Sentencing a teenager to life without parole

Recently, I've stumbled across a documentary called "15 to Life: Kenneth's Story". It's about an hour long, but I recommend every minute of it to fully understand the situation

For those who don't want to watch the whole thing, long story short: The United States is the only country in the world that routinely condemns children to die in prison. The film follows the story of 26 year old Kenneth Young, who almost 11 years ago (at the age of 15) received four consecutive life sentences for a series of armed robberies. It should be noted that no one was physically injured during the crimes and that Kenneth didn't deny his part. During his stain in prison, he took part in educational programs and has multiple certificates and diplomas. The case was taken into the U.S. Supreme Court where Kenneth asked for the reduction of his prison sentence. In the end: the sentence was not softened and he'll be released from prison only at the age of 56... In your opinion, did the kid deserve a second chance? Can children be ruled to be adults, based on a single action? Did he really deserve a punishment THAT strict? Should changes be made to the American Justice system?

If he proved that he changed his ways then he should get a second chance.

Teens shouldn't be given life sentences. Yes he deserved a second chance, and no his punishment should not have been that strict

I think time definitely needed to be served, but 4 life sentences is too much IMO.

Agreed.

The problem with kids is the smart gangsters know that kids get lighter sentences, so they recruit kids to do a lot of the risky gangbanging. If they get caught it's not a big deal, becase they can be sentenced as a juvenile.

Ehh I see no problem if he wasn't forced to do the crime.

He should still go to jail but the sentences were blown out of proportions.

Both of these.

15 is an adult. 18 is just some arbitrary number plucked out of the sky.

such bad luck

@cuddlebear: @dbvse7: You honestly think 40 years with no parole is a fair punishment in this situation?

As much as I do believe that there should be consequences for people who break the law, it makes me kinda sad that the focus in our society is on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I know too many people who got picked up for something relatively minor, and came out a worse dang criminal than when they went in. With a life sentence, you get your medieval eye for an eye justice, but nobody really wins. It seems to me like just a way to write people off, and doom them to their own misguided choices. It's cold.

Mentally, a 15 year old aint no adult..

The US has long forgotten the rehabilitation part of prison. Its all punishment.

This is tough to call.

Armed robbery is obviously a very bad thing. Then again he was pretty young when he was doing this, but the thing about that is even at 15 years old you know right from wrong, and know that you're committing a crime when you pick up and gun and rob a bank. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and it could land him in prison, and so it has. So to lighten his sentence up is very dependent on which side you want to look at it from. Either you're for it and say he was very young and might not have realized the magnitude of what he was doing at the time, or someone against softening up the sentence will say he was old enough to know right from wrong and should of not of done what he did at 15 you have sufficient knowledge to know something like that will have life changing consequences .

Odd story. I might have to check out that documentary some time. Generally speaking, I feel we allow the, "But he's just a kid," excuse too often. When it comes to first degree murder, I'm perfectly fine with trying a teenager as an adult.

Robbery is a bit different though, and that does seem harsh. I've wondered if mandatory minimum sentencing is too restrictive sometimes. This isn't an issue I've considered deeply.

That's because it's cheaper to lock them up and throw away the key. Helping people costs lots of time and money. I agree with you. You can't put a price on a human life, we need more rehabilitation centers for people that commit minor crimes (most things that don't involve the murder or rape category).

Unfortunately, that's very true. It's a lot easier to lock people away where you don't have to think about them. I mean, of course it would be naive to think that some people don't need to be kept apart from the rest of society. There are people out there who are far too dangerous, who for whatever reason can't be trusted to wander among the general population without causing serious harm to someone. But there are also a lot of people out there who, with the right access to education and social support systems, could have turned out very differently. It's amazing what a change of scene, access to affordable housing and decent employment, and a dose of good old fashioned self belief can do for some people. But then we'd have to address some pretty hefty issues with regards to how we treat the poorest among us, and how we address complex problems like wealth distribution, social/geographical disadvantages, how we approach issues like drugs and gangs...precious few people want to have that conversation. It's too hard, it's complicated and like you say it costs too much. It's sad that people seem to lack the long term vision, and can't see how much money and how many lives and families could be saved by taking a more humane approach.

Exactly, the world would be a much better place, but that's all a dream that will never become a reality.

That's just wrong... I could understand if it was murder, but robbery? That should be 10 years max, unless someone died as a result.

The laws that condemned him were in place before he did the crime, and while he didn't kill anyone, armed robbery is an extremely violent crime. Did he walk into a candy store with a parent's loaded gun or machete?

I'll watch the documentary tonight when I get home, mostly because I can't understand what kind of terrible representation he had to result in such a massive sentence. At first glance, I feel it's over the top but at the same time, violent crime isn't nearly punished enough in my opinion. He's managed to attain certificates and diplomas while in prison, cost free, so it's not entirely a story of punishment only.

In USA, when a person turns 18, they suddenly become "mature" and are thus free to be subject to any and all manners of judgement and punishment, no matter how harsh. The USA Government can "let loose" on a 18 year old, but a 16 or 17.99 year old is just an innocent child compared to the mature, intelligent, and adult 18 year old. And this is all when acknowledging that children can still get life sentences.

It's actually cheaper to put an adjudicated delinquent or convicted person through rehabilitative justice.

