So what age is appropriate?

[varkam]

So here's a fun little thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3639802&mesg_id=3639802

It's about a 13 year old and a 15 year old who have been charged with, among other things, forcible rape. As you can see, it got pretty heated in there regarding the distinction between child and adult in terms of whether or not they should be tried as adults.

So what age is appropriate? When do we become adults? Should the severity or the nature of the crime factor into that decision? What are your thoughts?

[TZ]

1. This is really hard to say...

Everyone matures physically and emotionally at different rates...I have a 20 year old friend who is emotionally more mature than many 40 year olds..and I have a 47 year old friend whom in some ways is emotionally more like a teenager.

I think the severity and nature of the crime should play into that decision. I also think juveniles who do things like this should be evaluated psychologically first before the decision on how to charge them is made. Many teenagers know the difference between right and wrong and yet do stuff like this..Those, I have little sympathy for..They are likely sociopathic and not likely to alter behavior as adults.
Mitigating circumstances can happen..high on drugs etc..that can be taken into account.
Stuff like this needs to go on a case by case basis.
Thats what infuriates me about criminal law..there is such black and white things in it, when a lot of the time its a gray area...

[varkam]

5. Here's a question then:

This came up during the discussion in that thread - do you think that there is a difference between knowing right from wrong and potential mitigating factors regarding age and impulse control?

For my part, I would assert that of course these particular teens know right from wrong and knew what they were doing to this woman was wrong. If they did not, then criminal culpability would not even be a question. What I'm thinking, though, is that one of the hallmarks of an underdeveloped PF cortex is a lack of impulse control (as LB notes downthread).

That, then, opens up a whole new can of worms in the sense that you get to look at things like peer pressure or situational factors that play into the decision-making process.

I agree with you that this needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and I think that it is for the most part. However, what bugs me is that the overriding factor that plays into whether or not the DA chooses to charge juvenile offenders as adults is the level of public outrage.

[TZ]

7. Lack of impulse control can also be due to serious mental health issues

As LeftishBrit said..this behavior is NOT normal adolescent behavior..I like Warpy's suggestion of keeping them in juvvie until 21 then reevaluating and keeping them in a mental health facility if need be..because my inclination is to believe this is sociopathic behavior and therefore they will not "outgrow" it.
I can't remember the study, but there is a lot of evidence that the crack babies we used to hear about all the time, end up having serious mental disorders, often that show up in adolescence..which I think explains a lot of the serious crime we see in younger teenagers..so again..these damaged individuals will probably never be quite right.

As for the DA choosing to charge as adults based on public outrage..DA's are as much politicians as lawyers and therefore play to public pressure..
Here's a question though..What do you think of Lee Boyd Malvo..the young serial sniper..He was 17 at the time and definitely under the influence of John Allen Muhammed..Yet as someone who was terrorized by their killing spree, can I say I'm relieved to know he's never getting out of jail..even though I believe he actually does regret his actions?
I would be interested to know Leftish Brit's thoughts here as well

[varkam]

8. I have to admit that...

with discussing these sorts of things, I always feel a bit like an arm chair counselor (the Clarence Darrow kind, not the Sigmund Freud kind) in that we are usually only privy to a small amount of the relevant information as members of the lay public.

Regarding Malvo, even despite the fact that he was a juvenile, I think that once you get closer to that "magical age" of 18 years, the notion that a developing brain would play into things as a mitigating factor becomes less and less likely (despite the science that says such development goes well into the twenties). Also, I would argue that the things that Malvo did were significantly worse than what these two teens did in that Malvo killed several people (I'm one of those whackos that thinks that murder is a crime worse than rape).

The being said, I don't even think that one needs to resort to an argument of specific incapacitation in order to try to justify a lengthy prison term for Malvo. In other words, the issue of whether or not Malvo would remain a persistent threat to society is kind of a non-issue, as he's already done things that justify, if not require, that he serve a significant amount of time in prison.

Do I think that Malvo should have a life sentence? No, I don't, and here is why: he was 17 at the time. My thought is that the United States is the only nation in the first-world to send juveniles to prison for life. I think that such a practice is not a humane one for precisely the reasons that have been outlined in this thread. That is not to say he should not serve even decades, but I do think that Malvo should be able to see the light of day at some point.

