Scooter, That's what happens when you give people a job for life. Judges along with all elected positions should have term limits as was intended by the framers of the Constitution......

roscoe,

these judges are appointed. as for term limits, that's what is wrong with "party" lines, without them term limits would be determined by ..."we the people".... as intended. instead we have uninformed fools electing people along "party" race, religious, Etc. line's, with total abandonment of the thought process............

All the SCOTUS ruled was that for juvenile offenders, life without parole could not be the only sentence available to the jury/judge. They did NOT release anyone, they did NOT say that a jury/judge could not impose life without parole, and they did NOT do anything that favored juvenile offenders. They just clarified an issue that has troubled many juries and judges. Read the article before commenting!

@scooter,

The Founding Fathers did not trust "we the people" even a little bit. That's why they made the President, Vice-President, Supreme Court, Senators, the Cabinet, and all ranking givernment officians appointed and not directly elected. And even the House of Representatives had an ulterior motive --- to give slave-owning states much more power in the legislature than non-slave-owning states --- and they gave the House the shortest possible term of office to combat the effects of direct election.

The Founding Fathers had seen "we the people" in the French Revolution and with Cromwell's Roundheads, and in some of the more religious colonies here. They knew that democracy was a bankrupt and unworlable way to run a government and did everything in their power to prevent democracy. Remember that you do not pledge allegience to the "democracy for which it stands", but for the "Republic for which it stands."

And BTW almost none of the Founding Fathers were anything that would be recognizable today as "Christians." The first six Presidents were all Deists who saw Christ as only a historical figure.

They use to SERVE as a bi-partisan buffer between us and the government, now look at what we have.

It should never have been and should never be partisan, two or otherwise. The SCOTUS should be absolutely neutral, with no allegiance execpt to the people of the United States and the Constitution.

I actually agree with the ruling: I want a judge to have a minimum sentence he can impose, but then have the ability to use discretion based on the facts of the case. For example, I am not sure I want a 12-year-old, with an IQ of 80, automatically given life. I just want them to have the ability to check that justice is being properly served.

That said, IF I were a judge, I would probably still use that discretion, and say: "I thought about it a lot, and I sentence you to life in prison without the possibility of parole".

I agree with the supreme court on this. Look, the court didn't say that life without parole could not be given as a sentence. It can and, if that punishment fits the crime, I'm sure it will. But what the sad stories above don't illustrate is that often times youth (especially poor, minority, inner city youth) are convicted of crimes where mitigating circumstances may have warrented a lesser sentence, but the judges hands are tied because of mandatory sentencing. Juveniles can and do commit heinous crimes. It's also a fact that a 13 year old who waited in the van when two older gang member shot and killed another during a botched robbery attempt was sentenced as if he had pulled the trigger himself. Judges should be able to use their discretion when sentencing.

The only allowable sentence for any murderer, regardless of age or IQ, or any other consideration, should be death. You take a life, you pay with your own.

Xina,

Good example, unfortunately, the way the law reads in most states; any non-nuetral person present when a capital crime is committed is equally responsible, or if a capital crime is committed during the commission of another crime, all participants are equally responsible.

Not exactly fair, but in the case of a minor, latitude should be accorded. I read in one case, the brother of a violent criminal was brought along, unwillingly, to participate in the kidnap and murder of someone the older brother thought slighted him. The Judge sentenced the juvinile to prison with an equal sentence to what his brother received. The conviction was eventually overturned due to the circumstances, but the damage had been done. The younger brother became a similar character to what his brother was because he spent at least a couple of years in prison.

The primary case cited in the article, the boyfriend was responsible for committing the murder, should be treated accordingly and the murderer should not be allowed a parol hearing. The state may be saving some money by allowing some of these individuals parol, but the court costs will definately offset a chunk of that.

Military man- Exactly. It's one thing if a juvenile actually kills someone intentionally. But if they are simply present when a murder goes down... How do you hold a minor responsible for that? A 13,14, 15 year old kid may be too scared himself to object to what's being asked of him. His caretakers may be criminals, if a father or older brother brings him or her along to a crime, what is that kid supposed to do? What if he's afraid they'll kill him if he refuses? I'm not saying don't punish those kids, but it would be better to have them removed from that situation and given a chance to live a life free of crime and that gangster lifestyle they were being raised in.

While in a sense it does seem cruel and unusual to lock a 14 year old up for the rest of their life, the sad fact is that after spending 30 or 40 years in a prison (being raised in prison, essentially), one has to wonder how these "prison kids" could ever really fit in to the outside world. And those they killed can never get on with their lives either. It's like abortion in a way... You can argue for or against, but at the end of the day it's just sad that it ever has to happen in the first place.

I also agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Sentencing a 14-year old to life without parole just doesn't seem right to me. A 14-year old is not an adult. The 14-year old brain has not reached maturity and does have gaps in cognizance.

We wouldn't let a 14-year old buy a beer. We wouldn't let a 14-year old buy a gun. We wouldn't let a 14-year old vote. We wouldn't let a 14-year old join the military. We wouldn't let a 14-year old marry. We wouldn't let a 14-year old consent to consensual sex. Let's face it, we would never allow a 14-year old to do ANYTHING that a legal adult could do. But when it comes to sentencing a 14-year old, all of a sudden we act as if the Justice system can't differentiate between a Juvenile and an adult (when it clearly can).

Bottom line.... we know 14-years olds are juveniles because we disallow them opportunities that we deem to be adult only. Yet we completely disregard that at sentencing. Somehow, they become adults at sentencing.

Yes we must protect the murderer and not the victim. Right oh Harold. And when these guys get release you are surely going to be the one to take them in right?

What about US States that do not have a death penalty? What should the penalty be there? Michigan hasn't had a death penalty in 150 years. Why do you need to kill those convicted of serious crimes?

Did you revenge-types know that the US is considered the most-major human rights pariah in the entire world over this issue?

Did you know that among all or Europe, where many of us trace our ancestry from, the average sentence for a juvenile convicted of a single murder is less than 10 years in a separate facility that segregates juvenile offenders from adult offenders, and that sentences for juveniles convicted of other violent non-murder felonies are even less time?

Did you know that the US, Iran, Israel, and Somalia are the only nations in the world that have refused to sign a United Nations accord on juvenile justice which would prohibit the judicial treatment of juvenile suspects or convicts as adults? How many of you revenge-types are comfortable with this fact, especially when over 1700 murder convictions have been overturned in the last 25 years, including over 200 juvenile murder convictions, many of those after the innocent convicted in error had served many years behind bars?

Are you comfortable with throwing an innocent kid into an adult prison, where in all likelihood he will be sexually assaulted, raped, and beaten repeatedly, just because you want revenge so badly?

Did you know in those same European countries, where handgun ownership is severely restricted, but legitimate hunting weapons are legal, that the incidence of juveniles who kill is 1/10th of what our rate is on a per-population basis too?

Why don't we just severely restrict handgun ownership like most of the rest of the world does, as today non-lethal personal protection technology is quite advanced, and over the next 20-30 years see our violent crime rate fall by 80% or more, thereby also creating much less need for prison spending and vengeful prison sentences directed at juveniles and even at any first-time offender too?

Doesn't the good book say to turn the other cheek?

In my opinion, and I am almost 60, the Supreme Court decision did not go nearly far enough, as it left far too many unanswered questions, and still permits severe State-sanctioned child abuse when as many as 10% of all juveniles convicted of murder have been later found innocent.

Why should we get all upset at what happened at Penn State when many of you want the same kind of treatment for kids convicted of violent crimes, even though as many as 10% are later found innocent or their charges are reduced, and you also want to provide kids a 1000% greater opportunity to commit violent crimes through irresponsible handgun use than Europe provides their kids?

We don't let kids drive cars at 13, 14, or 15, so why allow a sentence of life without parole for any kid that age who uses a gun irresponsibly, since it isn't legal to own a handgun younger than age 18? Any kid under 18 who has a handgun in their possession got that gun because of the irresponsible behavior of an adult, it is pretty simple. Do we teach gun safety in schools? No we don't. Are handguns available on the street for $25? Yes they are.

