Why does the US gov. have the option to prosecute a 14yo as an adult? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-13-2007, 07:06 PM

Well it's an interesting coincidence that this happened in Israel, then.

Plan9 · 10-13-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The entire Jewish culture disagrees with you, 13 is the bar mitzvah when the Jewish community sees them be a man.

Church vs. State

READY - FIGHT!

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2007, 07:38 PM

Instead of trying him as an adult, they should heal him as a child. The kid's brain isn't even fully developed yet.

Willravel · 10-13-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Instead of trying him as an adult, they should heal him as a child. The kid's brain isn't even fully developed yet.

very, VERY, VERY well put.

JohnBua · 10-13-2007, 07:56 PM

To answer the main question this thread brings up is this; to keep a dangerous person behind bars for as long as possible.

Willravel · 10-13-2007, 08:37 PM

To me punishing a 14 year old as if he were an adult has everything to do with vengeance, and nothing to do with solving the situation.

BigBaldRon · 10-14-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

very, VERY, VERY well put.

Horse SHIT!
Everybody with a "normal" brain knows right from wrong at 14, especially when it comes to "Is it wrong to plot to shoot a bunch of people in my school?" situations.

Willravel · 10-14-2007, 10:23 AM

Horse shit!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scien...ain_10-13.html

The brain isn't fully developed until the late teens in most people. Abstract thought really isn't in place until around 18 on average.

roachboy · 10-14-2007, 10:43 AM

from a piaget perspective--developmental psychology--will is right.
the types of abstract through required to think in ethical terms are the last to develop.
if the notion of developmental stages that piaget outlined is correct at all--and there is not much disagreement that it is---the ability to imagine an action in the abstract and comprehend it as entailing consequences in potentia develops between 16-18. through that period. piaget considered this to be the last of the partially hardwired phases of cognitive development.

so it follows that there is something fundamentally fucked up about trying a 14 year old as an adult.

except from a viewpoint conditioned by the assumptions i outlined earlier somewhere in this thread. its an ideological effect--panic-driven--having nothing at all to do with any conception of "justice"--if the notion of justice hinges on a notion of intent, and if you assume that intent requires a concrete understanding of the relation of actions to consequences in anything like an abstract fashion--which is the basis for ANY ethical decision-making, and is thereby the basis for ANY notion of criminal intent.
(think about it---what is the basis for "not guilty by reason of insanity" type pleas for adults? the idea that the perpetrator of an act did not understand its potential consequence....)

you could say that a 14 year old might understand something about the potential outcomes of shooting up a school, but it is most unlikely that the kid understands them in ways that are anything like how an adult would understand them.

if that's true, then bourgeois panic is willing to redefine the notion of criminal intent in a fundamental way, without even considering what that means, because---well---it is more important that guns be easily available than it is that a notion of intent inscribed in law remain coherent, in this kind of case. because the complication is not really about the ethical development of a 14 year old--its driven by the fact that 14 year olds who DO NOT understand ethical questions in an adult manner can get guns and can carry out actions using them.

this logic obtains only for situations like this one, btw--shifts in sentencing guidlines that enable kids charged with violent, gun-related actions to be tried and convicted as adults.
that these changes are implemented in an ad hoc manner changes nothing about the problems they raise regarding the definition of criminal intent.

Willravel · 10-14-2007, 11:56 AM

I still see the double standard as an effect of an emotional response, or a response rooted in an emotional reaction, more than a reasonable response, or a response based on dispassionate reasoning. One of the drawbacks to having a jury of one's peers, or even to having a court system inhabited and run by people, is that we're not always rational beings. It's a shame people can't just be conscious of their decisions and allow their emotional reactions to be filtered by their reason.

As an aside, it's good to know that my psych classes finally paid off.

Ustwo · 10-14-2007, 06:07 PM

Lets get some outside opinions.

Quote:

Prosecutors weigh merits of charging kids as adults

By ANDY HUMBLES
Staff Writer

In most legal definitions, a child becomes an adult at age 18.

But the age at which a child becomes an adult in court can vary.

Whether a child charged with a crime is prosecuted as a minor or as an adult in Tennessee depends on several factors, including the severity of the charge, the child's criminal history, his or her mental condition and other elements of the minor's background.

''You take this home with you at night,'' said Jeff Burks, an assistant district attorney general assigned to juvenile transfers in Davidson County. ''It's the edge of so many of our problems. You try to strike a balance of what is salvageable in a young person with punishing a violent act and protecting society.''

One local case involves Ben Bower of Mt. Juliet, who was 17 when he was charged as an adult in the 2002 killing of Cumberland University football player Michael Bochette.

Bower, now 18, was one of three young men charged in Bochette's slaying and is scheduled to go on trial May 17.

