boy is an adult and I would not trust any 15 year old I have met with fully adult responsibilities.

Mary was in prison for how many years?

12, I believe, though most of the time was spent in a secure facility for boys since there was no suitable place at all. She transferred to an adult women's prison when she was 18, I think

Its my guesss that she responded to therapy.

Depends what you mean. Mary Bell consistently refused therapy so far as I know. However secure units do have some element of "therapeutic environment" no matter how inadequate. For her that may have been significant

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.

This boy is not really an example of the OP because, as you have said, he was eligible for parole. Eligibility does NOT mean parole will always be granted: nor should it. When and why it should be granted is a difficult question and I am not convinced we resource attempts at rehabilitation as well as we should; nor that our decisions about whether it should be granted are made as carefully as they might be, even working within the constraints of our knowledge. But the question here is whether we should impose sentences without even the possibility of parole. I do not think we should

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

Indeed. If we allow the possibility of parole; if we do our best to rehabilitate all prisoners and to give them real opportunity; and if we carefully assess the progress made, if any, some people will be released and some will not be for just such reasons as you point out. Is there any reason in principle not to make those attempts and instead to rule it out from the start? That is the question

 

[Brainster]

I tend not to trust parole boards. There was a case out here in Arizona, where a youngster started out like a classic serial killer by killing cats and dogs. When he was 17 he murdered his best friend's mother, then had sex with the corpse. I think he was initially sentenced to death, with the sentence commuted to life with possibility of parole when the Supreme Court mandated that the DP was unconstitutional. Over time he had become a trusty at the jail and was allowed out on work details, then weekend passes. The parole board decided to grant him parole, but failed to notify the victim's son (and the killer's former best friend) as was required under AZ's Victim's Bill of Rights law. The son raised a stink in the local papers. The parole board claimed that they had been unable to locate him, but their argument was undercut by the fact that he still lived in his parent's former home and was listed in the phone book.

So they have the parole hearing again, with the victim's son testifying against parole. And the board again votes for parole. But then a worker for a gun shop recognizes the killer from newspaper photos as a man who tried to purchase a gun, but balked when confronted with the Brady Bill paperwork. Turns out that the day he tried to buy the gun was the day that the newspapers broke the story about the victim's son protesting that he hadn't been notified.

So there's a third hearing for this guy based on the new evidence. The killer's wife (yep, he got married while in jail) and her son testified that it was all a silly mistake, that he was just trying to buy a gun for his new stepson's birthday. Unbelievably, one of the three parole board members still wanted to let this guy loose; it is fortunate that he was outvoted.

 

[Cainkane1]

Speaking of three strikes I have a cousin in the california prison system for life. Heres why. He beat his wife to death during a drug induced argument. He received 8 for that. He got out and molested a five year old girl. He got 8 years for that. He got out and he was caught burglarising a house. He got life with no parole for that.

 

[Cainkane1]

I tend not to trust parole boards. There was a case out here in Arizona, where a youngster started out like a classic serial killer by killing cats and dogs. When he was 17 he murdered his best friend's mother, then had sex with the corpse. I think he was initially sentenced to death, with the sentence commuted to life with possibility of parole when the Supreme Court mandated that the DP was unconstitutional. Over time he had become a trusty at the jail and was allowed out on work details, then weekend passes. The parole board decided to grant him parole, but failed to notify the victim's son (and the killer's former best friend) as was required under AZ's Victim's Bill of Rights law. The son raised a stink in the local papers. The parole board claimed that they had been unable to locate him, but their argument was undercut by the fact that he still lived in his parent's former home and was listed in the phone book.

So they have the parole hearing again, with the victim's son testifying against parole. And the board again votes for parole. But then a worker for a gun shop recognizes the killer from newspaper photos as a man who tried to purchase a gun, but balked when confronted with the Brady Bill paperwork. Turns out that the day he tried to buy the gun was the day that the newspapers broke the story about the victim's son protesting that he hadn't been notified.

So there's a third hearing for this guy based on the new evidence. The killer's wife (yep, he got married while in jail) and her son testified that it was all a silly mistake, that he was just trying to buy a gun for his new stepson's birthday. Unbelievably, one of the three parole board members still wanted to let this guy loose; it is fortunate that he was outvoted.

That silly mistake should cause his parole to go bye bye.

 

[Darat]

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.

Which is a shame as America really did the lead the world in prison reform for a long time.

 

[Fishstick]

Speaking of three strikes I have a cousin in the california prison system for life. Heres why. He beat his wife to death during a drug induced argument. He received 8 for that. He got out and molested a five year old girl. He got 8 years for that. He got out and he was caught burglarising a house. He got life with no parole for that.

Three strikes law is another farce in and of itself. Sure it catches worst case scenarios, but it causes a whole lot of drama's for relatively innocious crimes like cannabis possession.