We have a huge problem that would be easy for responsible adults to deal with in a responsible manner, and at the same time dealing with this problem in a responsible manner would greatly reduce violent crime by both juveniles and by adults too. It is irresponsible to continue to pretend that personal responsibility to handle handguns safely should be applied to kids, who are otherwise too irresponsible and immature to be considered adults for any other reason.

I could see giving a juvenile court judge a greater sentencing latitude, but I can not see transferring kids to adult courts based on the mere accusation of violent crime, since we Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is absolutely no possible defense to not give our kids the same legal benefit of doubt that we adults enjoy ourselves.

Kids convicted of serious crimes should never be tried in adult courts, they should never be housed with adults, and both kids and first-time adults offenders should get another chance within a reasonable period of time. For younger teens that period of time should be no more than 7-10 years, and for older teens and for younger first-time adults I personally can't see a sentence of any longer than 7-15 years maximum, segregated from older offenders as well as from multiple violent offenders. If we want these people to have a decent chance of not re-offending, than we are going to have to treat them better than we do currently.

Yes, the Supreme Court decision did not go nearly far-enough to resolve this issue once and for all.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

http://www.pjdc.org/2011/01/center-for-juvenile-law-policy-recieves-grant-for-juvenile-innocence-project/

http://floridainnocence.org/index.php

http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/

http://www.teenadvocatesusa.org/InnocenceBetrayed_MULTIMEDIA.html

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent/

Are you happy with a nation that would execute an innocent kid because its people seem to need revenge so badly?

Are victims families happy that the US is an international human rights pariah in their behalf, just so that handguns can remain legal and readily available for our kids to misuse irresponsibly?

Are you victims and revenge-types comfortable with these facts:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/usIndex.html

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/ilIndexdp.html

There is no justifiable reason for any kid to ever see a single day confined in an adult prison for any reason, nor to ever see an adult courtroom from the defendant's table. There is no reason whatsoever for any kid's life to be thrown away no matter what they did. All kids and even first-time offenders deserve another chance to either prove themselves worthy or to prove themselves unworthy. We can not justify brutalizing innocents just because some people want revenge.

I agree, most of the time the better sentence would be to segragate the kids in a juvenile facility, undo the damage that was done to them during their upbringing, and at 18 maybe force them to enlist in the army where they can learn discipline, serve their country and learn some useful skills that they can take with them into the real world later on. Seems far more logical and humane.

Old timer:

You have some good points, but I personally would be too chicken to say a bunch of rationalized stuff in front of a bereaved person who just lost their loved one to a murder. Rationalism and logic seem to get chucked out the window when you lose something dear to you - it is call human nature, or the id id you prefer....

Like Leartes in Hamlet - they do dare damnnation.

The human id is something you do not toy with - ever - unless you are prepared to deal with some unexpected results.

IAScooterTramp: Was George Washington a visionary ? In George Washington's farewell address, he supported the zero party system and spoke of the dangers of the party system. Although where he envisioned specifically foreign powers getting control through the vehicle of parties, it turns out special interests have gained control. He spoke of divisiveness. We now know gridlock. He believed there was no danger of losing the ability to enact salutary purposes with zero parties. I believe paragraphs 20-25 of his address were about the party system.

Xina the Awesome...you sound like a really nice person. Gotta disagree with you on the "force them into the Army" comment. First, the Army isn't suppose to allow felons into their ranks, Second, the Army isn't a rehabilitation center for criminals, in spite of what Hollywood portrays. Third, what did all the other soldiers do to you that you want to push societie's problems onto them. You think you're going to feel comfortable with a convicted murder among your ranks...what are going to do to him if he kills a soldier, send him to the Navy?

Roscoe2u, you said the Framers of the Constitution intended for their to be term limits for Supreme Court justices and for politicians. If that is so, then why didn't they write those into the Constitution? You can't just make stuff up and attribute it to the Framers. In fact, it was probably their intention that members of the Supreme Court should be appointed to life tenures pending good behavior. That way they can make unpopular rulings without fear of reprisal. If the public had had its way, the Court would never have struck down segregation in schools in Brown v. Education, nor would they ruled that police must inform criminals of their rights in Miranda v. Arizona, nor declared abortion a matter covered under the Right to Privacy in Roe v. Wade, as well as many other rulings that have been unpopular, but necessary. This was also a good ruling that was unpopular. Someone under the age of 18 should NOT be sentenced to life without parole, regardless of how heinous the crime was. To have someone in prison at age 60 because of something he/she did at age 14 is cruel and unusual punishment. Adolescents don't fully understand the consequences of their crimes. The judgment and reason centers of the brain are not fully developed until the early to mid 20s. They are not able to appreciate the gravity of their crimes and the consequences for them due to this. I say, good for the Supreme Court; the system worked.

Here is some recent extensive academic science on the subject of innocent juveniles convicted as adults: You will need Adobe to download it as it is a 57-page pdf file:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2010197

Here is another recent academic piece that should be thought-provoking:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/documents/newsletter/SpringSummer10.pdf

RTColorado - I see your point. I guess I was basing that idea off of what so many guys I know have said about the military straightening their act out. I wouldn't suggest that for the hardened criminal to be certain. Maybe we could develop a different corps just for youth offenders. Something with regimented discipline, where kids who have been raised wrong can learn the right way of doing things. They can learn a few skills and do some hard work that gives back to the country in some way. Seems much better and far more productive in the long run than throwing away a life at 13 years old. When kids that young are involved in violent crime, it's not just the kid's fault. It's all of our fault. We let this happen. We allowed war zones to crop up in the US and for our children to be born into urban militias. If we can save even a fraction of these lost boys and girls I think it's a worthwhile cause.

Old Timer,

Couldn't agree more...As much as the revenge types want to deny it, juveniles are simply NOT adults and should not be treated as though they were.

Thanks for the rationality.

Kudos.

I do not really have a problem with the Supreme Court ruling, but I do have a problem with the way it will be used. Just because the court has ruled that a mandatory life sentence is cruel and unusual punishment does not mean that all life without parole sentences are. All the court said is that there should be an option when life without parole is not really warranted, like in the case of a minor who is convicted under the felony murder rule when they had nothing to do with the actual murder but were present at the time the crime was committed. Unfortunately, this ruling will be used by attorneys to try and free every juvenile offender who was sentenced to life without parole. That was not the intent of the ruling, but that will be the outcome. It will force a sentencing review for every single juvenile sentenced to mandatory life without parole. There needs to be a streamlined way of doing this and saying, yes this kid deserved the sentence they got, now move on or this kid deserves a chance at parole. Nothing in this ruling automatically allows every juvenile sentenced to life without parole a chance at parole and it should not be interpreted that way by the lower courts.

I love the way bleeding heart libtards always equate proper justice with "revenge". The fact of the matter is a person is dead, and no amount of criminal pampering is going to bring them back to life. And don't give me the age argument either, a 14 year old is plenty old enough to understand that death is forever and murder is wrong.

What bothers me even more is the fact that these same moonbats who want violent criminals to be let loose into society are also against law abiding citiznens arming themselves to defend thier lives and families from the very same criminals. Talk about a backwards mentality.

I guess I can see where those previously convicted may request new sentencing hearings, though perhaps there is a better way to go about this then dragging everybody in for new in person hearings. Couldn't a panel of justices review the hearing transcripts of convicted juveniles serving life without parole and weed out those where the judge said that he had no qualms about imposing the harshest sentence possible... then for the remainder have the defense attorney submit evidence of mitigating circumstances that may have resulted in lighter sentencing if allowed. The convictions aren't overturned, we just need to determine that everyone who is currently serving life without parole isn't due a parole hearing. The parole board doesn't even have to grant it. Just because you're up for parole doesn't mean you get it.