At 12, Cole Thomas of Smith County was charged as a juvenile and subsequently pleaded guilty in the 2003 shooting of his father's live-in girlfriend. As a juvenile, Thomas will remain in the custody of the state Department of Children's Services until he is 19.

''The juvenile system is designed to rehabilitate,'' said District Attorney General Tommy Thompson, whose district includes Smith County. ''For some, based on their lifestyle, rehab is out of the picture. Most of the time, if a juvenile is treated as an adult, it's a pretty bad set of facts.''

In Tennessee, the local district attorney's office recommends whether to transfer a minor to adult court, and a juvenile court judge makes the decision.

''When you are dealing with juveniles, the first issue is, what can we do to help this person?'' said David Durham, an assistant district attorney in Thompson's office. ''With adults, it's 'what can we do to protect society from this person?' But (for) certain crimes, statutes allow us to change focus. Court dockets across the country have 12-, 13-, 14-year-olds (committing violent crimes) and society should be protected.''

Nashville defense attorney Tommy Overton has represented several juveniles who have been prosecuted as adults. While the system works for the most part, he does feel there are some cases that don't warrant a minor being transferred to the adult system.

''I don't feel young minors have the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, perhaps because they haven't had any upbringing whatsoever. It's easy to lock the door and throw away the key, and sometimes transferring people to adult court is the easy way out.''

Considerations on whether a juvenile is transferred include the seriousness of the offense committed, how close the child is to turning 18, the child's mental health issues and their history, including efforts at rehabilitation, said Barry Tatum, Juvenile Court judge in Wilson County.

''If the state can show that criteria, the court has to look at a best-interest consideration as to the nature of the offense and whether the person is a risk to the community,'' Tatum said.

''Someone who is escalating is a concern because they've been in the system and the system has not helped them,'' said Linda Walls, who prosecutes juvenile cases in Thompson's district.

In a Florida case that made national headlines, Lionel Tate was tried and convicted as an adult for killing a 6-year-old playmate when he was 12. Tate, who turned 17 last week, beat the girl to death, claiming he was mimicking pro wrestling moves he saw on television.

Tate was originally sentenced to life in prison but, in December, a Florida appeals court ordered a new trial, saying his mental competency should have been evaluated before his first trial. Tate pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was released from prison last week.

In Nashville, Terrence McLaurine was convicted as an adult for second-degree murder in a 1997 shooting death during a drug deal when he was 12.

McLaurine, now 19, was at Middle Tennessee Correctional Facility, a state prison for adults, as of last week, according to the state's online felony offender database.

Robert Schwartz, executive director of the Juvenile Law Center in Pennsylvania, said 10,000-20,000 minors are transferred to adult court per year nationwide. But about 200,000 people a year under age 18 are tried as adults because, Schwartz said, some states have lower age limits for certain crimes that automatically put a juvenile in the adult system.

Tennessee has no automatic mandates for juveniles.

There can be advantages for minors in moving up to adult court, including the possibility of probation for an offense instead of being sent to a juvenile detention facility, Overton said.

However, Overton said, his biggest objection is that juveniles transferred up are often housed in adult jails while awaiting trial.

''I think the system works except for … when a minor is presumed innocent until he or she is found guilty. I think some things can be done to help increase security of a juvenile to keep (them) away from violent people a lot older than they are.''

In Nashville in 2003, Burks said, 29 juveniles were transferred to the adult system for either aggravated robbery or homicide cases. He estimated about five more juveniles were transferred outside his caseload.

''When you are 12, the guidelines aren't necessarily different, but there is a lot more opportunity to rehabilitate than at 17 because of the short time juvenile services would be applied,'' Burks said.

Judge Tatum said there are other frustrations in the juvenile system involving minors committing less serious crimes that can't be transferred to adult court.

''The law doesn't make a distinction between someone 14 or 17, or 10 months old. I may see a case where a young person is 17 and 363 days and charged with a felony or even a misdemeanor, but I'm still limited to the same kind of sentence as if he is 14.''

I've always thought it comes down to this question its rehab vrs danger to society. Some children are not worth 'saving' when in so doing you expose innocents to their violent behaviors.

Mean and heartless I know, but life sucks that way. Life is not about the lowest common denominator.

Willravel · 10-14-2007, 06:15 PM

Prosecutors aren't psychologists. They're not qualified to say who is or isn't capable of rehabilitation.

I'd be happy with a larger psychologist presence in the criminal justice system if for no other reason but to piss off Tom Cruise.

Plan9 · 10-14-2007, 06:18 PM

It seems that the mission of adult corrections has changed from punishment to rehab while the mission of juvenile corrections has changed from rehab to punishment.

At least the juvenile offender knows where he's going after detention: the big house.