That's just my .02, anyway.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I do not know that much about the Malvo case...

I tend to think that a lot depends on whether an individual still poses a threat to others or not. Due to discussions on another forum, I've been thinking a bit about the situation of juvenile soldiers/terrorists (often hard to draw the line between the two). In most cases, these have been corrupted by others and often can be rehabilitated. Yet some have been so brainwashed that they seem unable to change - or perhaps they were used in the first place *because* of their ruthlessness. The same sort of dilemma applies to those corrupted by more 'ordinary' gangs.

It's a difficult situation as I do feel that most young criminals, especially those who have been manipulated by others, *can* ultimately be rehabilitated - but there are a few whom I certainly wouldn't want to see on the streets, at least until they are too old and frail to pose a danger. For me, it's not a matter of how outraged I am; but of how dangerous certain people are.

[LeftishBrit]

2. In the UK, youngsters under 18 are not tried as adults...

There are some good reasons for treating adolescents differently from adults. There is a lot of evidence from neuroscience that adolescents' brains are not yet fully developed. The prefrontal cortex, which is crucial to judgement, planning and inhibition of impulses is the last part of the brain to develop fully, and is relatively immature until late adolescence. There is some evidence that the relative strength of limbic reward areas ('temptation') in comparison to prefrontal cortex ('self-control') actually *increases* temporarily from childhood to adolescence.

Here is an article about recent research, and the abstracts of a couple of recent articles.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr07/teenage.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS3-4NBRFP0-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b957444381fa18d28e775a16eb6d13a8

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDH-4RTCPVP-1&_user=10&_origUdi=B6VS3-4NBRFP0-1&_fmt=high&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=578228a98d315e57648d738e1ab2dd17

This may help to explain why teenage delinquency, especially in boys, is so common. An age-old phenomenon: the old shepherd in Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale" wishes that boys would go to sleep between the ages of ten and twenty-three as during that period there is nothing but 'getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting'.

Of course, while impulsive and even criminal behaviour is common in adolescence, forcible rape is *not* normal!!! And there is certainly a minority of young offenders who are not just impulsive and morally and socially immature, but psychopaths who will never be safe for the rest of society. Nonetheless, I think it is right to have a separate juvenile justice system.

[varkam]

6. Of course it is not normal.

Though, IIRC, about 25% of sexually-oriented offenders are under the age of 18 (which to me seems like a hell of a lot). I'm imagining, though, that at least a portion of those are a result of screwed up laws where if two 13 year olds have sex then they both get charged with sexual abuse.

I agree that there are a percentage of juvenile offenders whose propensity towards violence is probably an ingrained sort of thing who are unlikely to be deterred (e.g. those with Anti-Social Personality Disorder) - of course the trick is in determining who those individuals are and who can be rehabbed.

[lizerdbits]

14. Re the 25%

I'm not sure since I don't research this but if an 18 YO has sex with a 17 YO they can legally charge the 18 YO with a sex offense with a minor (similar to what you were talking about with the 13 YO). I'd guess that most of such 18 YOs are not a threat in terms of a crime described in the OP. When I was 14 I willingly had sex with a guy who was 18 and had my parents wanted, they could have charged him with statutory rape. I don't think this guy has since or ever will forcibly rape anyone, but charges COULD have been filed and he would have been technically convicted of a sexual offense.

As for the OP, I think they need serious help for many years and should be in some kind of facility where they can be mentally evaluated. "Locking them up" probably isn't going to do much long term, just keep them from harming other women for 5-10 years. Then it will be back to the same behavior and possibly worse.

Fortunately I've never been raped and I think if I were a victim I might lean toward the lock them up view. But honestly that will probably just turn lose criminals in 5-10 years. This is kind of OT but is there any research on the difference in opinion between genders in rape punishment? I've been angered many times by men who think one can 'get over it' or 'he didn't think she really meant no, he's not a bad guy.' I don't think rape is worse than murder (though I can say I've known a few women who said if it happened to them again they would commit suicide), so I hope I'm not starting a flame war. :)

ETA: Due to consumption of Woodchuck Amber I just realized you posted the 25% was UNDER 18 so my post is not exactly "RE 25%". Carry on.....

