Teens and "life without parole"

[luchog]

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.

Just a little hint, people here will expect you to respond substantively to their assertions and opinions, addressing the actual points made. Simply posting the same exact text repeatedly is not considered a substantive response, and is typically considered spamming or trolling.

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.

Interesting comment. Not that I'm disputing it, I just find it odd that someone would do this. Specifically, that someone would seek to remove a family member from local gang influence by sending her to a country where gangs have far more power, often rivalling the government in some regions. Not to mention the fact that many Hispanic gangs in the southwestern US have strong ties to Mexican and other Latin American gangs.

 

[jeb8757]

So this sixteen year old left the US to go to Mexico and and join a gang that rivaled the mexican government. That is much more believable. Then I guess she should be in prisoned for life. I am sorry for believing some one who has incarcerated for life. In fact I forgot that our justice system is so perfect when compared to the rest of the backward world. Countries like Mexico right? Lest we should never criticize anything our government does, or try to correct a wrong, or for that matter try to make it better. The police state is upon lets pray that someone in your family is never a victim of over zealous prosecution. It would be a little different thane wouldn't it?

As to your personal attack accusing me of spamming. I edited my response. I could not find a way to delete my original response. Since you seem to be some kind of random enforcer why don't you just have me removed from this lame forum. It really wouldn't bother me given the totally ludicrous response to my detail information about the case. Sig Heil!

 

[rockinkt]

So this sixteen year old left the US to go to Mexico and and join a gang that rivaled the mexican government. That is much more believable. Then I guess she should be in prisoned for life. I am sorry for believing some one who has incarcerated for life. In fact I forgot that our justice system is so perfect when compared to the rest of the backward world. Countries like Mexico right? Lest we should never criticize anything our government does, or try to correct a wrong, or for that matter try to make it better. The police state is upon lets pray that someone in your family is never a victim of over zealous prosecution. It would be a little different thane wouldn't it?

As to your personal attack accusing me of spamming. I edited my response. I could not find a way to delete my original response. Since you seem to be some kind of random enforcer why don't you just have me removed from this lame forum. It really wouldn't bother me given the totally ludicrous response to my detail information about the case. Sig Heil!

Did you meet this girl in prison?

 

[Darth Rotor]

_your post-

Three points:

1. Ignorance is no defense.
2. The CA law that treats the accomplice/associate as the trigger puller may be causing as many problems as it solves. I agree with you that the law may be an ass in this case, but in court, "I don't like that law" is no defense.
3. Fled to Mexico to join a gang. Brilliant move. Sign me up for not being in the least bit sympathetic to your apologist's argument on that bit of the story.

Can you actually sit back with a clear conscience a say that the punishment fit the crime here.

Maybe not. What plea deal was she offered before trial? Do you know anything about the details of that? Such detail might provide better insight.

As to your personal attack accusing me of spamming.

Not a personal attack. A caution to you that you were at risk of running afoul of forum rules.

READ THEM!

Seriously, you need to read the rules.

Here is a link.

The police state is upon lets pray that someone in your family is never a victim of over zealous prosecution.

Hyperbole and histrionics weaken, rather than strengthen, your position.

Since you seem to be some kind of random enforcer why don't you just have me removed from this lame forum. It really wouldn't bother me given the totally ludicrous response to my detail information about the case.

Luchog was giving you a veteran's friendly hint at how things work here. Not an enforcer.

Sig Heil!

Your credibility just dropped about sixteen more points.

You are not doing well, jeb.

DR

 

[jeb8757]

Think about for a second. How would frightened 16 year old high school student have the means to arrange a trip a trip to Mexico on her own. And what gang would really find use for her. This person was not a career criminal. She was someone caught up in a bad situation. That was made worse by her father's decision to send her to Mexico rather than risk retaliation.
I am not asking for a pardon here or exoneration. Just to reexamine the laws as the pertain to juvenile offenders. Since the U. S. is the only "civilized" nation that provide LWOP sentences to juvenile offender no matter what the circumstances before or after the fact.

I could provide you with some informative web sites but the stinking forum does not allow me to do that and most of the posters don't want to be informed they just want to dictate their stupid rules.