Ustwo · 10-14-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Prosecutors aren't psychologists. They're not qualified to say who is or isn't capable of rehabilitation.

I'd be happy with a larger psychologist presence in the criminal justice system if for no other reason but to piss off Tom Cruise.

While I fully enjoy pissing off Tom Cruise as much as anyone would, from what I gather reading that, they do a psychological profile of some kind of the little murdering bastards.

Willravel · 10-14-2007, 06:26 PM

A psych profile is a snapshot. What they need is a movie. I'm not a psychologist by trade, but by my understanding the more time a licensed psychologist spends with a patient, the more complete a picture that psychologist has. One or two 1 hour sessions (which is at most what they do for a profile, if they even meet in person at all) is really like only looking at one tooth before recommending braces (to use a dentist metaphor).

Ustwo · 10-14-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

A psych profile is a snapshot. What they need is a movie. I'm not a psychologist by trade, but by my understanding the more time a licensed psychologist spends with a patient, the more complete a picture that psychologist has. One or two 1 hour sessions (which is at most what they do for a profile, if they even meet in person at all) is really like only looking at one tooth before recommending braces (to use a dentist metaphor).

Not worth my tax money to do the job the parents should have done before unleashing their hellspawn upon us. Normally the only thing that makes a true violent offender non violent is time and age. You can't talk a narcissist out of being one.

kutulu · 10-15-2007, 09:27 AM

I don't have a problem with charging a teen as an adult for the right crime. This however, isn't the right case. The cops were able to catch him before he committed any crimes. Right now, they can give him one hell of a slap on the wrist and get him some serious psychological help.

Cynthetiq · 10-16-2007, 08:34 PM

As I read the article below the words, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." and "Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse." rang in my head. Why? Because they are the reasons for more petty things why don't or can't they apply to more serious crimes?

Quote:

October 17, 2007
Lifers as Teenagers, Now Seeking Second Chance
By ADAM LIPTAK
LINK
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — In December, the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for children and young teenagers. The vote was 185 to 1, with the United States the lone dissenter.

Indeed, the United States stands alone in the world in convicting young adolescents as adults and sentencing them to live out their lives in prison. According to a new report, there are 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at 13 or 14.

Mary Nalls, an 81-year-old retired social worker here, has some thoughts about the matter. Her granddaughter Ashley Jones was 14 when she helped her boyfriend kill her grandfather and aunt — Mrs. Nalls’s husband and daughter — by stabbing and shooting them and then setting them on fire. Ms. Jones also tried to kill her 10-year-old sister.

Mrs. Nalls, who was badly injured in the rampage, showed a visitor to her home a white scar on her forehead, a reminder of the burns that put her into a coma for 30 days. She had also been shot in the shoulder and stabbed in the chest.

“I forgot,” she said later. “They stabbed me in the jaw, too.”

But Mrs. Nalls thinks her granddaughter, now 22, deserves the possibility of a second chance.

“I believe that she should have gotten 15 or 20 years,” Mrs. Nalls said. “If children are under age, sometimes they’re not responsible for what they do.”

The group that plans to release the report on Oct. 17, the Equal Justice Initiative, based in Montgomery, Ala., is one of several human rights organizations that say states should be required to review sentences of juvenile offenders as the decades go by, looking for cases where parole might be warranted.

But prosecutors and victims’ rights groups say there are crimes so terrible and people so dangerous that only life sentences without the possibility of release are a fit moral and practical response.

“I don’t think every 14-year-old who killed someone deserves life without parole,” said Laura Poston, who prosecuted Ms. Jones. “But Ashley planned to kill four people. I don’t think there is a conscience in Ashley, and I certainly think she is a threat to do something similar.”

Specialists in comparative law acknowledge that there have been occasions when young murderers who would have served life terms in the United States were released from prison in Europe and went on to kill again. But comparing legal systems is difficult, in part because the United States is a more violent society and in part because many other nations imprison relatively few people and often only for repeat violent offenses.

“I know of no systematic studies of comparative recidivism rates,” said James Q. Whitman, who teaches comparative criminal law at Yale. “I believe there are recidivism problems in countries like Germany and France, since those are countries that ordinarily incarcerate only dangerous offenders, but at some point they let them out and bad things can happen.”

The differences in the two approaches, legal experts said, are rooted in politics and culture. The European systems emphasize rehabilitation, while the American one stresses individual responsibility and punishment.

Corrections professionals and criminologists here and abroad tend to agree that violent crime is usually a young person’s activity, suggesting that eventual parole could be considered in most cases. But the American legal system is more responsive to popular concerns about crime and attitudes about punishment, while justice systems abroad tend to be administered by career civil servants rather than elected legislators, prosecutors and judges.

