Justice in the USA - Life Sentences for Youths

Should Persons under 18 ever be sentenced to life without the CHANCE of parole?


  • Total voters
    27

Balogny Tits

It's not that were better, were just less worse
May 26, 2005
1,049
2
236
Canada
#1
This article shows how far right the US is the rest of the world when it comes to basic human rights. 185 to 1; that is something to be proud of! To top it all off, this has made the US more dangerous, not safer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/17teenage.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

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.

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.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,806
9,231
768
#2
you need to add the death penalty to that list. im a big believer in purging the gene pool
 

Balogny Tits

It's not that were better, were just less worse
May 26, 2005
1,049
2
236
Canada
#3
you need to add the death penalty to that list. im a big believer in purging the gene pool
I thought of that, but using the death penalty against youths is unconstitutional.
 

cozzie

head retard
Aug 7, 2005
1,482
1
176
Norristown PA
#4
with the way kids are acting today, I believe they should have life in prison, when getting their jollies shooting up schools and whatnot.
 

Butter Nuggets

Registered User
May 29, 2006
275
0
221
#5
If the US is a lone dissenter among a group I respect, I might give the majority some weight in rethinking my opinion.

The UN is disgusting, international law does not exist as we understand law, and even more dangerous than the UN.
 
Mar 2, 2005
6,781
126
578
chicago
#7
sometimes ya gotta realize, just becuse ya bought it yesterday doesnt mean it didnt expire today. toss out the bad and get a new one see if its ok
 

Balogny Tits

It's not that were better, were just less worse
May 26, 2005
1,049
2
236
Canada
#8
If the US is a lone dissenter among a group I respect, I might give the majority some weight in rethinking my opinion.

The UN is disgusting, international law does not exist as we understand law, and even more dangerous than the UN.
The UN still represents the collective of the world. Remember, the UN (and it predecessor, the League of Nations) was a US creations. It was a place where the countries of the world could go to discuss their problems prior to war.

I don't understand what you mean that "international law does not exist as we understand law".
 

Butter Nuggets

Registered User
May 29, 2006
275
0
221
#10
The UN still represents the collective of the world. Remember, the UN (and it predecessor, the League of Nations) was a US creations. It was a place where the countries of the world could go to discuss their problems prior to war.

I don't understand what you mean that "international law does not exist as we understand law".
That first part was more of a response to when you said this.

185 to 1; that is something to be proud of!
My point was that because of my low opinion of the UN, our lone dissent doesn't bother me. If you respect the UN more than me I'm sure you will feel differently.


About the international law not existing. It isn't really law at all. Not counting trade, patent, and fisheries type stuff, there are are no set laws, no governing body to make them, no judges to interpret and try cases , no jurisdictions, no police. There are organizations that try to look like the court system we know like the ICJ or the ICC, but when you dig a little bit they are all pretty much the same as the UN general assembly. No enforcement. Jurisdiction only exists when the parties allow themselves to be tried. They issue just advisory opinions and suggestions.

There never will be international law without international enforcement. That will only happen when the strong agree to relinquish actual military power to an international entity. Currently international enforcement only works on the weak. And then only when the strong have something to gain.
 

ShooterMcGavin

Go back to your shanties.
May 25, 2005
18,028
1,380
643
#12
The whole "under 18" thing for crime is a little weird.

If you're 15, you know right and wrong, and you know you're committing a crime.

If you're like 6 years old and find daddy's gun, etc etc, that's a different story.
 

Treat_Yourself

Registered User
Nov 17, 2006
548
0
0
#13
The whole "under 18" thing for crime is a little weird.

If you're 15, you know right and wrong, and you know you're committing a crime.

If you're like 6 years old and find daddy's gun, etc etc, that's a different story.
Exactly. If a "kid" of 16 years already has a juvenile record for violent crimes, keeps commiting them and ends up killing people I don't hold out much hope that he will someday become a useful member of society. At some point juvenile offenders cross a line and must be permanently separated from society. If the kid is too young to know better, or if it's an isolated incident that's a different story.
 

Balogny Tits

It's not that were better, were just less worse
May 26, 2005
1,049
2
236
Canada
#15
About the international law not existing. It isn't really law at all. Not counting trade, patent, and fisheries type stuff, there are are no set laws, no governing body to make them, no judges to interpret and try cases , no jurisdictions, no police. There are organizations that try to look like the court system we know like the ICJ or the ICC, but when you dig a little bit they are all pretty much the same as the UN general assembly. No enforcement. Jurisdiction only exists when the parties allow themselves to be tried. They issue just advisory opinions and suggestions.

There never will be international law without international enforcement. That will only happen when the strong agree to relinquish actual military power to an international entity. Currently international enforcement only works on the weak. And then only when the strong have something to gain.

I think the Judges of the International criminal Court would disagree with you. There are over 100 states as members, the most notable exception is the United States. The US is afraid that it's soldiers would be considered war criminals in some cases if they joined.

How ironic, because, yet again, like the League of Nations, it was the US who set up one of the first international criminal trials (remember the Nuremberg Tribunal?). If the Nuremberg trial wasn't and official trial, then were those who participated in the trial murders?
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#16
You only commit "War Crimes" if you lose a war.

The winner is never tried for their crimes.

Kinda like how we won't be held responsible for fucking up Iraq.
 

Butter Nuggets

Registered User
May 29, 2006
275
0
221
#17
I think the Judges of the International criminal Court would disagree with you. There are over 100 states as members, the most notable exception is the United States. The US is afraid that it's soldiers would be considered war criminals in some cases if they joined.

How ironic, because, yet again, like the League of Nations, it was the US who set up one of the first international criminal trials (remember the Nuremberg Tribunal?). If the Nuremberg trial wasn't and official trial, then were those who participated in the trial murders?
They might disagree with me but if they ever wanted to put me on trial they could only do so with permission from the US gov't. That goes for any nation. Even Canada, that signed onto it doesn't have to abide by it. Its completely voluntary. There are many other reasons why it is more of a political entity than a legal one.

The US should be afraid of having its soldiers put on trial because if and as soon as the US relinquishes power to the ICC, the ICC will be used as a weapon against the US by its political enemies.

The Nuremburg trials make my point. It was the strong bullying the weak. At that time it was rightfully so, maybe. But no way in hell was the Axis allowed charge any of the Allies, and even if they did, the Axis was weak and could not enforce its will. It was a convenient way to eliminate some naughty people.
 

Polack

Who is John Galt?
Aug 25, 2005
1,660
13
388
#18
Fuck'em. A twelve year old knows it's wrong to kill someone. If he shoots a couple of kids, the little fuck is useless to society and should be dead.
 

Kris_LTRMa

LoseTheRadio.net's Ma
Nov 17, 2006
9,749
1
333
right where I wanna be
#19
A kid of 12 or 13 can't say that they didn't know that by shooting a loaded gun at Leroy because Leroy disrespected him Leroy would die. By that age they know right from wrong. This business of treating them as "juvenile" offenders instead of adults is bullshit. If you commit an adult crime then you get charged as an adult...how many kids think they're all grown up anyway? Well, you wanted to be a grownup, so therefore accept the punishment a grownup would get. Case closed.