DR, I am still waiting for you to ban me. This stinking place is a waste land any way. Seems like if you have been a member of the forum longer the opinions that you spew carry way more weight than fact. I am sick of phony intellectuals as they love to site and pass their superior judgment on others. BTW I know what the law is in CA. Thank you for being so condescending toward me.

 

[fuelair]

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.

This is my take on it - if a young person puposely kills or permanently harms (and this is a very incomplete list) my wife, niece, the two kids of my next door neighbor or others unnamed, it will be best for them to be in prison for the rest of my life. Though I hope they won't be.
Youth MAY partially excuse killing certain people who actually, with malice aforethought caused a young person deep harm - it does not in any way allow for random or persecutorial killing/harm. To be fair, I must note that extends to the mentally young/damaged also. Also, to be fair, I have worked with happily both youth and persons with mental difficulties and wish them nothing but good. Until/if bad things occur through them.

 

[fuelair]

It's barbaric for the woman in the OP to be ineligible for parole.

And, I do not argue against her receiving parole. And, if all she did was be present, with, provably, no idea what had been planned/was going to happen, she should not have been imprisoned at all.

 

[Cainkane1]

So you think length of sentances should be decided by the fact you can be emotionaly manipulated?

I say that the damage done to the victims family should be a factor in a murderers release if it happens.

 

[jeb8757]

I can appreciate the personal perspective here. I love my family too. And I would also be out of mind with vengeful thoughts if that were to happen to them. But that is not the point here I don't think

This person did not actually physically murder anyone. The case is was never about mental illness. It is more about gang influence, and peer pressure on young people and them getting caught up in a series of bad decisions that lead to a sentence of LWOP. It is essentially a long death sentence. Mainly because of the lack of any hope.

I have never premised that this should be applied to all juvenile cases, but I think all cases should be reviewed, but release would definitely not apply to all the cases. I think the above case is just one where the factors would weigh good for release. SB399 is not an across the board release of all juvenile offenders with LWOP. It is very difficult in CA to obtain parole especially for murder case involving life sentences.

The other question can we trust our elected and non elected officials to apply this appropriately. Probably not. But then I have absolutely no faith in our government as it stands today. But that is just my opinion, but I think I can back it up with quite a few examples of failed policy.

The SB399 gives people hope that made bad decisions in their youth. I don't know what else to say. Trying to make people see is difficult. I am probably a bit emotional about this topic. I apologize for that.

Here are the facts of Lozano's case.

1. Yes she was with the gang member when he committed a murder.
2. Yes she went to Mexico for whatever reasons we can speculate.
3. Yes She was sixteen at the time of the murder.
4. It is in the court record that she was not the trigger person
5. Under California law (and many other states) fact number 4 doesn't matter.
6. It all adds up to a mandatory life sentence with out parole.

All the work she has done in prison will not matter. She will die in prison after serving many lonely years there. She has already been denied raising her son. Her son has been denied a mother. She will see most of her loved one pass away and not be there with them. This all because of one or two bad decisions she made at the age of sixteen. She never took a life.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Think about for a second. How would frightened 16 year old high school student have the means to arrange a trip a trip to Mexico on her own. And what gang would really find use for her. This person was not a career criminal. She was someone caught up in a bad situation. That was made worse by her father's decision to send her to Mexico rather than risk retaliation.
I am not asking for a pardon here or exoneration. Just to reexamine the laws as the pertain to juvenile offenders. Since the U. S. is the only "civilized" nation that provide LWOP sentences to juvenile offender no matter what the circumstances before or after the fact.

I could provide you with some informative web sites but the stinking forum does not allow me to do that and most of the posters don't want to be informed they just want to dictate their stupid rules.

DR, I am still waiting for you to ban me. This stinking place is a waste land any way. Seems like if you have been a member of the forum longer the opinions that you spew carry way more weight than fact. I am sick of phony intellectuals as they love to site and pass their superior judgment on others. BTW I know what the law is in CA. Thank you for being so condescending toward me.

Boy, do you have a chip on your shoulder! Any chance you could discuss any of this calmly and rationally, rather than taking everything personally?