In its sentencing of juveniles, as in many other areas, the legal system in the United States goes it alone. American law is, by international standards, a series of innovations and exceptions. From the central role played by juries in civil cases to the election of judges to punitive damages to the disproportionate number of people in prison, the United States is an island in the sea of international law.

And the very issue of whether American judges should ever take account of foreign law is hotly disputed. At the hearings on their Supreme Court nominations, both John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they thought it a mistake to consider foreign law in constitutional cases.

But the international consensus against life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders may nonetheless help Ms. Jones. In about a dozen cases recently filed around the country on behalf of 13- and 14-year-olds sentenced to life in prison, lawyers for the inmates relied on a 2005 Supreme Court decision that banned the execution of people who committed crimes when they were younger than 18.

That decision, Roper v. Simmons, was based in part on international law. Noting that the United States was the only nation in the world to sanction the juvenile death penalty, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said it was appropriate to look to “the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive” in interpreting the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

He added that teenagers were different from older criminals — less mature, more susceptible to peer pressure and more likely to change for the better. Those findings, lawyers for the juvenile lifers say, should apply to their clients, too.

“Thirteen- and 14-year-old children should not be condemned to death in prison because there is always hope for a child,” said Bryan Stevenson, the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, which represents Ms. Jones and several other juvenile lifers.

The 2005 death penalty ruling applied to 72 death-row inmates, almost precisely the same number as the 73 prisoners serving life without parole for crimes committed at 13 or 14.

The Supreme Court did not abolish the juvenile death penalty in a single stroke. The 2005 decision followed one in 1988 that held the death penalty unconstitutional for those who had committed crimes under 16.

The new lawsuits, filed in Alabama, California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin, seek to follow a similar progression.

“We’re not demanding that all these kids be released tomorrow,” Mr. Stevenson said. “I’m not even prepared to say that all of them will get to the point where they should be released. We’re asking for some review.”

In defending American policy in this area in 2006, the State Department told the United Nations that sentencing is usually a matter of state law. “As a general matter,” the department added, juvenile offenders serving life-without-parole terms “were hardened criminals who had committed gravely serious crimes.”

Human rights groups have disputed that. According to a 2005 report from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, 59 percent of the more than 2,200 prisoners serving life without parole for crimes they committed at 17 or younger had never been convicted of a previous crime. And 26 percent were in for felony murder, meaning they participated in a crime that led to a murder but did not themselves kill anyone.

The new report focuses on the youngest offenders, locating 73 juvenile lifers in 19 states who were 13 and 14 when they committed their crimes. Pennsylvania has the most, with 19, and Florida is next, with 15. In those states and Illinois, Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington, 13-year-olds have been sentenced to die in prison.

In most of the cases, the sentences were mandatory, an automatic consequence of a murder conviction after being tried as an adult.

A federal judge here will soon rule on Ms. Jones’s challenge to her sentence. Ms. Poston, who prosecuted her, said Ms. Jones was beyond redemption.

“Between the ages of 2 and 3, you develop a conscience,” Ms. Poston said. “She never got the voice that says, ‘This is bad, Ashley.’ ”

“It was a blood bath in there,” Ms. Poston said of the night of the murders here, in 1999. “Ashley Jones is not the poster child for the argument that life without parole is too long.”

In a telephone interview from the Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Ala., Ms. Jones said she did not recognize the girl who committed her crimes. According to court filings, her mother was a drug addict and her stepfather had sexually molested her. “Everybody I loved, everybody I trusted, I was betrayed by,” Ms. Jones said.

“I’m very remorseful about what happened,” she said. “I should be punished. I don’t feel like I should spend the rest of my life in prison.”

Mrs. Nalls, her grandmother, had been married for 53 years when she and her husband, Deroy Nalls, agreed to take Ashley in. She was “a problem child,” and Mr. Nalls was a tough man who took a dislike to Ashley’s boyfriend, Geramie Hart. Mr. Hart, who was 16 at the time of the murders, is also serving a life term. Mrs. Nalls said he deserved a shot at parole someday as well.

flat5 · 10-17-2007, 03:51 PM

JohnBua · 10-17-2007, 04:32 PM

I have no problem with locking anyone up for life. There are how many billions of people in this world? And how many billions of them manage to NOT be violent criminals? Its the easiest thing in the world. Lock em up, they shall not be missed.

Baraka_Guru · 10-17-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

I have no problem with locking anyone up for life. There are how many billions of people in this world? And how many billions of them manage to NOT be violent criminals? Its the easiest thing in the world. Lock em up, they shall not be missed.

Unless it's someone in your family.

You'll need to explain yourself further. You haven't distinguished varying levels of violent crimes. Does this include all of them? If so, this is too extreme and smacks of a police state. Would you be so extreme with everything else?