The US justice system is slowly adapting this method, you will be more likely to find such programs in blue states than red states.

Nope, that's obviously very wrong. In regards to the redeeming processes of prison it is the most favorable simply because a redeemed person is once again innocent. If a bad person becomes good they are redeemed, and are absolved of past discretions.

When people say there should be more life sentences and the like we need to remember that it is better the guilty escape than the innocent suffer. Therefore keeping a redeemed person in prison is horrible, but releasing a bad person isn't nearly as bad. Therefore it is always better to err on the side of caution and impose light sentences over heavy sentences if you can't find a just sentence.

Freedom is not valued by a lot of people who think that handing out a life sentence is the best option, taking someone else's freedom is disgusting, and taking it for life is doubly so. There is often no justice in such a sentence just casual disregard and vengeance.

Hehe, it's like some off brand of vengeance like 'I can't believe it's not vengeance!', when it obviously is but slightly more politically correct.

Bump.

I wholeheartedly agree with this

I agree. By 10 years old you should be held responsible for your actions.

Hmmm, yeah it is a bit extreme. However, in defense of the courts, if you are gonna do an ARMED robbery, then you deserve your sentence. Anyone with a brain should know that having a weapon will make your sentence much longer than without one.

Plus, IMO, if someone is willing to threaten someone with a weapon, then you are to assume that they are willing to use it. So, sucks to be him and I completely agree about the no parole on a crime where no one was injured plus him being only 15 is HORRIBLE, but at least next time he will know not to screw other people.

Wait, SERIES??? As in multiple? Was it like 2 or even more? Ooooh, one I MIGHT sympathize as a stupid thing, but more he is just asking for a whole lot of trouble. Yeah, now I am leaning more on the sentencing. Still, the no parole does seem extreme, should have said no parole until 20 years later.

@aquaman01: The kid is a dumb**s, no doubt and should be punished. But there is more to this story. He had an accomplice who was 24 years old at that time, had an extensive criminal history and who was also Kenneth's mother's drug dealer. The guy got only one consecutive life sentence, Kenneth got four. Despite the fact that the kid wasn't the one holding the gun and making threats. If what Kenneth was saying is true, he and his mother were threatened. Really recommend everyone to watch it. It's eye opening.

Why should we forgive these criminals?

@alphaq:

1. I disagree with your assertion that being a reformed criminal makes you an innocent person. Just because you don't intend to murder anyone else, that doesn't absolve you of murder.

2. I believe people should feel the negative consequences of their bad actions. Punishments discourage people from committing crimes.

3. Even if I accepted your idea that people should be freed or given light sentences once reformed, (which I do not) it requires some way to measure someone's sincerity and self-control, and this can only be proven by giving them their freedom.

@hylian: you might want to watch the whole documentary

@fuzzylittlerodent: If it's a minor crime like stealing something then It's not to big of a deal. But if they injure, kill or threaten any one then I'm not forgiving them.

@hylian: then you will be happy to hear that nobody got hurt. And nobody is asking for your forgivness. The point is, the punishment must fit the crime and other factors must be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, that is not the case in this situation.

Exactly. No cruel or unusual punishment. People should get what they deserve

Man, the courts should have flipped the sentences... Really weird...

Whats worse is that not even the current system wants to help out. Goes to show how far our judicial system has gone...

@aquaman01: They probably were more worried about reputation than justice. Kenneth is a poor black kid from a messed up family from the ghetto. Let's be honest, growing up in the hood and having almost no formal education means that he will not be able to get a good job. Chances that he will resort to criminal activities are pretty high. The judge clerly knew that if he releases the kid now and if he commits a crime again, people will be looking at the person who let him go. His reputation was on the line.

It baffles me, that this person killed no-one yet is given life without parole; yet there are other American teenagers who have murdered their friends/innocent people yet they do not get the punishment this kid got.

@batwatch

1. That's a very relevant disagreement I guess. I will say it's not about reformation or intention, it's about what you are, y'know? Personally I think that someone who commits a crime, is released and becomes a good person is still a good person. For that reason I would consider them better than someone who is morally neutral, and essentially a different person than the person who committed the crimes.

2. People should be punished as they deserve to be punished, which is not necessarily proportionate to their crime. I dislike this pragmatic view that because punishment is a deterrent to crime then unjust sentences are acceptable, because whatever the external observers of a trial may think it does not effect the human rights of the criminal or make them more or less deserving of punishment.

3. Not really. We can look at their behavior in prison, before prison and after prison, histories of psychological illness, psychological evaluations, perceptions from peers, testimonies, motives and motivators along with other things to assess someones character.

Essentially it comes down to justice, I think justice is when people are given what they deserve. But does a rapist or murderer deserve to be raped or murdered? Does a bully deserve to be bullied? Possibly, but you have to judge someone by the entirety of their being and character and deliver a fair punishment, and everyone is understandable and fundamentally human when you get right down to it. Nobody is worthless, and compassion and mercy is good, undeniably, unquestionably good and an ideal that should be pursued.

Hehe, casual question, have you ever seen Shawshank Redemption? Basically Morgan Freeman plays Red, a teenage killer in his 60s-70s serving life who is actually a really decent person, pretty good movie. Kind of like what I'm saying that people change.

Bump