[varkam]

15. Indeed

I'm not sure since I don't research this but if an 18 YO has sex with a 17 YO they can legally charge the 18 YO with a sex offense with a minor (similar to what you were talking about with the 13 YO). I'd guess that most of such 18 YOs are not a threat in terms of a crime described in the OP. When I was 14 I willingly had sex with a guy who was 18 and had my parents wanted, they could have charged him with statutory rape. I don't think this guy has since or ever will forcibly rape anyone, but charges COULD have been filed and he would have been technically convicted of a sexual offense.

Yes. A lot of it is simply statutory classification. If an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old (in some states, at least) then that 18 year old could concievably wind up being convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and placed on the sex offender registry. I believe the laws in most states, however, now have provisions for such relationships. However, many of those do not extend downards to the age of 13 or so. Just the other day I was reading a news story about two 13 year olds both being charged with sexual abuse of a minor for having intercourse with one another.

All that is to say that a number, perhaps even a majority, of such individuals would not be reasonably classified as being "dangerous".

As for the OP, I think they need serious help for many years and should be in some kind of facility where they can be mentally evaluated. "Locking them up" probably isn't going to do much long term, just keep them from harming other women for 5-10 years. Then it will be back to the same behavior and possibly worse.

All locking people up does is, besides incapacitation, satisfies the blood lust of many in this country. Rehab and intervention seem to me to be better alternatives if the end goal is societal safety.

Fortunately I've never been raped and I think if I were a victim I might lean toward the lock them up view. But honestly that will probably just turn lose criminals in 5-10 years. This is kind of OT but is there any research on the difference in opinion between genders in rape punishment? I've been angered many times by men who think one can 'get over it' or 'he didn't think she really meant no, he's not a bad guy.' I don't think rape is worse than murder (though I can say I've known a few women who said if it happened to them again they would commit suicide), so I hope I'm not starting a flame war.

I think that people deal with rape in different ways. I myself have been raped as a child, but have let go of a lot of the anger that I had. I guess perhaps it is a byproduct of the way that I was raised, that I should separate actions from people. I've known some very good people who have done some very bad things.

All that is not to say that we should not punish, or that we should not condemn such actions. We should, and I'm glad that we do. I don't want to live in a society where such behavior is either tolerated, accepted, or embraced. I do think, however, that the traditional "lock 'em up" attitude isn't helping us, either.

And, if I had to guess, I would say that women in general probably support things like longer sentences and mandatory minimums for sexually-oriented offenses seeing as how they are more frequently affected by such offenses.

[YankeyMCC]

3. I used to lean towards the position that

the severity and the degree of premeditation and planning should pretty much dictate if the child should be tried and punished if found guilty as an adult.

But over the last year or two I've heard and read a lot about the facts of how a human brain develops and how different the decision making process is in a child, adolescent and adult. LeftishBrit pointed this out. So clearly there has to be at least levels of trial, child (because unfortantly there have been cases with children even younger than 10 have committed serious crimes), adolesent and adult.

As turlensue points out the lines are probably pretty fuzzy but it seems likely that there can be a reasonable lines draw to make the beinging and end of preadolescence (I'm not sure what they are the links LeftishBrit provided probably will give some guidance) perhaps standard ages augmented by some physiological testing for possible exceptions.

[Warpy]

4. Premeditated rape using a taser is pretty serious stuff

much more so than the usual gang fight resulting in death or other juvenile crime.

These kids need some serious evaluation done by a team of adolescent psychologists, find out if one or both are sociopaths or if they're just witless kids who didn't think and didn't anticipate consequences or have any empathy at all for other people, although the capacity is there.

If they're true sociopaths, then the sentence should reflect it, keep them in juvie until they're 21, then in an adult facility for the balance. If not, then intensive treatment in a juvenile facility will probably work.

I say this as the wildest wild child who ever put on red, red lipstick and hung out in bars at the age of 13. I just never got caught. It allows me to reflect on just what was going on in my head at that age and realize charging most juveniles as adults is a big mistake.

Sociopaths need to be kept off the street, though. It's a public health and safety thing.

[Heddi]

10. hard one

I think that with these kinds of cases--particularly something as heinous as this, my first instinct is to say "oh yeah, lock 'em up!" but then the higher brain kicks in and I realize that a 13 and 15 year old really isn't anywhere close to being an adult, no matter how ridiculous or heinous their crimes or actions may be.