ETA: For the record, I'm on your side in this debate. I think LWOP sentences for minors should be rare, if not non-existant. I just don't think you're making your argument in a way that is likely to convince others here.

 

[jeb8757]

I really cannot speak for the victims family. I don't know what the feelings are toward MS Lozano. It should be considered, but it should not be the only factor.

 

[jeb8757]

Hey ZirconBlue. I have been waiting for some one to respond with an intelligent dialog. I apologize. I do sometimes get upset with stupidity especially with something as important to me as this. And I don't like to be brow about petty useless rules. Just so that person can maintain a level of superiority over me. I am not afraid of luchog and DR. They haven't contributed one piece of useful information to this thread.
Just so you know I look forward to engaging people on a level playing field.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Think about for a second. How would frightened 16 year old high school student have the means to arrange a trip a trip to Mexico on her own. And what gang would really find use for her. This person was not a career criminal. She was someone caught up in a bad situation. That was made worse by her father's decision to send her to Mexico rather than risk retaliation.

I don't take the bleeding heart position, but I see your point. See my agreement above that the CA law in question might be of questionable merit.

I am not asking for a pardon here or exoneration. Just to reexamine the laws as the pertain to juvenile offenders.

Why do you offer juvenile as an excuse, for a sixteen year old who was involved in a very adult crime: murder?

Since the U. S. is the only "civilized" nation that provide LWOP sentences to juvenile offender no matter what the circumstances before or after the fact.

I do not consider the arbitrary value of "juvenile" to be a mitigating factor in crime comission. Your point on the accomplice role she played, and not being the trigger puller, has far more strength. The sentencing process seems to have overlooked that detail, perhaps for a good reason, perhaps for foul.

I could provide you with some informative web sites but the stinking forum does not allow me to do that and most of the posters don't want to be informed they just want to dictate their stupid rules.

You can type in the web site like this.
http://forums_randi_rg/newreply_hp?do=newreply&p=5462274

Use underscores rather than dots for the normal dots, and one of us can take it from there until you have enough posts to be able to post links.

DR, I am still waiting for you to ban me.

You will wait a long time, amigo. I am not an admin. I and luchog were actually trying to be helpful to a new arrival. By the way, welcome.

This stinking place is a waste land any way. Seems like if you have been a member of the forum longer the opinions that you spew carry way more weight than fact.

Not usually. Even someone with as ridiculously high a post count as mine often gets called on an error or reasoning glitch.

I am sick of phony intellectuals as they love to site and pass their superior judgment on others. BTW I know what the law is in CA. Thank you for being so condescending toward me.

I appreciate that you have some knowledge in this matter, but I am pointing out to you that if you wish to make your case, appeals to emotion and histrionics most often get short shrift here.

It's a tough room, but not unplayable.

So, rather than bitch at me, can you please respond to my inquiry in re the plea deal? As I said, it might offer some insights that aren't commonly available.

I am not afraid of luchog and DR.

Do you want a medal, or a chest to pin it on?

DR

 

[jeb8757]

Fuelair, California law was applied correctly here, "the felony murder rule" The only hope is SB399 and some mitigation that way. It is very difficult and expensive to appeal a decision in the CA court system. They are made to stick. You basically get one shot.

 

[jeb8757]

So there DR what's the bleeding heart position big guy, compassion?
I lost a my whole original post apparently because I had imbedded the web links in my response. You seemed to know so much about the rules here apparently you need a minimum number of post before you are allowed to post web-links. Probably has something to do with my bad attitude. I know how to post web-links. Thanks again guy.

The fact of the matter is the only hope is SB399. There is no hope of ever getting the felony murder rule changed. Can you image how many people would get de-facto released if that were to happen. Not a chance. SB399 is really a reasonable bill. If reexamining certain juvenile cases is the bleeding heart position. I guess that is what I am in this matter. There could be worse things to be.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So there DR what's the bleeding heart position big guy, compassion?

No, using the arbitrary classification of 'juvenile' as an excuse. Again, we don't disagree that the problem with the accomplice pays as badly as the trigger puller law makes for some bad decisions. We had a thread about a year and a half ago (Matteo Martini was all in a lather) over a similar case in Houston Texas: the guy who was an accomplice, but not the trigger man, was on death row.