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

I have no problem with locking anyone up for life. There are how many billions of people in this world? And how many billions of them manage to NOT be violent criminals? Its the easiest thing in the world. Lock em up, they shall not be missed.

Billions of people + crimes being punished by imprisonment = hundreds of millions of prisoners. Do you know how much it costs to imprison hundreds of millions of people? More importantly, do you know that prison isn't designed to reform but to simply house?

Think about it.

Edit: OH GOD, I almost dropped my butter knife.

Cynthetiq · 10-17-2007, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Billions of people + crimes being punished by imprisonment = hundreds of millions of prisoners. Do you know how much it costs to imprison hundreds of millions of people? More importantly, do you know that prison isn't designed to reform but to simply house?

Think about it.

Edit: OH GOD, I almost dropped my butter knife.

Yes, keep those criminal bastards away from me.

If that's how you want them to have access to free healthcare and free housing, sure. I'm all for it. Though, I'm also for the death penalty in some crimes so, take your chances in getting that 3 hots and a cot with free healthcare.

And yes, if it was my family? Damn skippy! You do the crime you pay the time.

I've already had family members wrongfully imprisoned by corrupt state government. I'm happy for people to be incarcerated for justice, since most of you won't let me me cut off their hands or feet, or other coporal punishment.

Baraka_Guru · 10-17-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Billions of people + crimes being punished by imprisonment = hundreds of millions of prisoners. Do you know how much it costs to imprison hundreds of millions of people? More importantly, do you know that prison isn't designed to reform but to simply house?

And to think that the U.S. is one of the worst prison states in the world. The prison population per 100,000 is rivaled only by Russia and Belarus. Sure, little is known about what is going on in places like North Korea, but still....

Frosstbyte · 10-17-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

And to think that the U.S. is one of the worst prison states in the world. The prison population per 100,000 is rivaled only by Russia and Belarus. Sure, little is known about what is going on in places like North Korea, but still....

Of course, if you were looking any further, you'd note that an enormous number of those people are in there for drug-related offenses and that we RELEASE violent criminals on parole to make more room for drug offenders in our ultra-successful, ultra-efficient war on drugs.

Not that that makes it any better...

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

And to think that the U.S. is one of the worst prison states in the world. The prison population per 100,000 is rivaled only by Russia and Belarus. Sure, little is known about what is going on in places like North Korea, but still....

I couldn't agree more. The problem is that prevention isn't profitable, and people in power are by their nature selfish.

waltert · 10-17-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Lets get some outside opinions.

I've always thought it comes down to this question its rehab vrs danger to society. Some children are not worth 'saving' when in so doing you expose innocents to their violent behaviors.

Mean and heartless I know, but life sucks that way. Life is not about the lowest common denominator.

I have to agree that there are those not fit to live in society...who, for all practical purposes are irreparably damaged. In my opinion, they should be discarded, but there are those who would like to let them live out their natural lives...though for what purpose, I know not.

as for the prison-state comments...I'm all for the US government legalizing controlled substances.

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 08:47 PM

There are so few people that are irreversibly damaged that you'd probably have trouble filling one medium sized prison with all of them. Killing people is wrong, and is an act of vengeance just like pretending a 14 year old is an adult so we can punish him or her more.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-17-2007, 08:58 PM

We might incarcerate(sp) at a higher rate, but no other industrialized nation has a population that rivals ours sans what China and India? People break the law,they should be punished; they are done so in a fair and legal process. Maybe if our drug laws were more laxed our rates would be lower, but that doesn't absolve people from the fact that they broke the law.

Cynthetiq · 10-17-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There are so few people that are irreversibly damaged that you'd probably have trouble filling one medium sized prison with all of them. Killing people is wrong, and is an act of vengeance just like pretending a 14 year old is an adult so we can punish him or her more.

They can all live in your backyard. I have enough crazies in my part of the US.

Ustwo · 10-17-2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There are so few people that are irreversibly damaged that you'd probably have trouble filling one medium sized prison with all of them. Killing people is wrong, and is an act of vengeance just like pretending a 14 year old is an adult so we can punish him or her more.

From the numbers pulled out of my ass society?

waltert · 10-17-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There are so few people that are irreversibly damaged that you'd probably have trouble filling one medium sized prison with all of them. Killing people is wrong, and is an act of vengeance just like pretending a 14 year old is an adult so we can punish him or her more.

you may be right will, but how much time will it take to fix that bulk of people with the criminal mindset? you're talking about trying to undo years of failed parenting, etc. I dont think its logistically practical.

and if a criminal does show normalcy when he is "rehabilitated", how many more times does he have to get out of the system and hurt someone before we give him the axe?

I dont really see the excecution of those who harm others as "killing". some cars arent worth fixing, and they go to the scrap yard...some pets are too violent to have around kids, or become physically ill enough to warrant being euthanized...its just good business.

hell, turn them into organ donors for all I care....thats one way to make them give back to society what they can never hope to repay.