 

[Praktik]

Three strikes law is another farce in and of itself. Sure it catches worst case scenarios, but it causes a whole lot of drama's for relatively innocious crimes like cannabis possession.

Ya there are some pretty amazing anecdotes on that one... people put away on a completely ridiculous third strike...

Not sure the "war of anecdotes" is the best way to have that debate, though they can add a human note to the topic (one way or the other).

For Californians to be honest, they should really just think about this in terms of $$. Is it worth the increased cost associated with increased incarceration?

 

[billw]

Some of the controversial results with California's 3-strike law have included cases where the third strike was "felony petty theft" of cookies or golf clubs or a slice of pizza, often committed at the same time as another more-serious crime. I have no problem with LWOP for someone who commits a third violent crime against a person or persons - throwing things like property crimes, drug offenses, and vice into the mix is not always appropriate, imo.

I can't help but think of Merle Haggard, who wrote what has got to be one of the most heart-wrenching lines ever in country music: "I turned 21 in prison, doing life without parole...."

 

[Cainkane1]

Some of the controversial results with California's 3-strike law have included cases where the third strike was "felony petty theft" of cookies or golf clubs or a slice of pizza, often committed at the same time as another more-serious crime. I have no problem with LWOP for someone who commits a third violent crime against a person or persons - throwing things like property crimes, drug offenses, and vice into the mix is not always appropriate, imo.

I can't help but think of Merle Haggard, who wrote what has got to be one of the most heart-wrenching lines ever in country music: "I turned 21 in prison, doing life without parole...."

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?

My first cousin whom I completely disown committed three major felonies but even had the third crime been a misdeameanor I still would have no compassion for him.

 

[Praktik]

Still, shouldn't California reconsider three strikes just on the basis of the economics?

They're in crisis right now and I'm not sure that signing more people up for life sentences because they had a joint in their possession is the wisest course - aside from the complete immorality of the law itself.

EDIT: found this ->

Last year, there were 41,284 prisoners serving time under the law, which requires a minimum 25-year sentence for third-time felons. Of those, 3,629 of third strikers were non-violent felons (although their first two offenses were violent felonies). Since third-strikers are often housed in maximum-security prisons, the average annual cost of housing, per person, is $31,000. The law also doubles sentences for second-time felons. The total cost of housing prisoners serving time under the law amounts to about $500 million a year.​

 

[Checkmite]

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.

What "strides" are those?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ya there are some pretty amazing anecdotes on that one... people put away on a completely ridiculous third strike...

If they didn't want life in prison they shouldn't have shoplifted...

 

[GreyICE]

I tend not to trust parole boards.

*snip anecdote*

Is this a complaint against parole as a concept, or parole boards as an implementation?

In other words, do you want to do away with or severely restrict the concept of parole, or do you just dislike how parole boards currently operate?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

Many criminals are rather dumb. Why should being dumb be punishable by life in prison?

 

[Praktik]

Many criminals are rather dumb. Why should being dumb be punishable by life in prison?

Because voters are just as dumb as the criminals they think are dumb. California was the poster child for "tyranny of the majority" in my high school politics class, where the ferret-ban voter initiative (after a tabloid story where a baby was mauled to death by two ferrets fed marijuana) was exhibit A. Now there's an underground ferret trade. Amazing that sentence could even be formulated..

But clearly, voter-initiatives on sentencing guidelines are dumber than the dumb criminals they're targeted against.

 

[sugarb]

What "strides" are those?

Good afternoon, Checkmite. We now have a better understanding of human development. We know, or can make a reasonable guess, as to when it is early enough in development to provide certain behavior therapies that can teach young people how to cope with what, for many of them , are seemingly impossible circumstances. We know, quite obviously, that our current system, even based on the discussion above regarding three strikes, does not work as a deterrent, even for juveniles...so it makes no sense to me that we don't focus *especially* on juveniles, to bring down as much as possible the near and long term prison populations.

More examples: we now know that hyper children aren't possessed by demons. We know now that promiscuous children are very likely to have been molested or otherwise exploited...they aren't just evil kids. A true "bad seed" as we call it, is quite rare really.

Skeptigirl actually had some interesting ideas and links in the thread about spanking, and it is my hope that she'll join this thread, too. Our understanding of things has expanded greatly, yet the implementation seems to be too difficult or tiresome or cumbersome or expensive or whatever for us to even think about. Most people resist change, even if it would improve things.

 

[Cainkane1]

Because voters are just as dumb as the criminals they think are dumb. California was the poster child for "tyranny of the majority" in my high school politics class, where the ferret-ban voter initiative (after a tabloid story where a baby was mauled to death by two ferrets fed marijuana) was exhibit A. Now there's an underground ferret trade. Amazing that sentence could even be formulated..

But clearly, voter-initiatives on sentencing guidelines are dumber than the dumb criminals they're targeted against.

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Hey with our over crowded prisons what else are you going to do? He clearly needed to be let out so some else could take is place.