My complaint with charging juveniles as adults is that "adulthood" has many rights and responsibilities that go alongside with being an "adult"

So let's say the 13 year old is charged as an adult as far as court proceedings go---let's say a year into the trial he is acquitted. When the trial is over, is he still considered an adult? If not, why not? If he's adult enough to be charged as an adult for criminal proceedings, then why doesn't that "adult mentality" continue outside the courtroom?

If we are willing to say that 12 year olds (Nathaniel Tate in Florida), 13, 16 year olds are "adults" because they committed X or Y crime with A or B outcome, then we should allow them to be adults in every other way. Let them enter in to contracts, allow them to drink and smoke, allow them to make all the decisions, and have all the responsibilities that adults have. Why does the "adultness" begin and end with a criminal trial and sentence?

Am I talking circular?

If a 13 year old is "adult" enough to be charged as an "adult" because he raped and tazed a woman, then he is "adult" enough to be able to drive, despite the age provisions of driving in that state. He is "adult" enough to get married, he is "adult" enough to drink, and to smoke, and to work 40 hours a week and pay taxes. He is adult enough to make the choice to not go to school, to enter college, or do whatever the hell it is I can do at 32 that I couldn't do at 13.

That's my problem with trying juveniles as adults---it's not like we REALLY think they're adults---no one is going to allow a 13 year old on trial for murder (or a 13 year old who was acquitted of murder, but tried as an adult) to go out and get a brewsky, or drive a car, or anything else that only "adults" can do. We only consider them "adults" because of what they did and what the outcome was. We'll never say a 12 year old is responsible enough to enter a contract relationship, or drive a 2000lb vehicle, but we'll say that he has the mentation to make other equally serious and logical decisions regarding life and death of another person.

But we'll sure send him to jail for the rest of his life.....

---

I think that anyone who has any experience working with or being around people under the age of, say, 18, and the more below 18 the truer this is, can attest that a 13 year old or a 15 year old doesn't really see the world as it actually is. It is a known scientific fact that the human brain takes DECADES to full form. Someone upthread mentioned specific parts of the brain that deal with logical thought not truly being "fully" developed until early to mid 20's.

That's why kids are, you know, kids. 14 year olds do stupid things. That's not to say that I think taze and rape is a "stupid" thing--it's beyond stupid.

There is a reason why adolescents make up the majority of head and body trauma and why there is such a push for adolescents to use protective gear when biking, skating, etc---there isn't the inherent "If I fall down off this bike, I may crack my skull and that would be bad" thought process that a 24 year old might have. Instead, a 12 year old doesn't even generally have the capacity to THINK that far ahead, or to have that kind of fatalistic, but realistic type thinking. This has been proven again and again through psychological study after psychological studies. Adolescents, teenagers, and young adults, have much less realistic future thinking ability than adults have. Partly because they don't have the benefit of life experience to fall back on, and partly because those parts of their brains, their axons and dendrites and synapses haven't been formed yet or are still being formed.

[varkam]

12. I think that's an interesting thought...

So let's say the 13 year old is charged as an adult as far as court proceedings go---let's say a year into the trial he is acquitted. When the trial is over, is he still considered an adult? If not, why not? If he's adult enough to be charged as an adult for criminal proceedings, then why doesn't that "adult mentality" continue outside the courtroom?

I also think that, were you to ask that question on the street, you'd find that the overwhelming majority of people would say "No way! They're children!"

That thinking is pretty endemic with respect to criminal justice, and in a way, it's kind of schizophrenic (the idea that children can be held to the same standard as adults in one context, but not in others). I think that question gets to the heart of the issue, in that it seems to me that children either should or should not be held to those standards and that it should be consistent.

I agree with you that children do stupid things, and further that tazing and raping someone goes far beyond stupidity - but that the principle holds even despite the terrible nature of the act.

All that is, of course, not to say that they should not be punished. Of course they should, as they for sure know right from wrong, and that in and of itself is enough to secure criminal liability. There seem to be far too many people, though, that think we should "lock 'em up and throw away the key". The reality of the situation is that these kids aren't going to do a life sentence. They're going to come back out onto the streets at some point, and it seems to me that the decision that we have to make is do we want to apply a pound of intervention or a pound of pain? It further seems to me that, given the generally high recidivism rate for criminal offenders, one option would seem more beneficial than the other in terms of societal safety.

