Should Juvenile Offenders Be Sentenced to Life?

by Sandy Maple (Subscribe to Sandy Maple's posts) May 7th 2009 1:00PM

Categories: Opinions

Text Size:

The Supreme Court will examine whether children should be sentenced to life in prison. Photo: Craig Jewell, sxc.hu

It used to be that juvenile offenders in the United States could be put to death for their crimes. That practice was outlawed in 2005 when the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for juvenile crimes was unconstitutionally cruel. But today, the U.S. remains the only country in the world that allows juveniles - some as young as 13 - to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Of course criminals should be punished for their crimes regardless of their age. But should kids be treated the same as adults?

Over at Cafe Mom, they are debating that very question and the general consensus seems to be that regardless of age, if you do the crime, you do the time.

But there are many who disagree, including Deborah LaBelle, a civil rights attorney. "Life-without-parole sentences ignore the very real differences between children and adults, abandoning the concepts of redemption and second chances upon which this country was built," she says.

Maybe the fate of young offenders spending the rest of their lives in prison is something you've never thought much about. But the Supreme Court is thinking about it and announced earlier this week that it will decide whether life sentences for children constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

What do you think? Should young offenders be given a shot a redemption and rehabilitation? Or do you believe, as one Cafe Mom reader does, that when the consequences of a crime last forever, so should the punishment?

Source

Comments (6)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

maritza 5-07-2009 @ 1:57PM

i think they should cut off their part!!! dat way no one will worry about them doing it again. i mean they should just die! why would anyone want them around! like if they have wifes or gf why would they want to be with a sik person like dat...

Kirstie 5-07-2009 @ 2:14PM

Um ... we're talking about children who commit crimes that merit life-sentences, like murder. We're not discussing pedophilia.

SKL 5-07-2009 @ 3:05PM

I agree with trying an older teen as an adult unless he proves he lacks either the maturity or the intelligence to understand the seriousness of his crime.

I believe the cutoff age for this should not be less than 15 or 16, as long as there is something called a "juvenile justice system." It is ridiculous to argue that a 12- or 13-year-old was thinking like an adult when he committed a crime. I believe these kids are tried as adults for political reasons - to respond to public outcry or what have you - or maybe to distract people from the ineffectiveness of our "juvenile justice." There is no way that fairness can exist when prosecutors or judges (who serve at the pleasure of the voters) are free to make these kinds of decisions.

What is the point of the juvenile justice system if we're going to bypass it whenever it's politically expedient? Either there's a point to treating kids differently, or there isn't. Either abolish the whole system or make it work.

Michele W 5-07-2009 @ 5:18PM

I think that it should depend on what the case is. In cases like murder, like the 11 year old that beat the pregnant lady to death and both her and the baby died, I think they should be tried as adults. If they can kill once they can do it again and they dont need to be let go because they are kids. These are how serial murders and people like that start out. I know I would not feel safe if these kids were set free. Adults or not murder is murder.

Jessica 5-08-2009 @ 12:52PM

i think the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, as it currently is. I think there are plenty of examples in which, I believe, a child should be sentenced to life in prison.

If there are existing mental health illnesses, then the appropriate sentence would be to a mental health facility.

I also think child history should be taken into consideration. If the child shows symptoms, such as bed-wetting combined with fire starting and animal cruelty; possible sexual abuse or deviancy, then we can identify them as a future psychopath. That child should not be without constant supervision for the entirety of their lives.

And, please, don't freak out and start screaming at me b/c your child wets the bed....mine does as well. It is not bed-wetting alone that identifies a future psychopath, but bed-wetting combined with the other acts.

Ashly 5-11-2009 @ 3:47AM

I think honestly that yes a child who is over thirteen should be given a life sentence if they commit murder and that a child under thirteen should be held until they are twenty-one then evaluated and then it should be decided from there if the child should remain in prison a sort of parole for them. I think children that have it in them to commit murder need to be seperated from society think about it if they can kill once then what is going to stop them from killing again they are just as much a danger to everyone else as is an adult who kills. take for example columbine high school if the two teens who did the shooting hadb't killed themselves and instead would have been caught by police would they deserve a second chance to walk the streets after they killed all those people ?