First off, I am a huge proponent of the death penalty. I think personally it should be expanded to include things like rape, career criminals, multiple DUI offenders, and JUVIES. If you want to talk about what is wrong with our society, stop and think about the molly coddling of offenders. There are more people, more organizations holding kumbaya singing rallies for the rights of the offender. No one seems to remember, care, or remotely give a damn about the people that offender harmed, killed, raped, tortured, or even considered as a human being. But hey, let's hug the criminal. I mean holy sht they come from a broken home, were abused, strung out on dope, stubbed thier toe on the playground at age 5, and the whole list of other "shirk responsibility" excuses used to deflect accountability for thier conscious decisions to committ the crime.

You want to talk about cruel and unusual punishment - ok, let's start with a killer strangling someone to death. Is that humane? Having your life choked out of you. How about rape? Do you think the victim of that crime finds pleasure in being violated, threatened with death, or even the fear of being killed after the rape is ok? How about being stabbed to death? Do you think the victim of that crime finds the penetration of steel into thier bodies, the corsing of blood from that wound, the anxiety, the pain less than cruel? How about the rest of us in society when you release a known killer, rapist, child molester, career criminal back into society, knowing you have just released the shark back into the guppy pond? Don't you think it is CRUEL to law abiding citizens to now have to worry about becoming the next victim?

Life in Prison DOES NOT remove the threat from society. It is hogwash to believe a criminal suddenly stops being a criminal behind bars. Criminals escape, they pose a threat to the guards, they pose a threat to other criminals (though this is not always a bad thing), and now they find more loopholes in which to regain freedom to pad thier criminal resume's. IF someone has done something deserving to be sentenced to life, then why in the hell should society PAY FOR THEM FOR LIFE. And life don't mean life either, especially with the possibility of parole over some damned libtard belief that the convicted have more rights or can be rehabilitated. MY ASS they can. Look at the people currently serving prison time. HOW MANY OF EM are repeat offenders? Or have rap sheets 3, 4, 50 pages long? Apparently they were SOOOOO REHABILITATABLE that then go back to prison. And I am sure they DO NOT RECOMMITT OFFENSES JUST FOR SUNDAY JELLO.

As harsh as it sounds, the only sure way to ensure the public safety - which is what a life in prison term is supposed to mean - is execution. Cull the herd. Convicts have already PROVEN they can not, will not, and do not offer ANY POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY. They are predators. They are self absorbed. They can not ever be trusted. But what you can count on them to be is opportunistic. And when that opportunity comes in a dark alley, in your home while you sleep, or in the park where our children play, they sure as hell won't think twice before committing another act of crime and violence. For those of you that believe these createns of society deserve another to thier long list of chances, let em move in with ya. Give em the keys to your house. Let em play with your kids. And we will see just how eager and utterly stupid you are.

FlatIron - some of us actually want to see real "proper justice" instead of revenge. A person whose house was broken into might think the only "proper justice" for the offender is life in prison, but in reality they are terribly upset about the violation and want revenge instead of a fair punishment. Proper justice is not sticking a kid in jail and throwing away the key. Yes, a person is dead - it is the most horrible thing that can happen and there is nothing that will change that. But as many have pointed out, kids are not fully capable of making their own decisions so we do not allow them to. But if they kill someone, were they suddenly fully aware of the magnitude of their actions? Not at all. They should be fairly punished and an attempt should be made to rehabilitate them. I agree with Xena and the "prison service" idea. People always complain about the costs associated with our over populated prisons, but don't want to do anything, such as rehabilitating a young offender, that might reduce the money we spend and potentially put a productive person back into society.

Scooter,

I think you may have been napping for the last 8 or 9 years. The current court is extremely conservative and the court does exactly what it was designed to accomplish.

Chris-749391 "All the SCOTUS did" wasn't just say that a state could not legally allow only the option of life without parole for juveniles. If that were so, these families would not be so upset. Rather they may have invalidated the past sentencing of hundreds of murderers who were juveniles when they committed their offenses. This means that these families may now have to sit through parole hearings ever year or two for the rest of the lives of these criminals no matter what else they may have done while in prison. This decision is ripping open terrible wounds in the lives of victims' families. Whether you in favor of life without parole for juveniles or not, you have to feel awful for these families if you have any feelings at all.

Old Timer-88224. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I believe in justice and I believe in safeguarding society from people who have proven how dangerous they are. I don't hate them or believe in vengeance but I also don't feel bad about the relatively humane way the death penalty is usually carried out (I can't really endorse electric chairs in this day and age). After all, lethal injection is much nicer than what happened to the actual victim. I feel most who receive it do not deserve our sympathy. In general, the appeals are exhaustive and it is applied to the worst of the worst. Make no mistake that these offenders commit unspeakably violent and horrible acts on fellow humans. Many states with death penalties require extenuating circumstances such as a particular cruel type of murder or a lengthy criminal record indicating resistance to rehabilitation for a death penalty sentence. That said, I sometimes wonder if the death penalty is good for society generally. How can we justify the idea that life is sacred if we are willing to take it for any reason? But what tends to sway me back towards that death penalty is just how dangerous some of these offenders are. A few years back a governor commuted the sentence of everyone on death row in his state to life without parole right before he left office. What's the harm you ask? Well, I researched what these people had been on death row for and was shocked to find that several were on death row for killing people WHILE IN PRISON (including the murder of at least one guard). It is easy to say that the prisons should watch them more closely but the reality is that if one person is determined enough to kill or hurt others it is impossible to treat him like a human in the long term. Should these ultra dangerous offenders be kept separated from all other people forever? Is that really better? Should we endanger guards and other less violent prisoners to make a point? I don't think so. Sometimes reality isn't pretty or idealistic but it is real.

Calm down.....1) SCOTUS members ARE appointed for life as per the Constitution...this is exactly what the founding brother's had in mind, and justices that were no influenced by politics.....2) Just because a juvenile offender cannot serve "life without parole", does not mean they SHOULD be paroled, the way the parole system works is an inmate can go before the parole board/panel whatever, and petition for a parole, the parole board does not HAVe to give them a parole. Chuck Manson goes before the parole board every so many years, and simply is denied parole. He's still doing life folks.

Mr. Will the Watcher you hit the nail right on the head. My hat off to you sir!!

Old Timer what your 1700 number of people convicted of murder leaves out is that a lot of those convicts got off due to lawyers maneuvering and procedural mistakes. He wasn't read his rights before he showed them where the body was, the cop said it would be nice to give the girl a christian burial etc etc. Being found not guilty and being innocent of the crime that you are accused a a MILE apart. Look at OJ and Robert Blake for examples. Both were guilty as sin yet walked free due to expensive lawyers and shoddy prosecution. Also do you have any hard numbers of how many of those 1700 are back in prison right now? I am willing to bet it is a majority of them. Very seldom does a law abiding citizen get convicted of a heinous crime of murder. Yes it does happen but I guarantee that a majority of those 1700 were guilty as sin.

The only reason I still support the Death Penalty is because it prevents the release of prison hardened violent predators on society. While there may be a precious few exceptions, I believe that you forfeit your life if you intentionally take the life of another, and you should either spend the majority or entirety of the rest of your days in prison or be put down, depending on the circumstances of the killing and your criminal past (something our ailing justice system has made increasingly hard to include in trial proceedings, unless it involves non-violent drug possession).

If I were the relative of a murder victim and their killer were up for parole, I would advise the Parole Board that those prison walls are the only thing separating that murderer from me, and that he (or she, I believe in equality) needs to be kept within them for his (or her) own protection.

I have never understood why our justice system has been able to work around juvenile offender laws in nearly every case involving a serious crime. Juvenile offender laws were enacted to recognize that juveniles are not adults and should not be treated as adults. However, almost every time we have a serious crime that attracts a lot of public attention the district attorney responds by trying the juvenile as adult. Why is that even an option?

OK just to be clear here,this ruling would NEVER have come down if a SOLIDLY conservative (Republican) court were in place !! So REMEMBER to vote Republican in Nov. , just another reason !!!