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

From the numbers pulled out of my ass society?

How terribly original, but no. Mental illness that has virtually no hope of any kind of healing is very rare, and most of the people in our prisons have no mental illness to even speak of the begin with. As has been stated, things like drug related offenses are quite common, and theft which can directly be linked back to poverty is also quite common. Each of those two things has a very simple solution.

Of course, if you like paying for the government to take care of everything, that's fine with me and not in the least inconsistent with things you've said in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltert

you may be right will, but how much time will it take to fix that bulk of people with the criminal mindset?

I'd expect to see a drastic drop off in a little more than a generation based on the successes of preventative social programs. I can't remember if I've mentioned it on TFP, but my mother used to work for a county program that involved teaching empathy, emotion management, and problem solving to children. Since then without exception all of the children are thriving. None is involved in illegal activity, and they are all getting excellent grades. Similar programs have been fighting for funding for years, but unfortunately we're too busy paying into the prison industrial complex to actually try to prevent crime. Heaven forbid.

Cynthetiq · 10-17-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Source: Correctional Populations in the United States, Annual and Prisoners in 2005.
Violent offenses include murder, negligent and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, extortion, intimidation, criminal endangerment, and other violent offenses.

Property offenses include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, possession and selling of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, vandalism, criminal tampering, and other property offenses.

Drug offenses include possession, manufacturing, trafficking, and other drug offenses.

Public-order offenses include weapons, drunk driving, escape/flight to avoid prosecution, court offenses, obstruction, commercialized vice, morals and decency charges, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses.

I'm going to again say you have no idea what you are talking about and pulling that medium sized stuff out of your ass. What does MEDIUM sized mean?

Quote:

Link
The Nebraska prison system currently operates at 138 percent of its design capacity.4
• The system has been over capacity since the 1980s. This condition persists despite the $73-million, 960-bed Tecumseh prison that opened in December 2001.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How terribly original, but no. Mental illness that has virtually no hope of any kind of healing is very rare, and most of the people in our prisons have no mental illness to even speak of the begin with. As has been stated, things like drug related offenses are quite common, and theft which can directly be linked back to poverty is also quite common. Each of those two things has a very simple solution.

Of course, if you like paying for the government to take care of everything, that's fine with me and not in the least inconsistent with things you've said in the past.

I'd expect to see a drastic drop off in a little more than a generation based on the successes of preventative social programs. I can't remember if I've mentioned it on TFP, but my mother used to work for a county program that involved teaching empathy, emotion management, and problem solving to children. Since then without exception all of the children are thriving. None is involved in illegal activity, and they are all getting excellent grades. Similar programs have been fighting for funding for years, but unfortunately we're too busy paying into the prison industrial complex to actually try to prevent crime. Heaven forbid.

here read this, I've only just started...
Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s Prison Population 2007-2011

Ustwo · 10-17-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How terribly original, but no. Mental illness that has virtually no hope of any kind of healing is very rare, and most of the people in our prisons have no mental illness to even speak of the begin with. As has been stated, things like drug related offenses are quite common, and theft which can directly be linked back to poverty is also quite common. Each of those two things has a very simple solution.

Poverty is not a cause of crime, the great depression showed that. A for drug related crimes, I assume you think that making drugs legal would make drug related criminals into upstanding citizens? Perhaps for the users, but the dealers and gang bangers would have to find another source of easy money. Finally some individuals are simply violent. The prison system is full of them. They tend to stay violent until they get not older and wiser, but just old. When the hormones turn off and the slowness of age catches up.

Added I have no problem with a vengeful punitive system, though I'd be all for a little public corporal punishment and humiliation compared to jail time for the non-violent, non-habitual offenders.

Cynthetiq · 10-17-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltert

you may be right will, but how much time will it take to fix that bulk of people with the criminal mindset? you're talking about trying to undo years of failed parenting, etc. I dont think its logistically practical.

and if a criminal does show normalcy when he is "rehabilitated", how many more times does he have to get out of the system and hurt someone before we give him the axe?

I dont really see the excecution of those who harm others as "killing". some cars arent worth fixing, and they go to the scrap yard...some pets are too violent to have around kids, or become physically ill enough to warrant being euthanized...its just good business.

hell, turn them into organ donors for all I care....thats one way to make them give back to society what they can never hope to repay.

what one has to see is the recidivism rate to see if they get released after many years, and they still do the same behaviors. It's higher in males than in females, but it is not 0% as willravel tries to put it out as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Poverty is not a cause of crime, the great depression showed that. A for drug related crimes, I assume you think that making drugs legal would make drug related criminals into upstanding citizens? Perhaps for the users, but the dealers and gang bangers would have to find another source of easy money. Finally some individuals are simply violent. The prison system is full of them. They tend to stay violent until they get not older and wiser, but just old. When the hormones turn off and the slowness of age catches up.