I lost a my whole original post apparently because I had imbedded the web links in my response. You seemed to know so much about the rules here apparently you need a minimum number of post before you are allowed to post web-links.

Correct. That's why I offered to post the links for you if you put the links in the form I suggested.

Probably has something to do with my bad attitude. I know how to post web-links. Thanks again guy.

Did you read the rules? (Membership agreement?)

The fact of the matter is the only hope is SB399.
There is no hope of ever getting the felony murder rule changed.
Can you image how many people would get de-facto released if that were to happen.

I think you are right.

Not a chance. SB399 is really a reasonable bill. If reexamining certain juvenile cases is the bleeding heart position. I guess that is what I am in this matter. There could be worse things to be.

I respectfully disagree that sixteen is juvenile, though by the letter of the law, it is so classified in most states. I do not find youth to be a valid excuse for felony.

DR

 

[jeb8757]

DR SB399 is not using age as an excuse to commit a felony.

It's the mandatory life sentence that seems harsh. I think there is a better chance of a person who is still developing emotionally to be rehabilitated, than someone who is older and has made the same kind of decisions. This person has paid dearly for her involvement in this crime. And as far as I know did not continue a life of crime for the 4 years following the incident. A chance is all we are asking here. Age should make a difference that is why we have separate laws for juveniles. They are legally in a different class. Shouldn't we at least try to rehabilitate our children. Granted it doesn't always work, but I think the opportunity is better for younger offenders. Parole in CA is far from a rubber stamp entitlement. It is very tough in CA and should be. All factors should be considered.

Liz's case is a sequence of horrible decisions by her and her family ( I know you aren't buying the fact her father sent her to Mexico, but I believe it. Just be cause it is more reasonable than your premise.) The chances are if she would have stayed and faced the consequences at the age of 16 a different set of laws may have applied. She probably would not have been dealt with so harshly.

I am saying hope is not a bad thing and age should be a big factor, but certainly not the only factor.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

The problem is and is going to be that,

1.) There is no statute of limitations on murder.
2.) Being an accomplish still makes one party to the crime.
3.) Fleeing the jurisdiction means that the crime is ongoing.
4.) While the original crime was committed as a juvenile she made the mistake of fleeing until she was an adult.

First I don't believe that she just didn't know you weren't supposed to run from the law. I find equally likely that she came back into the country assuming that the law wouldn't touch her because she was now an adult and the crime was committed as a juvenile.

You do understand that being in a gang and being at a gang murder makes you directly responsible for it? So I have no sympathy, but I will be fair.

25 to life, and after she serves her 25 years she can be released on parole with a monitoring system. I think that is pretty fair given the circumstances.

 

[jeb8757]

1. Yes
2. correct.
3. Not sure but it is probably corrects.
4. absolutely correct.

I realize the how the law is delegated in the U.S. And I don't dispute that there were a series of bad judgement errors made by a 16 year old old here.

Speculating about what this person knew about the law is just that. Most people don't know the intricacies of the law as such, especially young, poor Mexican Americans, who have very little access to our system.

I have come to expect very little compassion from Americans. It's the air of paranoia around this country I think. If you think locking away juvenile offenders for life without any hope for redemption is the solution so be it. I try to look for ways to make the system better, more fair. But I can see I am out numbered in this vain. But I will continue my message and my conviction.

 

[Darth Rotor]

DR SB399 is not using age as an excuse to commit a felony.

Perhaps, but more than one argument in this thread have been headed in that direction, which you seem to agree with.

It's the mandatory life sentence that seems harsh.

It's the mandatory part that seems a bit strange, as do the silly three strikes and your are out, and any number of mandatory sentencing guidelines.

If one is going to be sentenced to life with no parole, IMO that is cruel and unusual punishment, and a quick execution far more humane. I realize others don't agree with that assessment.

I think there is a better chance of a person who is still developing emotionally to be rehabilitated, than someone who is older and has made the same kind of decisions. This person has paid dearly for her involvement in this crime.

Yes. Again, can you please advise of any info you are aware of regarding a plea bargain/deal that was offered before it went to trial?

DR