[Heddi]

13. we do a piss-poor job in this country for rehabilitation of ANY sort

Do drugs--go to jail, but don't get treatment for your addiction

Commit horrible crimes -- go to jail, but don't get treatment for your (most likely) underlying mental health issues which caused you to do crime.

Chronic institutionalization is a real phenomenon. I have known people whose lives were primarily fucked because of abusive or neglectful or just plain absent parental home lives. They start out in the juvenile justice system at a young age--under 10, for things like starting fires or breaking into cars. When they're in there, they get no counceling, no nothing. They get out as better 12 year old criminals. Then they go back for stealing cars or robbery. Again, no rehabilitation. No look at what is causing a 12 year old to be a career criminal. They get out, have no education, no basis for moral judgement, are now 13 and much better criminals than they were when they went in.

This continues on and on throughout adolescence. They have a basic education that is on par with 2nd grade. They have never received anything other than a student doing their work for MSW or some other thing doing a 20-minute interview with them for their grad thesis. No hard look into their lives, or their environment. How can you be successfully rehabilitated when your family itself is comprised of people engaging in criminal acts?

So as adults they are arrested and sent away for a few months or a few years. They get out and are homeless, or grifters, or whatever. This continues throughout their lives. And at the ripe old age of 30, you have someone who has spent the equivalent of 12 years of their life in one institution or another.

And it makes a difference on how they see the world.

My mother dated a guy like this. He had no education, spent more time in prisons than out of prisions. Had NO concept of how to function in the "real" world. Had no idea that WORKING was an intergral part of people's lives, and that WORKING provided the money for food and rent and all those other things he thought just fell out of the sky.

During those 12 on and off years in different correctional facilities, he was never given any kind of counseling. No rehabilitation, not even as a young person or as a teenager. He was just seen as number, a criminal, and someone who may or may not get out early depending on whether or not he had gotten into any fights in the previous 3 months.

Would counceling have helped him not molest me and dozens of other neighborhood children:? Would he have been able to live a somewhat normal life with normal expectations of and from society?

I don't know....but I'm sure it wouldn't have hurt.

[varkam]

16. Personally, I think one of the big challenges facing us now...

or in the near future is that we need to re-think what punishment is about and what ends we hope to achieve with it. It's clear that our approach is not really working too well for us. In my mind, the goal should be to make society safer. We're clearly not accomplishing those goals with our current system. I think that something is going to give at some point, and we're going to see some fairly radical changes being made.

And as an aside, I'm very sorry to hear about your experiences. I know that sorry is cheap...

[Heddi]

17. honestly, I don't think anything is going to give

There is an inherent problem when prisions are run by for-profit, private entities.

I do not believe the driving force behind health care should be profit, and I do not believe that the driving force behind correction and/or rehabilitation should be profit, either.

When correctional institutions are private and for-profit, then there is little (if any) need for rehabilitation within those systems. Why rehabilitate someone when chances are, they will get out, continue to commit arrestable offenses, which will mean more of a profit for your company? These are not inmates, or prisoners, or criminals. They are dollars in the bank. The more of them you have, the more dollars you have as well.

Were prisons forced to be more self-suffificient and accountable for their population, I think there WOULD be a drive to rehabilitate rather than just cut them loose into the world to offend and offend again and again.

Then again, maybe not because there has never *really* been a model of rehabilitation AND incarceration vs. incarceration alone. I think our "wild west" mentality means that we're only interested in vengeance, not making someone a better member of society (yet when these people are out in society, and criminilizing again, we all gnash our teeth and wring our hands and say WHAT COULD WE HAVE DONE??? and then continue to do nothing and act surprised when the same formula produces the same results again and again).

I have noticed lately (and I say lately only because I was never paying attention before) that there are now "for profit" and almost franchise-like addiction and mental health services. Drive-through psychotherapy that is court ordered and mandated. Perhaps it is the cynic in me, but I cannot see a desire to change behaviour when that behaviour is what is putting bread in your basket. Also, there is little to no oversight in these businesses and many of them are staffed by people who have no college education and hold some mail-order catalog "diploma" in some bullshit counceling or what-not.