Will the Watcher,

I liked your post, and I agree. As much as the media loves to hype the one-in-a-million story about people being erroneously convicted or the "boo hoo, he's just a baby" cases, they overlook the stories about those who were "slam dunk" convicted on the basis of multiple eyewitnesses etc. and the sheer heinousness of the crimes. Currently, there is a lot of money going into liberal research groups at universities to advocate for the criminal. In the 1960s and 1970s this did have some validity, however, we are sitting 50 years later and dealing with an entirely different group of teens. Everytime that the issue of juvenile justice rears its head, the activists cite the Scottsboro case. They clearly overlook the decades of swaggering gangbangers, wannabes, thrill-killers and lunatics who need to serve as wake-up calls and examples for the rest of America's youth.

Thanks Jimb and Suri. It amazes me that supposed intelligent adults can not grasp the most simple of facts. In many cases, stupidity is being bred into the gene pool and fed with the liberal propagandist mentality that all humans are fundamentally good. Well they aren't. There are some that genuinely mean well. There are some that will prey on who ever so long as it benefits thier ends. And there are some, that are some mentally disturbed and heinous in thier actions, that these moronic libtards think it better to lock em up and study them. And what the hell are we going to study? And for what damned purpose? Human beings are not currently an assembly line product with a manufacturing defect. You aren't going to fix them, recycle them back into society, or for that matter ever going to push em out the door with an extended warranty.

Look, if you destroy a rabid animal then you have stopped the spread of a disease. You have protected other people and animals by culling that diseased creature. If you destroy a dog that is known to just bite people, snap at the mailman, or has a temperment that causes it to be "dangerous", you destroy that dog. And in most cases, you don't even blink twice. So why in the hell is it so difficult for people to get it through thier dain bramaged heads that in nature, even with humans, there are some that need to be euthanized for the sake and safety of the rest of the herd? When you have individuals, regardless of age, with that complete and disregard for the lives, for the sanctity, for the safety of other human beings, what makes you believe that all of a sudden, they will wake up one day and be a nobel peace lauriate? They aren't. What they are doing is what any other caged, dangerous, apex animal does. They plot. They plan. They wait for an opportunity and they pounce.

As I tell my kids, "don't play with fire - you will get burned." In this case, I now find myself saying the same message to adults that should know better, but are too damned niave to put the matches down. And to think these people are supposed to be educated, mature and responsible... WOW.

But three months ago, the Supreme Court struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles as cruel and unusual punishment.

When the Eighth Amendment was passed, would anybody claim that the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" referred to sentences of life without parole, even when applied to a minor, or to the execution of the mentally handicapped, or, for that matter to the death penalty?

At that time death sentences were commonly meted out for more crimes than murder. The Supreme Court has, once again, overreached itself, seeking to pass law as opposed to applying the law or the constitution.

A sixteen-year-old who commits first degree murder is just as culpable as an 18-year-old, or a 28-year-old. He should serve out his life sentence and rot, first in his prison cell, and ultimately, in the grave.

There is a high percentage of 14-16 years old that use the fact they are children & won't be punished as an adult for committing the same crimes, be it murder, sexual assault or even breaking & entering. It give them a free ticket. They know it is wrong to take a life, steal & so on and have gotten by with for years because they never had to take responsibility for the action.

No Not every child or young adult should get life in prison however there are some that need to be kept locked up. Yes even 14 year old, cold blooded murders come to mind. The problem with the Justice system & lawyers is they seem to always let the monsters out with so called mis-guided.

How many times should one be allowed to commit violent crimes or cause cruel & unusual punishment on the innocent victims before they are defined as threat to society.

No Not every child or young adult should get life in prison however there are some that need to be kept locked up. Yes even 14 year old, cold blooded murders come to mind.

Sorry, DKJ-4, but justice should be blind. If a 14 to 16-year-old is convicted of first degree murder, then they deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison. At 14, I understood what it means to commit a murder.

I was not an exceptional child.

How many times should one be allowed to commit violent crimes or cause cruel & unusual punishment on the innocent victims before they are defined as threat to society.

The answer is once.

Teenagers don't even recognize that THEY are mortal. What makes anybody think they can fully appreciate the gravity of life and death? Teens--and younger kids--make unbelievably bad decisions every day about big and small things. We don't even hold them to legal contracts, and for good reason. Here's the test: If your mom has to sign a note excusing your absence from school, you aren't an adult yet and you should not be treated as one.

The Supreme Court's decision was the bare minimum relief, in my opinion. (I'm also shocked they did it, and shocked that anybody would characterize this court as "liberal." Now THAT'S funny stuff.) The fact that their decision may cause a flood of appeals and burden lower courts and victims families should have had absolutely no weight in their deliberation. Justice is a messy business and, if you want a just system, you have to accept that fact. And in the U.S., yes, we DO have an obligation to protect the rights of the accused, even if they are disgusting, vile, sociopaths. If you want to live in a country with cheap and easy "justice," there are plenty places meting that out.

Finally, even though I think you hang-em-high (and hang-em-twice) posters are wrong, wrong, WRONG, I would not automatically suggest that you are intellectually challenged, which appears to be your wholesale dismissal of us so-called "libtards." There you go again, wanting easy conclusions. Sometimes you just have to buckle down and think the hard thoughts, boys, though, even if it gives you a headache.

Civil, how's this for civil and enlightened, I wish to God some 17 yr old punk rapes and murders your "significant other" and forces you to watch !!!Maybe then you wouldn't be so "enlightened" !

Teenagers don't even recognize that THEY are mortal. What makes anybody think they can fully appreciate the gravity of life and death?

Yes, youth is reckless, but it is not insensate. When I was 16, I understood what would have happened if I had pointed a gun at somebody and pulled the trigger. What I might not have understood is how ineluctible the law can be for a crime of this sort. That falls under the heading of tough sh!t.

Teens--and younger kids--make unbelievably bad decisions every day about big and small things. We don't even hold them to legal contracts, and for good reason. Here's the test: If your mom has to sign a note excusing your absence from school, you aren't an adult yet and you should not be treated as one.

The difference being, a contract requires two or more parties reaching agreement, so any adult entering into such agreement is acting in ignorance of the law, and the resulting pact is unenforcable, whereas murder, is final in irreversable.

The Supreme Court's decision was the bare minimum relief, in my opinion. (I'm also shocked they did it, and shocked that anybody would characterize this court as "liberal." Now THAT'S funny stuff.)

One could certainly argue that sentencing minors to life in prison without the possibility of parole constitutes bad public policy. While I do not agree, I wouldn't shout down a change in the law to end the practice, if it came up for a vote in the state legislature, or through a public reforendum.

Just because a law constitutes bad public policy does not make it unconstitutional.

But to just declare the practice as a violation of the eigth amendment is a judicial overreach, it is abrogating the rights of the people to make laws and to mete out penalties which have never been deemed cruel and unusual.

btw: I do not label the court as either liberal or conservative, but I do regard this decision as imply wrong, and unlike you, I find nothing funny about it.

CivilityMourned, I'd suspect you'd change your mind if you saw ONE murder scene. I saw seven ( 2 of which turned out to be committed by juveniles) in nearly a decade of military and civilian law enforcement experience (with some long breaks between stints) and each one is still clear in my mind, even the ones a quarter century ago. NO ONE has any right to take a human life other than in self-defense and anyone who does commit murder as a youth should be DONE as a free person for a majority, if not the entirety of the rest of their lives. They have forfeited their right to move freely in society through their violent crimes and society deserves to be protected from them until they have repaid a massive debt to it.

Like I said, I can be talked into supporting the abolishing the death penalty IF a life sentence is truly a life sentence, but as long as liberal busybodies look for every way they can to put violent predators back on our streets. For those youthful murderers released because "we just didn't understand them" who commit a new murder after their release, I'm all for the DEATH PENALTY, ZERO repeat offenders since 1977, and the good news is, they would be eligible as adult offenders .

a 14 15 y.o. doesn't understand that MURDER is wrong?............B.S..........................

I agree Scooter.

At 15 you didn't know it was wrong to kill a person Renee??? That's big time B.S.