Added I have no problem with a vengeful punitive system, though I'd be all for a little public corporal punishment and humiliation compared to jail time for the non-violent, non-habitual offenders.

Oh but that was a generation ago, people didn't have ipods, bling, Hummers and 21" spinners. There's more to tempt them now

And I agree, that the lesser offenses I'd be happy to have, that kid in Singapore getting caned for graffitti on a car, GREAT! CSPAN it! Better yet, get sponsors, this caning brought to you by Mountain Dew, Do the Dew!

Willravel · 10-18-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Poverty is not a cause of crime, the great depression showed that.

Are we living in the great depression? No? Are we living in a time where there are definite upper classes that are represented in major metropolitan areas? Yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

A for drug related crimes, I assume you think that making drugs legal would make drug related criminals into upstanding citizens?

You assume wrong. Legalize cannabis, sure, but end the failed "war on drugs". The system is all wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Added I have no problem with a vengeful punitive system, though I'd be all for a little public corporal punishment and humiliation compared to jail time for the non-violent, non-habitual offenders.

Translation: I have no problem with having a criminal vengeance system.

Cynth, the point which you seemingly missed is that a vast majority of people in prison would not be considered a "lost cause" by psychologists because they don't suffer from mental illnesses that are less likely to be totally treatable, like certain cases of schizophrenia for example. These mental illnesses are exceedingly rare, even in prisons. The idea that people like this child are beyond hope of treatment is ignorant.

Cynthetiq · 10-18-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Cynth, the point which you seemingly missed is that a vast majority of people in prison would not be considered a "lost cause" by psychologists because they don't suffer from mental illnesses that are less likely to be totally treatable, like certain cases of schizophrenia for example. These mental illnesses are exceedingly rare, even in prisons. The idea that people like this child are beyond hope of treatment is ignorant.

Right, and you are welcome to recieve them into your neighborhood. I'm not interested in welcoming them into my community.

Not a lost cause? Maybe not, but again, if you did the crime you should pay the time.

Do you understand the recidivism rate? While these are for adults, the idea that you state that everyone is treatable and can be rehabilited is just folly.

LINK

Quote:

Two studies come closest to providing "national" recidivism rates for the United States. One tracked 108,580 State prisoners released from prison in 11 States in 1983. The other tracked 272,111 prisoners released from prison in 15 States in 1994. The prisoners tracked in these studies represent two-thirds of all the prisoners released in the United States for that year.

Rearrest within 3 years
67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983

The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:

- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders

The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).
To the top

Reconviction within 3 years
Overall, reconviction rates did not change significantly from 1983 to 1994. Among, prisoners released in 1983, 46.8% were reconvicted within 3 years compared to 46.9% among those released in 1994. From 1983 to 1994, reconviction rates remained stable for released:
- violent offenders (41.9% and 39.9%, respectively)
- property offenders (53.0% and 53.4%)
- public-order offenders (41.5% and 42.0%)

Among drug offenders, the rate of reconviction increased significantly, going from 35.3% in 1983 to 47.0% in 1994.

Willravel · 10-18-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Right, and you are welcome to recieve them into your neighborhood. I'm not interested in welcoming them into my community.

After they've seen psychologists for multiple sessions over years or however long the psychologist sees fit? Sure. Instead of being left to their own devices in a giant building with other criminals, them actually being treated would greatly reduce convicts from committing crimes again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Do you understand the recidivism rate? While these are for adults, the idea that you state that everyone is treatable and can be rehabilited is just folly.

Recidivism is simply the result of a system not designed to rehabilitate. I'd think that even a layman could see that.

Cynthetiq · 10-18-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

After they've seen psychologists for multiple sessions over years or however long the psychologist sees fit? Sure. Instead of being left to their own devices in a giant building with other criminals, them actually being treated would greatly reduce convicts from committing crimes again.

Recidivism is simply the result of a system not designed to rehabilitate. I'd think that even a layman could see that.

And you have some sort of "anything" to back that up? Or is it just another thing you've pulled out of the sky?

10-13-2007, 07:38 PM	#43 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Instead of trying him as an adult, they should heal him as a child. The kid's brain isn't even fully developed yet. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-14-2007, 10:23 AM	#48 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Horse shit! http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scien...ain_10-13.html The brain isn't fully developed until the late teens in most people. Abstract thought really isn't in place until around 18 on average. Last edited by Willravel; 10-14-2007 at 10:31 AM..