[varkam]

18. I think that is probably the biggest hurdle in our way.

The fact remains, however, that most prisons are public-entities in that they are subsidized via taxpayers. That is a trend that is beginning to change, however, as more and more privately-held prisons and detention centers start popping up in a time when most prisons are packed to the gills and state budgets are feeling the crunch.

In the end, though, you are right in a very big way. There's a lot of money to be made in locking people up. You get cheap labor, and most of the services that are provided to prisons (from the linens to the phone calls) are through corporations. Running the risk of sounding like a CTer, the thought has certainly crossed my mind as well that there is not exactly a huge incentive for prisons to keep people out and on the straight and narrow. Like you said, criminal behavior is putting the bread in their basket. In addition, it is politically expedient to lobby for mandatory minimums and expansion of criminal law, as that tends to be popular with constituents.

[lizerdbits]

19. Your last sentence

is exactly what I was going to say after reading the two previous posts. It's easier to run a campaign with a 'tough' message. Any politician who discussed people spending their lives in and out of prisons because they don't know how to function in real life so turn to crime, never got treatment for addictions, never got mental help would be called a 'wimp.' Although the lock em up mentality is really the wimpy one since it requires much less effort and thinking about long term solutions. And if 'lock em up' gets you elected, there's no incentive to run with other ideas.

I was aware that some prisons were for profit but never thought about the fact that rehab would be a bad idea for them long term due to less prisoners. Though I feel sort of CT-ish saying that too.

[varkam]

21. Sometimes, the best ideas for fixing society...

turn out to be political suicide. I believe it was French philosopher Michel Foucault who responded to the question "What happened to the American criminal justice system?" by stating "Democracy." We wanted it, and we got it - in spades.

I was aware that some prisons were for profit but never thought about the fact that rehab would be a bad idea for them long term due to less prisoners. Though I feel sort of CT-ish saying that too.

Well don't put the tin foil hat on just yet. I think that you can be aware that such a proposition represents an incentive for long-term and repeat incarceration without actually saying that there is an ongoing conspiracy to deny treatment and rehab to inmates though, honestly, it would not surprise me were that the case. Long live privatization.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Looks like your 'tinfoil' was justified here. Just read the following horrific thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3734166

For-profit prisons are a HORRIBLE idea anyway!

[Heddi]

20. There is an inherent problem

when the "prison industry" has LOBBYISTS. Seriously, that is fucked up, and is solely the reason for mandatory minimums and expansions of criminal laws. The sheer notion of "mandatory minimum" sentences is, in my very un-educated legal opinion, the anthesis to the basis of criminal law. We elect judges for their ability to (supposedly) preside fairly and objectively over cases and render the ruling they find best based on the applicable law AND any mitigating situations that pertain to the case.

I find it very telling that the mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums were started as a heal-all for the ever expanding and very unnecessary war on drugs. I am against mandatory sentences of any kind, because I think that takes so much power out of the hands of the judge and jury, but I wonder why I can go to jail for 10 years for having 2 pot plants in my house, no matter what the situation or circumstances--that's a mandatory minimum. However, I can rape and steal and do all kinds of very brutal and victim-making things and my sentence in those instances is up to the judge, based on my mental status and other mitigating factors.

I think that BIG GOVERNMENT is inherently afraid of people who use drugs-- not because of the blatant lie that all drugs are inherently dangerous with no redeeming value. I think that because drug use is so widespread, and so many people do even small amounts of weed, or coke, or LSD without being "addicts" and can still hold down a functioning job and be a productive member of society, they have this pre-made "criminal" class of people who can have their lives ruined because of a few joints in their cigarette pack, or a 10-bag of blow in their back pocket.

It's an easy way to guarantee a criminal class, and it's an easy way to devalue the lives of MILLIONS of people who happen to be disproportionaltly poor and minority. They get their voting rights stripped away, they become cheap labour, they become TAX DEDUCTABLE cheap labour, and after X amount of time, they can be thrown out on the street and paraded as some glut of rehabilitation because the 18 year old kid that sold a nickel bag of smoke to an undercover cop is suddenly now a 35 year old on the straight and narrow---forgetting that the 18 year old was basically on the straight and narrow to begin with.