F$@# the killers, these families are going to be victims for a second time.

Of course a 14 or 15 year old understands that murder is wrong. They do not necessarily project the aftermath for family as being a lifetime of sorrow and grief. They may be thinking about the life lost but don't think about the implications of all the things that will never be in the life of the victim or the family left behind. That is the element missing in the adolescent brain, not the understanding of basic right and wrong. Does that mean that such murderers should automatically be released from jail or given parole at some point? Not necessarily but there should be that ability to review the progress and growth of these offenders at some point. After all, adult murderers often get that "second chance." Case in point last years pardon of adult murderers in Mississippi.

Uh, I knew since I was about five that killing people is wrong, and that if you did kill someone, you were either jailed for life or executed.

Life imprisonment without parole is a perfectly appropriate punishment for homicide. I don't care if you're 15 or 55 - if you do the adult crime, you do the adult time. If sentencing juveniles to life without parole is "cruel and unusual," then upon their release, communities MUST be informed that a convicted killer is being released back onto their streets. The killers should also be made to wear an ankle bracelet for the rest of their lives so that their moves can be monitored, and they shouldn't be allowed to leave the state. If they want to flood our streets with soulless murderers, they better keep tabs on them.

Just some ideas I'm toying with. I'm in Pennsylvania, and the thought of releasing convicted killers because life without parole is "cruel and unusual" makes my skin crawl. I don't want murderers in my community. They forfeited that freedom when they CHOSE to end someone else's life.

Sorry Renee but you are way wrong here. Most 14 and 15 year old's are very much aware of what they are doing and they are not little children from the 1940's and 50's. Their minds are fully aware of what is right and wrong and they definitely know taking a life is wrong. There is too much sympathy for the perp today and none for the victim. Victims used to have rights too as they suffer for the rest of their lives and they never get a chance at "parole". Why should the person who caused their pain and loss? Prison should be punishment and those who commit terrible crimes should feel the weight of their crime. Why do they deserve time off for good behavior? Their victim didn't!

They do not necessarily project the aftermath for family as being a lifetime of sorrow and grief. They may be thinking about the life lost but don't think about the implications of all the things that will never be in the life of the victim or the family left behind. That is the element missing in the adolescent brain.

Do you really believe for a second that killers over the age of 18 think of those things?

The only thing I can say is, just because life without parole as a mandatory sentence is now unconstitutional in these cases - it doesn't mean the sentence itself is. This should not be retroactively applied unless we have the ability to retry all the cases - and we don't have that ability.

Only thing that will keep young murderers from murdering is the possibility of being killed themselves or spending life in inprisonment. They know better at the age of 12 or more!!!!!!

I think it should all depend on the nature and circumstances of the crime. In some cases, I'm sure it was just a bad decision, but in many, the "child" who committed the crime knew exactly what he/she was doing and acted in cold blood. Those are the cases where the sentences should stand.

For several of the posters who believe that a 14 or 15 year old should be treated as an adult: Any psychologist (my wife is a PhD Psychologist as are numerous friends) or psychiatrist would tell you that they is complete nonsense. The problem is not knowing right from wrong. The problem lies in the development of that part of the forebrain that performs impulse control. In men that part of the brain does not even begin to become fully formed until around age 26 (and around 24 for women.) What that means is that while a youthful killer might well know the difference on a paper test between things that are "right" and things that are "wrong" they would most likely be unable to control the impulse to kill in the same way that a 30-year-old would because the brain cells simply are not there.

And this isn't just about murder, it is also about things like decisions to join gangs instead of continuing school, or to text instead of paying attention to driving, or many, many other risky behaviors. And in youths, alcohol is a much greater problem because it interferes with those inhibitions that may have already developed.

So the situation is kind of like a 9-year-old whose mother has a stroke and he tries to save her by driving her to a hospital. Instead he crashes the car into a pedestrian whom he kills. Do you blame the child because he had not yet developed the coordination and skills to drive a car? And if you do, would you continue to blame him after he is grown and has developed those skills? In the law there have always been different standards of judgement for children because they are NOT adults and are not capable of many things of which adults are capable. The guilty are actually those who try to judge (and blame) children using adult standards. It is neither fair nor factual. It is just an improper emotional knee-jerk.

bull@!$%#!!!

Total B.S. I was fourteen at one time, and believe me even now I can remember some of the trouble I got into, I also remember thinking that if I did this I would probally get into trouble with my parents, so do not tell me kids at least from fourteen and up do not understand the difference between right and wrong. And for all of the head shrinks who say differenntly, again B.S. There was a time when I got into afight with another boy, I was fifteen and I wanted to kill him, but something in my mind said NO and i stopped hitting him, so take your haed shrinking somewhere else. As far as I am concerned he should have recieved the death penalty and that would be the end. What is the matter with you people? What is it about murdering another human being, being the worst crime you can commit that you cannot understand, what if it had been your daughter,son,mother,father. You cannot give a persons life back, all of your "I'm sorry's" make no difference and nothing can console this girls parents and loved ones. The only sentence that fits this crime is you take a life, you give up yours. The so called Supreme Court is a joke, these people will stand behind their own party lines and be loyal to whatever their benefactor has voiced their beliefs in and who got them their lifetime job. God is the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). I do not like the idea of executioning another human being either, but their comes a time when the evil requires extreme measures, when we started allowing murder to become just another crime without the murderers life in jeopardy, then a person who kills another has no deterent to not commit the murder. I am especiality appalled when a person murders a child and gets to keep their own life, what is wrong with that picture? Evil is running rampant in America and a lot of it is accepted and condoned, if you do not have punishment for evil acts then sociaty will fall apart. Life in prison is not good enough for someone who has intenionally taken another's life.

I agree with you Saltylen...kids are not held accountable for anything now days and they think murder, bullying, torment, drugs, stealing, etc. is something that will earn them at most a stupid 'time out'...they know exactly what hey are doing..........

omg, roflmao.. Chris, you fit more B.S into that post than I've ever seen.. Well done.

Seriously, I don't even know where to start ripping that crap apart, there's just so much.

saltylen - I know what you are saying makes sense, but having worked with criminals of all types for many years I can assure you that they are masters at self-delusion and/or convinced of their intellectual superiority over everyone else. Almost all believe they will beat the system and are shocked when they are actually convicted of and sentenced for a crime. The threat of life without parole or execution simply does not enter into the thinking of the criminal mind. They do not think about crime and punishment the way you and I do.

Many years ago a young man who brutally shot and killed a teenage store clerk was amazed when the jury did not buy his story of either a "black out" or his desperation to get money to buy something for his children. Awaiting sentencing, he told me he hoped the judge would be able to fashion a sentence to give him credit for his "good behavior and work" in jail, still satisfy the victim's family and allow him to go home soon. I quite frankly informed him that it was not going to happen: He wanted to be set free and the family wanted him dead and there would be no reconciling those two desired outcomes. He spent 30 years in jail as at the time there was no life without parole sentence in that state. Had there been one, he would likely still be in jail.

Anita, most murderers don't consider the pain they inflict on the family or loves ones of their victims. They don't need to be 14-15 to feel that.

No Parole should mean exactly that. NO PAROLE.

Sorry, but to me if they are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to suffer the consequences.

While I agree that a teenage brain isnt fully developed, I dont find that to be a good excuse to commit murder as a teen and get a lighter sentence. My sister is 15, sure she can have an attitude and isnt fully aware of every possible outcome to her actions, but she DEFINITELY knows that murder is Wrong and that if you were to do that you would get put in prison for life or killed and you would deserve that. She's aware that there are consquences for her actions and she should think about that before putting herself in a bad position. It's not okay to take a life and serve little-to-no consequences; the victim doesnt suddenly wake up in 40 years, so why should the murderer get to walk away 40 years later like nothing happened?!

