Thousands of Children Sentenced to Life without Parole in the United States

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/2397f84d0f6c630df3b8f89800e24038.htm

(New York, October 12, 2005)-There are at least 2,225 child offenders serving life without parole (LWOP) sentences in U.S prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said in a new joint report published today. While many of the child offenders are now adults, 16 percent were between 13 and 15 years old at the time they committed their crimes. An estimated 59 percent were sentenced to life without parole for their first-ever criminal conviction. Forty-two states currently have laws allowing children to receive life without parole sentences.

The 157-page report, The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, is the first national study examining the practice of trying children as adults and sentencing them to life in adult prisons without the possibility of parole. The report is based on two years of research and on an analysis of previously uncollected federal and state corrections data. The data allowed the organizations to track state and national trends in LWOP sentencing through mid-2004 and to analyze the race, history and crimes of young offenders.

"Kids who commit serious crimes shouldn't go scot-free," said Alison Parker, senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, who authored the report for both organizations. "But if they are too young to vote or buy cigarettes, they are too young to spend the rest of their lives behind bars."

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are releasing The Rest of Their Lives at a critical time: while fewer youth are committing serious crimes such as murder, states are increasingly sentencing them to life without parole. In 1990, for example, 2,234 children were convicted of murder and 2.9 percent sentenced to life without parole. By 2000, the conviction rate had dropped by nearly 55 percent (1,006), yet the percentage of children receiving LWOP sentences rose by 216 percent (to nine percent).

[LynnTheDem]

1. Well DAMN that Saddam Hussein! Thank goodness we invaded

and overthrew that bastard, even though the majority of Iraqis didn't want us to! Imagine, thousands of children rotting in jails for the rest of their lives!

Only a sick dictator SOB in a 3rd world nation like Ira...oh...

Never mind.

[NNN0LHI]

5. You remember that too?

They had a prison for children! Children! In Prisons!

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, October 8, 2003:

Saddam would have remained in power -- with all that entails: More mass graves, more children in prison, and more daily depredations of the Iraqi people.


President Bush, April 16, 2003:

Two weeks ago, the Iraqi regime operated a gulag for dissidents, and incredibly enough, a prison for young children.


President Bush, July 10, 2003:

We discovered a prison for children -- all aimed at -- for Saddam Hussein to intimidate the people of Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

7. bush, July 10, 2003: "We discovered a prison for children"

Oh yes I do indeed remember that too.

Now if only we could figure out why the world considers America the #1 in utter hypocrisy...

[tatertop]

2. That is one grim bedtime story

[porphyrian]

3. I'm not a big fan of imprisoning a child for life...

...but I would have to say that if it were my family or friend they had murdered or raped, I would have a hard time feeling sympathy for them, regardless of their age.

[Journeyman]

4. The woman who raised me was dragged from her car. . .

at an intersection in a Los Angeles suburb, thrown to the ground and shot twice through her left eye. They say the killer and his partner got some change and half a pack of smokes. The older criminal was 16, the triggerman 14. Both were put in juvenile detention, sentenced there until they were 25, but released when they were 18.

That was 32 years ago last August 9th. I think of Lucille almost every day. I suspect her killers are dead -- I imagine they died as they lived. To this day, I believe if anyone picks up a weapon and uses it in unprovoked anger they forfeit the right to all claims of childhood innocence.

[prolesunited]

6. Do you believe in the death penalty

for those under 18? Should they have been sentenced to die?

[Journeyman]

13. Other than my assertion these young men were treated too leniently. . .

-- and this, not for revenge over Lucille's murder, but for the protection of society, which was ill-served to have such violent killers released so soon -- I've never advocated capital punishment for them.

I'm conflicted over the death penalty, see its applicability for certain categories (Streicher deserved it, so did Heitaro Kimura), but believe its use more counterproductive than cathartic.

But to repeat: By the cold-blooded nature of their acts, and their absolute refusal to show remorse or even emotion over the heinous nature of their crime, I believe these killers forfeited all claim to consideration as "children" and, for the good of society -- as well as for their hoped for correction -- they should have been incarcerated for more than a token term. Whether that imprisonment was for punishment or redemption is of course a choice for society, but to provide them no more than a short course in advanced criminality and then kick them to the curb served neither their interests nor ours. . . to say nothing of justice for Lucille.

[woo me with science]

25. exactly. the use of the word "children" here is the problem.

Most people don't consider 16 and 17-year-old offenders "children." You forfeit the argument out of silliness if you insist on using that term. If you want to discuss the problem of juvenile offenders and what to do about them, you need to use language that lets people know you are serious about the crimes.

[dretceterini]

8. I totally agree

A person's age should not be an excuse for reducing jail time.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Then why is it considered mitigating circumstances when an adult who...

...has the mind of a twelve year old commits a crime? Should a mentally retarded 20 year old man be treated the same as a 20 year old normal man in our court system? Can a retarded man even assist in his own defense adequately? Can a twelve year old kid assist in his own defense adequately?

Don

[prolesunited]

11. Excellent point

But often, especially when it's personal, it has nothing to do with justice. It's more about punishment and retribution.

[REP]

15. Neither Deserves To Live Freely

If a child or a retarded person deliberately kills another, they have forfeited their right to live freely in society. Society cannot be expected to tiptoe around them forever; they must be put someplace where they cannot kill again. With a few juvenile murderers, there may be a slight chance of rehabilitation, but with a retarded adult, if s/he did not understand his/her actions were wrong the first time, s/he is extremely unlikely to know the difference in the future and is therefore unfit to rejoin society.