Courts, judges, juries, prosecutors, lawmakers all have to project this TOUGH AS SHIT image against crime, and so every year more and more laws are made, more and more things are criminalized, and already criminalized things are criminalized to a greater degree. And no one cares. I mean, we do, but what can you do about it? Your elected officials don't give a shit---god forbid they are portrayed as being "soft on crime", even if the "Crime" is a victimless act of selling an unnecessarily illegal weed to consenting adults who pay taxes and vote and work and smoke pot instead of drinking a glass of wine at the end of the night.

Sorry if I'm rambling. Just got off of doing a glorious 12 hour shift.....nursing is teh hot.

[varkam]

22. .

... when the "prison industry" has LOBBYISTS. Seriously, that is fucked up, and is solely the reason for mandatory minimums and expansions of criminal laws. The sheer notion of "mandatory minimum" sentences is, in my very un-educated legal opinion, the anthesis to the basis of criminal law. We elect judges for their ability to (supposedly) preside fairly and objectively over cases and render the ruling they find best based on the applicable law AND any mitigating situations that pertain to the case.

Mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps one of the biggest driving forces behind our swelling prison populations. And you are right, it turns judges--people who are supposed to evaluate all of the elements of a crime and determine what is appropriate punishment--into, basically, number crunchers. Mandatory minimums also make people feel good and warm and fuzzy, but they actually do very little to make them any safer.

I find it very telling that the mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums were started as a heal-all for the ever expanding and very unnecessary war on drugs. I am against mandatory sentences of any kind, because I think that takes so much power out of the hands of the judge and jury, but I wonder why I can go to jail for 10 years for having 2 pot plants in my house, no matter what the situation or circumstances--that's a mandatory minimum. However, I can rape and steal and do all kinds of very brutal and victim-making things and my sentence in those instances is up to the judge, based on my mental status and other mitigating factors.

A lot of these sorts of sentences did, in fact, have their genesis in the 1980's and 90's when America was going through the whole crack epidemic. People were scared, and demanded action. Mandatory minimums seemed like the natural solution. When voters responded to that, mandatory minimums started expanding for other sorts of crimes. Now we're seeing mandatory minimums for a good number of sexually-based offenses, which is likely to drive the problem further underground.


I think that BIG GOVERNMENT is inherently afraid of people who use drugs-- not because of the blatant lie that all drugs are inherently dangerous with no redeeming value. I think that because drug use is so widespread, and so many people do even small amounts of weed, or coke, or LSD without being "addicts" and can still hold down a functioning job and be a productive member of society, they have this pre-made "criminal" class of people who can have their lives ruined because of a few joints in their cigarette pack, or a 10-bag of blow in their back pocket.

While I'm not sure on the motivation, I do agree that zero-tolerance policies are kind of absurd. Thankfully, though, many states have implemented drug courts that give non-violent, first-time drug offenders the chance at getting treatment instead of being tossed in the clink for a few years.

Courts, judges, juries, prosecutors, lawmakers all have to project this TOUGH AS SHIT image against crime, and so every year more and more laws are made, more and more things are criminalized, and already criminalized things are criminalized to a greater degree. And no one cares. I mean, we do, but what can you do about it? Your elected officials don't give a shit---god forbid they are portrayed as being "soft on crime", even if the "Crime" is a victimless act of selling an unnecessarily illegal weed to consenting adults who pay taxes and vote and work and smoke pot instead of drinking a glass of wine at the end of the night.

Paraphrasing what I wrote in the other post, democracy is probably the worst thing to happen to the criminal justice system. I mean, for fuck's sake, we elect a good number of judges! Think a judge is too soft? Too lenient? Did that judge grant shock probation to a rapist? Well toss 'em out on their ass! It means that judges all of a sudden have to pander to the fears and prejudices of the general public via our system of justice - which is seriously fucked up if you ask me.

Sorry if I'm rambling. Just got off of doing a glorious 12 hour shift.....nursing is teh hot.

Oh, I understand. I got off a 12-hour shift at the old sleep lab a few hours ago. Apnea is teh hot.

[Heddi]

23. OH I went to a sleep lab once

I snore like a damn logger with a stuck saw, and the night I went to the sleep lab I didn't move a muscle. No snoring. No NOTHING.....My husband is like W.T.F? Seriously. He was so pissed off that the first and only time I'm not burning down the house with my uvular vibrations is the time I'm in a bed, by myself, in a sleep lab ha ha ha

i think it's funny

[varkam]

24. Lol!

Yeah, a lot of people express the fear to me that they're going to have their best night of sleep ever; sort of like when you take your car into a mechanic and then all of a sudden it stops making that clanking noise it has been so fond of making for weeks.