Let's see...the argument that someone is too young to understand that their actions may result in someone's death is nullifed by the fact that the methods used by these young killers did just that - resulted in someone's death

for example, if you pick up a feather duster with the intent of committing murder with it - then yes, I'd say your thought processes have not developed to the point where you can be considered to understand the consequences of your actions

....but if you instead grab butcher knife from the kitchen; well, then you have demonstrated that you are quite aware of the difference in the two weapons ability to inflict harm

Chris-749391

For several of the posters who believe that a 14 or 15 year old should be treated as an adult: Any psychologist (my wife is a PhD Psychologist as are numerous friends) or psychiatrist would tell you that they is complete nonsense. The problem is not knowing right from wrong. The problem lies in the development of that part of the forebrain that performs impulse control

so therefore, you, your PhD spouse and all of your learned friends are saying that adult murderers and criminals must have fully developed "impulse control"

....jeez....what nonsense

I think the point is that a 13 year old might not realize that when his older brother, who happens to be a drug dealer, takes him along to help him steal a van that he even has the option to say no. And when that brother and his friend then take that stolen van to confront someone who stole drugs and money from him, a 13 year old might not know what he should do other than stay in the van as instructed. Then when he hears two gunshots and his brother comes running out of the house and drives away, he may be too scared to sya or do much of anything. Then when that 13 year old is arrested and arraigned he is found guilty of murder because he "participated" in the crime. That 13 year old is serving a life sentence with no hope of ever getting out because of mandatory life sentences. This is a real case. This is a real kid. Yes juveniles do commit heinous crimes that deserve life. This ruling does nothing to prevents judges from imposing a life without parole sentence in those cases. All it does is allow them to use discretion when sentencing some of the cases that have mitigating circumstances.

Everyone seems to be under the assumption that the only people who are convicted of murder set out to intentionally kill an innocent person. MOST people who commit murder do so in the course of committing another crime. Many people are convicted of murder who never killed anyone themselves (you can be found guilty of murder if someone is killed during the course of another crime that you participated in, doesn't matter if you were the one who pulled the trigger, EVERYONE is guilty) Many people are found guilty of murder who killed drug dealers and gang bangers. Would you condemn a child for killing someone who was abusing him? Would you condemn a child for killing someone who killed his parents? I knew a guy who killed the drug dealer who got his 10 year old sister high on Meth and left her on the side of a highway to wander into traffic where she was hit and killed by a car. At 15 years old he went that same day and found the guy and beat him with a bat - left him alive, but unfortunately he later died from his injuries. I agree he should be punished, you can't go around dishing out vigilante justice, but a mandatory life without parole sentence for doing what we all wish we could? no, I dont think so.

Amazing how many people posting here seem to have trouble reading what the Supreme Court ruling actually said!

It make it so a life sentance cannot be mandatory for youths committing a capital crime. If the judge sees fit, and if it is an option in the jurisdiction, then the judge can still put them away for life. It simply allows for other options to be considered. You guys make it sound like from now on its 40 hrs community service for kids who kill.

robbopaloobop,
I had to laugh when I read Chis' post, but the only part of what he said that does have some merit, is the "impulse control". That is what defines the term Psychotic.
The courts, for generations, allowed that those who are younger than 18 have not had the "time" to determine if they have adequate impulse control. Knowing the difference between right and wrong, but acting in the opposite. Since the early 90s, and in some extreme cases, before that, those above the age of 15 have been treated as adults.
Truth is; most people know by the time they are finished with grade school whether they have "Impulse control". Some, but very few, who don't demonstrate control, develop it later, but again that is VERY rare. Impulse control is a charactaristic that you either have or you don't. Just like having an addictive character. You don't grow out of it.

A 14/15 year KNOWS right from wrong and also at that age KNOW that death is Permanent. I say All 14/15 and older are TREATED as Adults in 1st or 2nd degree murder, and impose a death sentence when an Officer of the Law is Killed by the person...

Kids today have NO FEARS of the LAW, if they did the crime rates by juveniles would be lower.

I think it has more to do with how they kill. Were they a whack job thrill killer who killed just to see what it felt like. Or did they kill someone who would have killed them if they had the chance as in a gang shooting. In some area's when some thug says he's going to kill you it means you better kill him first. Under age kids can't just move away. If they live in a war zone they become soldiers just to survive. We always hear about kids getting shot in gang wars but we don't hear that most of the time they get shot at but not hit. I bet 90% of shots fired in gang shootings don't hit anyone. But I bet it would make you want to kill the guy who shot at you before he becomes a better shot.

I wonder how many posters here have been born into and raised in the ghetto where simply walking home from school might get them killed. I wonder if they had been raised in that environment and all the adults around hem were criminals if they would have the same idea of what was right and what was wrong. I wonder, if the values you were raised with were loyalty to your gang and to not snitch and to have your brother's back at all times... if it would be so obvious to you when your older brother asked you to ride along while he gets "justice" that the choice you make to get in that car with him, not knowing where you were going or why, might lead to you ending up in prison for the rest of your life. I also wonder if that same 13 year old kid sitting in the car while his adult brothers killed someone were white if he would have been considered a perpetrator or another victim. Seems to me that if adults bring a juvenile to a crime scene that kid should be considered the victim of child abuse and neglect.... sad that others don't see that.

My opinion is this should be considered another crime on the part of the adult. They already are in many cases; buying beer or cigarettes for a minor, "Contributing to the delinquency"

Agreed. It's easy to sit behind our white picket fences and pretend like these kids had a choice in the matter. Truth be told when 13 year old gang members end up shooting and killing someone it's the fault of society at large. We failed these kids and pretended it wasn't our problem. Very sad.

Most of you are making judgements on a black and white issue without acknowledging contributing factors.

Many killers are sociopaths; young or old. That means they KNOW what is right and wrong, but they don't necessarily CARE. They are actually chemically incapable of empathizing with others. Everything they do is for their benefit. Characteristically, a lot of these sociopaths are charismatic and manipulative. There's no cure for being a sociopath; no medicine or therapy will fix it.

There's also no accounting for other problems such as Reactive Attachment Disorder (which can be fixed) that may also result in a homicidal teen or child.

Then, some kids simply just kill.

Unfortunately, our mental health care system is inadequate and overwhelmed to be dealing with each of these childhood offenders on an individual basis.

I'm not agreeing one way or another...but it is DEFINITELY my opinion that this ruling does not give past offenders ANY ground to demand parole. And once you're 16-17....you don't deserve any more coddling from the court system if you commit homicide.

I have to disagree. At 14 they know pain, anguish, terror, fear and imposing these to another human being and then resulting to death is something they can comprehend. Let us not give these teenagers an excuse to do something terrible to another human being just because they are 14. I have to say that the parents have the responsibility to ensure that they are raising good citizens, which unfortunately does not happen all the time.

We have no means to accurately identify when a 'brain' is full fledged 'adult'. Until that is resolved, we have used age. It is impractical that 17 years and 364 days is considered juvenile - and a day later they are an adult - but that is the current litmus (based on 18 being "legal" age).

I can see both sides of this issue and the arguments for/against are rationally valid. Any single solution will not bring 'satisfaction' to either side.

I believe the SCOTUS acted generously is deciding there must be options. The consequence will be defining those options for juveniles when we still have no means to determine mental age. I certainly would not want to be in those shoes.

Mark440- That's why I'm kind of against mandatory sentences at all, for any age. Perhaps suggested sentences, but a judge should have the latitude to adjust sentencing at his discretion. Most of the time a murder case is not a clear cut black and white event like we all want to believe it is. It's not like an episode of Law and Order or Matlock. Most of the time they are not cold blooded intentional killings. When they are, go ahead and impose the toughest possible sentence. When they aren't allow the judge to excercise his judgement based on the evidence.

"For several of the posters who believe that a 14 or 15 year old should be treated as an adult". Not treated as an adult, tried as an adult. If they are old enough to think about, plan and comit a murder, then they are an adult in my mind. Chris you example is so bad, there is no comparison of a 9 yr old driving his mom to the hospital and getting into an accident to a teenager who with the help of their friends kill off their entire family so they can collect the insurance money or some thug drug dealer kills one of his "customers" becuase he owes him $20. I'm also a firm believer that once you get a PHD, you have no more common sense.