10-14-2007, 10:43 AM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	from a piaget perspective--developmental psychology--will is right. the types of abstract through required to think in ethical terms are the last to develop. if the notion of developmental stages that piaget outlined is correct at all--and there is not much disagreement that it is---the ability to imagine an action in the abstract and comprehend it as entailing consequences in potentia develops between 16-18. through that period. piaget considered this to be the last of the partially hardwired phases of cognitive development. so it follows that there is something fundamentally fucked up about trying a 14 year old as an adult. except from a viewpoint conditioned by the assumptions i outlined earlier somewhere in this thread. its an ideological effect--panic-driven--having nothing at all to do with any conception of "justice"--if the notion of justice hinges on a notion of intent, and if you assume that intent requires a concrete understanding of the relation of actions to consequences in anything like an abstract fashion--which is the basis for ANY ethical decision-making, and is thereby the basis for ANY notion of criminal intent. (think about it---what is the basis for "not guilty by reason of insanity" type pleas for adults? the idea that the perpetrator of an act did not understand its potential consequence....) you could say that a 14 year old might understand something about the potential outcomes of shooting up a school, but it is most unlikely that the kid understands them in ways that are anything like how an adult would understand them. if that's true, then bourgeois panic is willing to redefine the notion of criminal intent in a fundamental way, without even considering what that means, because---well---it is more important that guns be easily available than it is that a notion of intent inscribed in law remain coherent, in this kind of case. because the complication is not really about the ethical development of a 14 year old--its driven by the fact that 14 year olds who DO NOT understand ethical questions in an adult manner can get guns and can carry out actions using them. this logic obtains only for situations like this one, btw--shifts in sentencing guidlines that enable kids charged with violent, gun-related actions to be tried and convicted as adults. that these changes are implemented in an ad hoc manner changes nothing about the problems they raise regarding the definition of criminal intent. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-14-2007 at 10:48 AM..

10-14-2007, 06:18 PM	#53 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	It seems that the mission of adult corrections has changed from punishment to rehab while the mission of juvenile corrections has changed from rehab to punishment. At least the juvenile offender knows where he's going after detention: the big house. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-17-2007, 03:51 PM	#59 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	.. Last edited by flat5; 05-03-2008 at 01:20 AM..

10-13-2007, 07:06 PM	#41 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well it's an interesting coincidence that this happened in Israel, then.

10-13-2007, 07:56 PM	#45 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	To answer the main question this thread brings up is this; to keep a dangerous person behind bars for as long as possible.

10-13-2007, 08:37 PM	#46 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	To me punishing a 14 year old as if he were an adult has everything to do with vengeance, and nothing to do with solving the situation.

10-14-2007, 11:56 AM	#50 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I still see the double standard as an effect of an emotional response, or a response rooted in an emotional reaction, more than a reasonable response, or a response based on dispassionate reasoning. One of the drawbacks to having a jury of one's peers, or even to having a court system inhabited and run by people, is that we're not always rational beings. It's a shame people can't just be conscious of their decisions and allow their emotional reactions to be filtered by their reason. As an aside, it's good to know that my psych classes finally paid off.

10-14-2007, 06:15 PM	#52 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Prosecutors aren't psychologists. They're not qualified to say who is or isn't capable of rehabilitation. I'd be happy with a larger psychologist presence in the criminal justice system if for no other reason but to piss off Tom Cruise.

10-14-2007, 06:26 PM	#55 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	A psych profile is a snapshot. What they need is a movie. I'm not a psychologist by trade, but by my understanding the more time a licensed psychologist spends with a patient, the more complete a picture that psychologist has. One or two 1 hour sessions (which is at most what they do for a profile, if they even meet in person at all) is really like only looking at one tooth before recommending braces (to use a dentist metaphor).

10-15-2007, 09:27 AM	#57 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I don't have a problem with charging a teen as an adult for the right crime. This however, isn't the right case. The cops were able to catch him before he committed any crimes. Right now, they can give him one hell of a slap on the wrist and get him some serious psychological help.

10-17-2007, 04:32 PM	#60 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	I have no problem with locking anyone up for life. There are how many billions of people in this world? And how many billions of them manage to NOT be violent criminals? Its the easiest thing in the world. Lock em up, they shall not be missed.

10-17-2007, 08:47 PM	#68 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There are so few people that are irreversibly damaged that you'd probably have trouble filling one medium sized prison with all of them. Killing people is wrong, and is an act of vengeance just like pretending a 14 year old is an adult so we can punish him or her more.

10-17-2007, 08:58 PM	#69 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	We might incarcerate(sp) at a higher rate, but no other industrialized nation has a population that rivals ours sans what China and India? People break the law,they should be punished; they are done so in a fair and legal process. Maybe if our drug laws were more laxed our rates would be lower, but that doesn't absolve people from the fact that they broke the law. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.