[lizerdbits]

25. How does one have the best night of sleep ever

with 283 wires hooked up to you, mostly on your head? I don't normally have 'prolonged sleep latency', only when I have 283 wires hooked up to me in a strange place with the knowledge that a camera is watching me while thinking "If I wake up drooling all over the pillow that will be SO embarrassing."

[TZ]

26. I wonder that too!

My two sleep studies weren't anywhere close to "the best night of sleep"..In fact my worry was that it would have been atypical for me....my trouble hasn't generally been falling asleep..but getting productive sleep.

[varkam]

27. True. By "best night" I meant...

...that whatever problem(s) you believe you may be having would not appear on the night of the sleep testing.

Oh, and if drool was the only thing that I have dealt with. If only.

[TZ]

28. rofl

Sweet dreams for some, eh?:rofl:

[lizerdbits]

29. Well

There's something I probably don't want much more information about. :D

[jberryhill]

30. You forgot to bring your

uvular vibrator.

[jberryhill]

11. None

Every individual is different.

But in order to have a workable criminal justice system that serves millions of people efficiently and with reasonable cost, it's useful to draw some numerical lines and stick to them.

In the course of discussing a 12 year old with the developmental age of a 20 year old, there are of course 30 year olds with the developmental age of 12 year olds.

A simple test might be how much time they spent on internet forums, but...

[onager]

32. This British case turned me into a gibbering right-winger temporarily...

The 1993 torture and murder of 2-year-old James Bulger, by a pair of 10-year-olds in Liverpool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

I was just kidding about the right-winger part. Mostly.

This case involved the politicians (specifically the Home Secretary) intervening to give the killers a longer sentence. It's always wrong for pols to insert themselves into legal proceedings, IMO. They are constantly doing that in the U.S., especially in hysteria-inducing cases.

But still...only EIGHT YEARS for subjecting a toddler to several hours of gruesome torture and a slow, agonizing death? And premeditation was obvious--the little shits had already tried to lure several other toddlers away from their parents before they found James Bulger.

At least Britain has the "life license"...er..."licence" concept. As I understand it, that means if either killer commits another crime, he goes back into prison immediately for life, with no hope of parole.

Not too long ago I saw the ITV-1 documentary about the case and its aftermath, mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Worth watching. James Bulger's mother is now working with a charity that protects children who are at risk of bullying etc. in their schools.

Bonus rant: predictably, one of the killers became a born-again Xian in prison.

On edit: for a similar American case, see the 2007 movie An American Crime. It deals with the 1965 killing of 16-year-old Sylvia Likens, who was subjected to torture for WEEKS, some of it by neighbors who happily joined in. As usual, the actual facts were even more horrendous than those depicted in the movie.

I'm a big fan of horror/gore movies and never have any side-effects from watching. Usually I just laugh at them.

So you might want to be warned that An American Crime is one of the very few movies I've ever seen that gave me nightmares. i.e., nightmares I could specifically trace to the movie.

[varkam]

33. It's a tough thing...

I wasn't aware of the Bulger case. When you've got cases like that where the facts are just horrible, I think that natural tendency is for people to want blood. I don't think that's necessarily wrong, either (well, at least not the tendency to want it) but I do think it's got to be balanced against the mitigating factors which, in this case, are pretty obvious.

I do think that the life license is a pretty useful concept. It would allow people who have done some pretty heinous shit a second chance while, at the same time, giving them some pretty weighty punishment. We do it here in the states with "three-strikes" laws, though the results from those laws can be pretty absurd. For example, here in my state we have Persistent Felony Offender laws which are really "two-strikes" laws. Recently there was a man sentenced to ten years in prison for stealing a DVD player from a Wal-Mart because he had a prior felony conviction.

And that's another thing about the States: we seem to be one of the few countries that hands out long bids for relatively minor property and economic crimes. But I digress.

The age question is always an interesting one to me, because I have never heard a principled, coherent argument for why we should try children as adults (even those who have committed some very "adult" crimes).