Beerball Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Link IMO a slippery slope depending on how they rule.
dib Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Let them out. Let them establish a long rap sheet and inflict cruel and unusual punishment on innocent people.
UConn James Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Let them out. Let them establish a long rap sheet and inflict cruel and unusual punishment on innocent people. America is obsessed with crime and punishment. And for all that, we keep making the same choices. Release offenders to burgle, rape, diddle children and murder once more. Ninety percent of crime is committed by 10 percent of the population. As it currently functions, it's a big revolving door. If you were to lock up the 10 percent permanent-like, lawyers and judges will not have many clients left. With ordinary catch-and-release keeping so many judges and lawyers in a job / in high demand, imagine what this has the potential to do! Also, make it illegal for anyone to defend themselves. (Don't have too much further to go in this regard). I hate what this country is fast becoming.
theesir Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I think it should be clarified that what they are deciding is if Life in Prison without the possibility of parole is constitutional for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide crime. It isn't about releasing these 2, but rather, whether or not they should ever be allowed to have their sentence reviewed. The one who was 13 at the time of the crime has been in jail for 21 years (for rape). I don't think anyone could argue that a 30, 40, or even 50 years sentence is justified, but he has been given what amounts to a death sentence. The other ( the 17 year old) was given life without parole for armed robbery. Again, the question is not should they be let go, but only that at some point they should be able to come before a parole board.
Beerball Posted November 9, 2009 Author Posted November 9, 2009 I think it should be clarified that what they are deciding is if Life in Prison without the possibility of parole is constitutional for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide crime. It isn't about releasing these 2, but rather, whether or not they should ever be allowed to have their sentence reviewed. The one who was 13 at the time of the crime has been in jail for 21 years (for rape). I don't think anyone could argue that a 30, 40, or even 50 years sentence is justified, but he has been given what amounts to a death sentence. The other ( the 17 year old) was given life without parole for armed robbery. Again, the question is not should they be let go, but only that at some point they should be able to come before a parole board. The article mentions a previous home invasion for the 17 year old. We don't know whether that was his first offense but I would guess no. No previous background is given for the 13 year old convicted of raping an elderly woman (he was judged incorrigible) but I can guarantee you I wouldn't want him anywhere near an elderly family member. Taking away the ability to sentence anyone, regardless of age, to life without parole is not a good idea.(IMO)
Marv's Neighbor Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I thought that was the whole idea of PRISON! Cruel AND Unusual! If you do the Crime.........
PromoTheRobot Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I thought that was the whole idea of PRISON! Cruel AND Unusual! If you do the Crime......... Only if you are poor or got caught with a baggie of weed. If you wear a suit and drive a Mercedes (or have someone else drive it for you) a different set of rules apply. PTR
Acantha Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 The article mentions a previous home invasion for the 17 year old. We don't know whether that was his first offense but I would guess no. No previous background is given for the 13 year old convicted of raping an elderly woman (he was judged incorrigible) but I can guarantee you I wouldn't want him anywhere near an elderly family member. Taking away the ability to sentence anyone, regardless of age, to life without parole is not a good idea.(IMO) Normally I take the stance of "screw em" on this type of questions, but I do kind of agree that taking away the possibility of parole seems too far in some cases. For starters, I think it's time they officially lower the age of "minor" (I know some states have already done this for certain crime). I think 16 is plenty old enough to make the right decisions, especially when it comes to major crimes. After that, I don't see the harm in allowing someone to take a look at the case sometime down the line as long as they stick firm to a minumum sentence (if it's no parole for at least 30 years, don't give them after 20 for good behavior or something). IMO, if you are going to give a 13 yo a life sentence with no possibility of parole, you might as well just kill him and stop the pretenses.
Chef Jim Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Only if you are poor or got caught with a baggie of weed. If you wear a suit and drive a Mercedes (or have someone else drive it for you) a different set of rules apply. PTR Yeah, because that Bernie Madoff guy got off easy.
tennesseeboy Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Yeah, because that Bernie Madoff guy got off easy. Actually he did get off easy. House arrest in a million dollar apartment and a cushy federal joint. http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=622 He has a lot better than those kids will.
Chef Jim Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Actually he did get off easy. House arrest in a million dollar apartment and a cushy federal joint. http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=622 He has a lot better than those kids will. Yup going from the lap of luxury to federal prison is easy.
ieatcrayonz Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 What they should do is torture and kill every one of these jerks. Every single one. It would be cruel but it would also be COMMON. Cruel and common is not banned.
tennesseeboy Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Yup going from the lap of luxury to federal prison is easy. a lot easier than losing your life savings to a ponzi scheme. The bastard should be in Attica
Nanker Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 What they should do is torture and kill every one of these jerks. Every single one. It would be cruel but it would also be COMMON. Cruel and common is not banned. How about savage and ordinary? Just put them in a big pile and let them whomp up on each other.
Chef Jim Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 a lot easier than losing your life savings to a ponzi scheme. The bastard should be in Attica Losing your life's savings is better than losing your freedom?
Nanker Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Losing your life's savings is better than losing your freedom? I think he's just trying to say they should put sand in his toothpaste and crushed glass in his bed linen.
Chef Jim Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I think he's just trying to say they should put sand in his toothpaste and crushed glass in his bed linen. Well so do I but that doesn't mean that life won't suck until he dies now.
Recommended Posts