Xina the Awesome. You gave a great example why murders who have the capability of murdering someone should be sentenced to life or executed. "I wonder how many posters here have been born into and raised in the ghetto where simply walking home from school might get them killed." If my child was killed by a stray bullet by some 15 yr old gang banger, I wouldn't want them getting out in 20 years, they would only be 35, so they could live a life that my child didn't have thanks to them. You know the old saying, if you can't do the time, and life is a pretty long time, then don't do the crime.

I sat in an Orergon, county circuit court last week and watched a pedohile who molested his children walk away with NO punishment at all. HE was charged with a measure 11 crime, in this case which stiil had a laughably small jail time. When he was arrested he got bailed out after only 4 days. An evaluator decided that this POS was not a predator because this was his first incident and it was only his kids that he ever molested. (as far as anyone knows or that he admits to) HE also admitted to being addicted to porn. But h etold the judge he only looked at hetro porn of women ages 20-25 or so.The defense asked for PROBATION, the evaluator reccommended it, the DA was willing to go along with it, and the judge fell for it!!!! The DA told the judge in order to bypass measure 11 sentencing he have to bust the charges down to "attempted sex abuse". THis judge didn't even hesitate. The mother had spoke for close to 30 mins and had the most heartwrenchimg victims impact statement I'd ever heard. Brought me to tears adn there were angry murmurs around the courtcroom. All of us watching were shocked and disgust by this ruling. Absolutely no concern nor regard for the VICTIMS in this case, very young children. THis man was released on probabtion and was sent to live at his parents home where he'll have a great companion, his brother, who is also a REGISTERED SSEX OFFENDER!!!

In this justice system who gets CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT??????

THE VICTIMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again and again the so called "Supreme Court" has shown they are out of touch, blinded by the smug feeling they get knowing they are the 'final arbiters' of all the laws of the land. Again they have demonstrated that a lifetime appointment is NOT in the best interests of this Nation.

Again and again the Supremes have demonstrated a cold indifference to the rules of life, forgetting they are out of touch, old in mind and body, trending toward senility and even worse have adopted a 'god like' persona.

These people should be vetted, should submit to drug testing, IQ tests and financial accounting. In addition they should be appointed for eight (YES, EIGHT) years. then they are gone.

These people have no realization of what current life is like as they live in a glass house in a vacuum.

Term limits are great for ALL elected and appointed FEDERAL PAYROLL employees.

@Josh

If you aren't worried about making the next boss happy and being PC for the masses, you are freed up to make the hard decisions you were put in place to make-this is why lifetime appointments make sense. The SC did NOT say juveniles could not receive a life sentence, they simply gave room for each judge preciding over a case to take into consideration mitigating circumstances that would warrant a lesser sentence. If one of Larry Sandusky's victim's decided to shoot him, would you agree that child should receive a mandatory life sentence?

Yeah...got that Old Testament thing going on, huh?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

actually after a second offense the guilty party can no longer see therefore he can no longer see to poke someone else in the eye.

As a member of the US military, I would have to take exception to your comment Mommy. There are always situations that would make that a dangerous way to look at reality. Part of my job description is to "Defend my country from all enemies, foreign and domestic." I can't do that with a water gun.
If I am not willing to take up a weapon and take a life, which fortunately, I have never had to do, I couldn't do what I do.

Crimes of passion fall into that catagory, as do defense of self and family. I would prefer that even if someone comes at me with a knife, that he walk away. That is not always the case, so IF I have to take his life, am I damned for doing so?

so who executes the executioners and the judges and the police, particularly in cases where the wrong person is executed for a crime. and there have been several of those cases where the evidence is shown to be junk evidence that they are executed for.

It isn't true that kids today are different from kids of 50 years ago in their mental development. It's a matter of biology, not access to advanced technology. The human brain develops at a certain rate, and with that development comes the abilities of judgement, control of impulses, analyzing results of ones actions etc. The argument that if a child can commit an adult crime then he is an adult is ridiculous. A 9-year old with access to a loaded gun could commit murder but does that make him an adult mentally?

Look at a situation that is less emotional, like driving an automobile. If a 10-year old can pass the written and road test, would you approve giving him an unrestricted, adult drivers license? Why not? He has proven he has the physical ability and the mental understanding to perform all the actions required. If a child can earn adult punishment by performing bad adult actions, why can't they also earn adult privileges by performing good adult actions?

reverse that faulty logic Robert, if a guy is 30 and goes on a killing spree does that mean his brain isn't "fully developed"?

Scooter, that isn't the reverse and doesn't make sense.

No, Scooter, it doesn't. The brain development issue doesn't make kids commit murder; murder doesn't imply a lack of brain development.

The issue is impulse control.

If a kid plans and intentionally sets out to commit murder, fine. Throw the book at him - he knows right from wrong, and since he chose to plan, he had all the chance in the world for those neurons to fire. Impulse control isn't an issue in that case.

On the other hand, if a kid gets into a fight and stabs someone in a fit of rage - that's when treating him as an adult is a problem. Same with murder in the course of robbery, or any other crime done at a time of heightened emotions. Not to say that these actions are excusable, but youths will not react the same way adults will under these circumstances.

If a kid is an accessory to a crime - lack of understanding of his choices is a problem, feelings of powerlessness are a problem. Don't underestimate the power adults have over children and teens; youths often see no option of defiance. Put yourself in a position of power, and tell them what to do - if they resist, repeat the instructions. Most kids will buckle down and obey after you repeat yourself two or three times. No joke.

I think of youths like I do a bus with no breaks. We try to put them on the right road, and hope they don't end up in situations where they'll make bad decisions. They WILL make bad decisions, though, and the path they're pointed down determines what those will be.

I had a friend when I was young. I think we were somewhere around 12 or 13 when he and another friend took his dad's car for a joyride. They wrecked it, and the other boy died. My friend wasn't a bad kid. He made a stupid decision and acted on impulse. If he'd said 'no,' his friend would have lived, and he wouldn't have spent a long time in a body cast. But you know...kids do stupid things, because they don't stop and think. No one in their right mind would have thought of those boys as adults.

Look at it in a less emotionally charged scenario and you can clearly see where impulse control is not developed to the same extent as in an adult. Take High School. How many times a year do you think that kids get into fistfights with one another over petty BS? Now take a typical office environment. Similiar situation where people from different backgrounds are forced to work closely together, office politics make rivals out of each other, pettiness might cause one to particularly dislike another co-worker... but how often do they turn around and deck someone because they told the boss that the sales report was inaccurate getting them in trouble? Very rarely. Why? Because adults are able to control their reactions to situations better than kids are. If you call someone a bad name at work, you're likely to find yourself in HR. If you call someone a bad name in Highschool, you're likely to have your face bruised a bit. Impulse control.

A murderer is a murderer by your logic. Death penalty would end the problem. 14 or 15 year olds were treated like adults when the constitution was written. They were expected to do a full days work. I doubt the framers gave a damn about age in those days. Death penalty would have been enacted by an angry family member.

A 14 year old is a 14 year old. You don't punish them as you punish a 30 year old period. I

So when that 14 yr old plans and carries out a murder, he/she should be put in time out like a 5 yr old? Are you serious?

Gee, yet another hand-wringing, bleeding-heart loser trying to defend the indefensible. What are you suggesting, that they be given a "time out" for murdering someone in cold blood, with premeditation, and having no remorse? Sorry, but that's not how life goes. If that were to happen, the streets would be awash with juvenile murderers knowing that there would be no real punishment, and laughing as they killed you or your family members.

How could you even suggest that a child get a spanking???? That is NOT PC and the child can then try and have you arrested for assault these days!!!

The thing that came to mind here is the school shootings that have occurred. At what body count does a juvenile not get sentenced as a juvenile?

Mark 440- what percentage of Juvenile offenders are serving life without parole for a school massacre? Care to guess? C'mon give it a try....

No?

OKay here's the answer - 0%. None. nada. zip.