Incidentally, most 12 year olds know the difference between right and wrong and have an IQ over 70; those who do not would be classified as having an intellectual deficiency.

[NNN0LHI]

21. That is the sickest post I have ever read on DU

Congratulations.

And I did notice you completely avoided the question of whether a child or retarded person can adequately assist in their own defense too. Because you know they can't. Which means the chances of convicting the wrong person for a crime would be very likely.

Hitler would have been very proud of you.

Don

[dretceterini]

26. What does convicting the wrong person

have to do with the age or intellectual ability of the criminal? A crime is a crime, no matter who commits it!

Your arguement is kind of like those who insist on calling illegals "undocumented workers".

[NNN0LHI]

27. I will try to explain this to you

A child's mind or an adult with a child's mind many times is incapable of understanding even the most basic abstract conceptions required for mounting a credible defense during a criminal trial such as ones we take for granted like "self defense".

While yes a child's mind knows the difference between right and wrong early on they may not appreciate such technicalities whereas while it is always wrong to kill, under certain circumstances killing is acceptable. As in "self defense".

In their mind wrong is wrong and right is right and that is the end of the story. Their minds may lack the ability to reason these things out any further. Try to explain the concept of self defense to a young child some time and you will know what I mean.

Don

[REP]

28. Tired Ad Hominem; Terrible Argument; Not Surprised At Either

Come back when you know how to post without screaming "Hitler! Hitler!" and running away. At least come up with a fresh way to try to insult your opponent.

Tell me why society should tolerate individuals who do not know that it is wrong to kill.

[cynatnite]

16. Which is why families and friends do not and should not...

be the ones to determine punishment. The emotion is what guides them.

[Journeyman]

20. Oh, most definitely... I had no business sitting in judgment on them...

and as we were not "family," the judge gave us no opportunity to make a statement.

Even today, these many decades later, were I to find myself on a jury in a similar murder case I'd seek recusal for fear I could not judge impartially.

[prolesunited]

10. The Supreme Court recently disallowed imposing the death penalty,

so how could the same arguments not apply for life without parole? I'm not saying they all should get out, but if they've shown change, been educated and conducted themselves well, why should they not have the opportunity of parole and be able to make their case before a parole board.

Some arguments about brain development and emotional circuitry can be found here.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=205&scid=27

[depakid]

12. How sad

Reading a few of the comments (and knowing how most Americans feel about this and similar issues) only further motivates me to get out of the US once I get my graduate degree.

I'm quite sure I'd rather live and work in (and for) a country that has enough courage to ratify and uphold the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/25.htm

To my knowledge, aside from America and Somalia- every other country in the world has at least ratified this very reasonable human rights convention. What a source of shame.

[LynnTheDem]

18. Yes, only America & Somalia refuse to ratify children's rights.

Only the USSA and Somalia refuse to ratify women's and children's rights.

RAH RAH RAH we're #1 spreading democracy and liberating women & children! RAH RAH RAH!

And don't you DARE try to take away America's Right To Torture!

[Jamison]

14. I have no problem with it.

Murderers and other hardened criminals deserve to be put away for life to protect society, no matter what age they might be.

[cynatnite]

17. To imprison children for life with no hope is barbaric... n/t

[LynnTheDem]

19. Yes, that's why we invaded and "liberated" Iraq!

To stop the evil Saddam who had children's prisons! bush & Rice said so!

[BuelahWitch]

23. You act like they got life for skipping school

They're violent criminals. We don't need them out on the streets.

[REP]

29. Careful - Someone Will Call You "Hitler" For Daring to Think Such a Thing

These "children" - actually adolescents - are in prison for life for murder and rape, or at least some of them are. If Richard Grissom, to give an example, had actually been imprisoned for the rest of his life after he beat an elderly woman to death with a railroad spike when he was 16, he wouldn't've had had a chance to murder the four women he later killed after he was paroled at age 18.

[woo me with science]

22. Use of the word "children" here is disingenuous...

and will immediately alienate much of the audience you want to convince. This is an issue worth debating...where moral and legal responsibility begin in young people. It is worth arguing to what extent they should be accountable for their actions, when their ability to control their impulses and understand the consequences of their actions is still developing.

But most Americans clearly expect more in the way of personal accountability and morality from teenagers than from "children." Use of the word "children" to describe many of the 16 and 17-year-old offenders being described here will jar your audience and close many of them off entirely to a discussion of the issue.

It is rhetorical problems like this that allow right-wingers to deride liberals for lacking common sense and coddling criminals. Would you trust someone to run your criminal justice system who wants to treat that big, hairy 17-year-old who raped your daughter as though he were an innocent little child? It sounds like you will want to give him a time-out. Like it or not, that is the image you portray when you twist the language this way. Most Americans will cringe and become wary of your argument immediately when you insist on calling all offenders under 18 "children."

Sure, let's talk about young people and how they should be treated in the criminal justice system. But there is a world of cognitive and moral development possible between age 5 and age 17. Let's be careful about language and how it portrays our comprehension of the seriousness of the issue. The problem is more complex than children hitting each other in a sandbox, and Americans need to know that liberals understand that.

[bee]

24. well said.

Situations like the one in post #4 absolutely make me ill. Theres simply no logical reason IMO for them to have gotten off with slaps on the wrists. When youre mature enough to commit 1st degree murder with malice and aforethought you are certainly mature enough to pay the price for your crimes like an adult would. I think its a huge mistake to say no matter what you do... youll be out when youre 18 or at the latest 25. It would be hard to argue, that any teen could actually not understand the consequences of such actions. Childhood innocence is lost at a very young age today. Its a reality of our society.