Probably because the worst ones ended up killing themselves too. Went all the way back to 1980 and looked at all the school shootings where more than 1 person was killed. None of the perpetrators are serving life without parole.

Seriously?

So, a sixteen year old killer was also a victim, in the sense that that child was not protected from his own bad judgment by a responsible adult.

Oh please say you are kidding. What so they are supposedly to ask permission or if it's okay to kill someone? The killer is NOT a victim. He/she/it/they know what they are doing. I agree though they will need counseling as they will have mental health issues.

You are blaming the parents? I can see sometimes where it would be the parents fault (SOMEtimes). But at times peer pressure and just plain stupid makes teenagers doing really stupid sh!t.

Victims do not have a chance at do-overs.

What does the DF stand for? Hmmmm, let me guess.

@taxed,

I'll bet it stands for "Dallas-Fort" as in Dallas-Fort Worth. You're not very good at interpreting things are you? Maybe because it is YOU who are the "df" person in the room???

I think we all got that one. Except for dfwmom, proving the point.

Watch it taxed. You are awfully close to violating the terms of service for this forum.

How so Baja???? Seen plenty of comments on many stories that go way beyond the terms of this forum and they don't get censored.

Just because many posters do not get censured for violating the terms doesn't mean it's acceptable to violate them or that any particular violation won't get you deleted or banned.

SO you feel the parents should be held partially responsible for these school massacres? Both parents - or maybe just one of them? Which one?

@Franklin McArthur,

Did you remember that as a "youthful offender" George W. Bush was convicted of cocaine possession? Or that his wife, Laura, as a high schooler was convicted of Third Degree Vehicular Homicide for killing her ex-boyfriend under suspicious circumstances? Should these people have been sentenced under your logic?????

@Chris,

If it's true, yes.

Chrissy obviously does not understand that there is a difference between drug use, vehicular homicide, and cold-blooded, premeditated, callous and remorseless first degree murder. But then, there are many, many things Chrissy doesn't understand, such as how to compose a proper argument, make a proper analogy, or use the capacity for critical thought. Expect more nonsense from them. 3..2...1

@Mymon,

All of Laura Bush's friends thought that she killed her ex-boyfriend out of vengence for dating someone else. The circumstances are very strange at best and damning at worst. We will never know for sure because the court records and sentence were "expunged." A lot of this came when her Texas teaching certificate was "nullified" for failing to disclose a felony conviction on her application. In her defense she believed (wrongly) that because the conviction was expunged she did not have to reveal it.

Ditto for George. His cocaine conviction was also expunged. But the 800 hours of community service remained on the books. 800 hours to the absolute minute. But this came up when, as Governor, he was called for jury duty. There was a major court case to get him out of jury duty --- which would have required him to state whether he had ever been convicted of a felony as with all jurors.

That is why juvenile offenders can be (but do not have to be) treated differently. They can grow up, for better or worse, to be different people. George went from a druggy alcoholic fog to the Presidency and Laura got a new boyfriend with better potential.

The point of all of this is that many juveniles that get life without parole did not knowingly murder. They were waiting in a car when someone else did the deed. Or they had no intent to murder, only assault. Or they were of a diminished capacity in some cases. Sure, lots of them pulled the trigger with malice and do deserve life without parole, but many do not fit that profile. To automatically apply the same punishment to all is simply lazy and callous. This ruling simply says that the judge has the latitude to do what his title implies: make a judgement call.

@sam adams,

I assume that you remember that John Adams, the second President, defended the British soldiers involved in the "Boston Massacre" and got them off. (Sam Adams was a failed brewer who only became that because his father sought to help his "stupid sonne") Inane jingoism is the last resort of non-thinkers.

Ah yes, but then those "victims" committed murder themselves and therefore, deserve a mandatory life sentence, correct? If your answer is no for any reason, you've proven why it was a necessary ruling by the Supreme Court.

they certainly understand the concept of death.

A 2-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong. Would you execute a 2-year-old with your poor logic and thoughtless expressions of hate?

Again and again the so called "Supreme Court" has shown they are out of touch, blinded by the smug feeling they get knowing they are the 'final arbiters' of all the laws of the land. Again they have demonstrated that a lifetime appointment is NOT in the best interests of this Nation.

Again and again the Supremes have demonstrated a cold indifference to the rules of life, forgetting they are out of touch, old in mind and body, trending toward senility and even worse have adopted a 'god like' persona.

These people should be vetted, should submit to drug testing, IQ tests and financial accounting. In addition they should be appointed for eight (YES, EIGHT) years. then they are gone.

These people have no realization of what current life is like as they live in a glass house in a vacuum.

Term limits are great for ALL elected and appointed FEDERAL PAYROLL employees.

Jeez, guy. How exactly did you try to blame the Roberts Court on Obama? "No one will ever tell me" is the problem. You have zero critical thinking ability and too litle knowledge or experience in the world to even think clearly.

The Roberts Court is a rightist court, controlled by right wingers for the time. They have consistently found in favor of corporations, right wing causes, and against individual freedoms. Saying they are heavily influenced by Obama is idiocy. But in the next four years, Obama is very likely to appoint more centrists to the right wing court and bring it back toward the middle.

You didn't even read the article before spouting your "no one will ever tell me" opinion. Can you read? Then try it.

Again and again the so called "Supreme Court" has shown they are out of touch, blinded by the smug feeling they get knowing they are the 'final arbiters' of all the laws of the land. Again they have demonstrated that a lifetime appointment is NOT in the best interests of this Nation.

Again and again the Supremes have demonstrated a cold indifference to the rules of life, forgetting they are out of touch, old in mind and body, trending toward senility and even worse have adopted a 'god like' persona.

These people should be vetted, should submit to drug testing, IQ tests and financial accounting. In addition they should be appointed for eight (YES, EIGHT) years. then they are gone.

These people have no realization of what current life is like as they live in a glass house in a vacuum.

Term limits are great for ALL elected and appointed FEDERAL PAYROLL employees.

Steven100 - you need to get your facts straight. You sound like Mitt Romney, open mouth insert foot before I know the facts. You, like Mitt Romney, like to blame everythng on President Obama rather than putting blame where it really belongs.

If you aren't worried about making the next boss happy and being PC for the masses, you are freed up to make the hard decisions you were put in place to make-this is why lifetime appointments make sense. The SC did NOT say juveniles could not receive a life sentence, they simply gave room for each judge preciding over a case to take into consideration mitigating circumstances that would warrant a lesser sentence. If one of Larry Sandusky's victim's decided to shoot him, would you agree that child should receive a mandatory life sentence?

Perhaps if you had a family member murdered by one of these subhuman "juveniles' you might change your mind?

They should instead hang them at a public gathering and make a spectical of it so that other punks can see what happens when you do abhorrent stupid things. Kill them dead. If it were my daughter, the kid would get the a$$beating of a lifetime with a punk-be-good stick.

Again and again the so called "Supreme Court" has shown they are out of touch, blinded by the smug feeling they get knowing they are the 'final arbiters' of all the laws of the land. Again they have demonstrated that a lifetime appointment is NOT in the best interests of this Nation.

Again and again the Supremes have demonstrated a cold indifference to the rules of life, forgetting they are out of touch, old in mind and body, trending toward senility and even worse have adopted a 'god like' persona.

These people should be vetted, should submit to drug testing, IQ tests and financial accounting. In addition they should be appointed for eight (YES, EIGHT) years. then they are gone.

These people have no realization of what current life is like as they live in a glass house in a vacuum.

Term limits are great for ALL elected and appointed FEDERAL PAYROLL employees.

If you aren't worried about making the next boss happy and being PC for the masses, you are freed up to make the hard decisions you were put in place to make. The SC did NOT say juveniles could not receive a life sentence, they simply gave room for each judge preciding over a case to take into consideration mitigating circumstances that would warrant a lesser sentence. If one of Larry Sandusky's victim's decided to shoot him, would you agree that child should receive a mandatory life sentence?

You didn't read the entire article or you wouldn't say this. The same goes for the majority of posts here.

Exactly Baja...