What is the youngest age at which it should be possible to sentence someone to life without parole?

[Nye Bevan]

Assume for this poll that the sentence of life without parole would be reserved for the most horrible of crimes.

14 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Below 14
	5 (36%)
	14
	3 (21%)
	15
	0 (0%)
	16
	0 (0%)
	17
	0 (0%)
	18
	2 (14%)
	19
	0 (0%)
	20
	0 (0%)
	21 (or some age older than 21)
	3 (21%)
	I don't think anyone should ever be sentenced to life without parole
	1 (7%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Throd]

1. 2

[gopiscrap]

2. I put I don't anyone

but if I had to choose an age I would put 26 studies have shown that our brains and maturity are still forming til we are about 25 years old.

[HereSince1628]

3. I don't think that combination should ever be done.

I don't like it, but I accept that many people think life imprisonment is OK.

Bending to the will of the majority I can get past that...IF...the state behaves as if every life can be redeemed.

The alternative to seeing people as having positive value just facilitates mistreatment and abuse.

[Mass]

4. I said never, but if it must be done, can we at least agree that brain development ends in the early

20s. So, give at least a possibility of parole to those who commit crimes as children. It is bad enough to judge them as adults so early.

Also, if somebody who answered at 14 could tell us what the difference is between a 13 year old and a 15 year old in their mind.

[dem in texas]

5. I was kicked off a Jury one time for asking young defendant's age

I was in the final jury pool for a capital murder case. The defendant was driving the get-away car when a robbery was committed and someone killed. The DA was asking for life in prison for the young man. The defendant had no criminal record and you could see he was just a kid. I asked how old he was when the crime was committed. The judge said he was not allowed to tell his age. This is Texas after all.

Anyway, I was struck from the jury. When I got home, I got on the internet and found a report of the crime and it showed the kid was 16 years old. I would not have sent this kid to prison for life. Now if someone was a human predator who killed people to rob and had repeated offenses, I might feel different.

[FarCenter]

6. The age of discretion begins historically at 7, but is well enough developed by 13

12 or 13 is the usual age for things like Protestant confirmation and Jewish bar mitzvah. At that point a person is morally responsible for their acts.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. do you have children?

[FarCenter]

31. Yes.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. you have raised a teenager and in particular a male teenager

and you actually think a 12 year old is fully culpable?

That is amazing.

[FarCenter]

37. Yes, a male teenager

By 12 a boy is capable of understanding the moral and legal consequences of basic crimes like murder, theft, rape, assault, kidnapping, and so forth.

These are basic criminal offenses that have been long been understood by unlettered and even primitive societies.

You are not talking about complex ethical conundrums such as occur in professional or financial activities.

[treestar]

7. It's odd, but a life sentence gets less punitive

with every passing year.

So there should be some chance of rehab for the youngest ones.

Kind of like another thread talking about bigger fines for traffic violations for the rich. The older you are the less punished you get for the same crime.

[stevenleser]

8. Society has a problem here. If it doesnt think that a young person has the wisdom at 20 not to

drink to excess and get into a car and drive, how can we assert with finite certainty that young people 20 and under should be able to successfully evaluate other actions and their consequences.

I think under 21 should have a maximum sentence of 20 years without parole. That is a very long sentence and more than enough to be a deterrent.

[Nye Bevan]

9. Good point. When you are 20, you think of 40 as unimaginably old. (nt)

[Yo_Mama]

33. What if you have committed multiple murders?

These are, for which we may all be thankful, very, very rare cases, but it is not unknown to have very young, very violent people who have already committed multiple severe crimes before 18.

I don't think in the normal course of things one should sentence young people to life without parole, not even for murder, but occasionally it has to be done.

[Aerows]

10. To me

it depends on the nature of the crime. One size doesn't fit all, nor does one law fit every crime or defendant. In the case of Philip Chism, because of the clearly premeditated and grisly nature of the crime, I don't think it should be anywhere near out of the realm of possibility. This is an individual that clearly does not need to be free in society. Whether that means being confined to a psychiatric facility or prison is up for debate, but keeping him away from people he could harm is absolutely necessary.

A 14 year old that gets into an argument with another 14 year old and one of them kills the other is nowhere near the same situation as Chism. The end result is the same - someone is dead - but that isn't anywhere near the same situation as a premeditated, clearly planned murder.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Chism has committed other violent acts that he wasn't caught for (animal abuse, etc).

So the answer is, it depends. It could probably go to 13 if the crime was heinous enough. There are somethings that are so horrific that you simply cannot put someone away for a few years and then declare that they are fit for society. If not prison, like I said, at least confined to a psychiatric facility where they can be monitored for a LONG time until they are at least reasonably safe to interact with society in a controlled manner.

[FarCenter]

12. Incarceration until age 50 may be enough if the circumstances are not aggravated.

Relatively few homicides are committed by people aged 50 or above. So recidivism rates may also be low for murderers released after age 50. But this would take more study.

See Figure 4, in Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

[Aerows]

13. Like I said

it really depends on the crime, the person that committed it and the circumstances. I'm not a fan of locking up everyone and throwing away the key, especially for young defendants that may have ended up committing that crime or being an accessory to a crime due to just being lead astray or ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

On the other hand, though, some crimes have to be treated with more severity than "they are just a kid that used bad judgment" or a situation where their emotions got away from them. Both certainly need to be addressed, but a coolly calculated murder is neither of those things and needs to be treated not as the actions of a child, but as the actions of a murderer.

[LuvNewcastle]

11. I didn't select any of the options.

Just because I might favor a sentence without parole doesn't mean I think that a person should be locked up for life. I think there should be other options for the right people, such as group homes where they're monitored. Parole is something you give to people with the intent of eventually setting them free, and I think some crimes are so heinous and disturbing that the criminal can't be allowed total freedom for the sake of the public's security and also for the security of the criminal. I'm in favor of rehabilitation for prisoners, especially young offenders. We should have more options besides imprisonment and turning someone loose.

[Aerows]

15. We need more options

for psychiatric treatment, and you are right, a group home and frequent psychiatric evaluation/treatment could be useful. With the right situation, they could learn a skill that is useful to society, but at the same time provides enough safe guards and barriers to the destructive, violent impulses that got them there in the first place.

[The Straight Story]

14. Before they are even born

Using the pre-crime unit

[darkangel218]

16. Interesting to see who would have no problem with sentencing kids to life in prison.

[Logical]

17. So the fools who think trying someone below 18 as an adult....

Do you think if they are found not guilty they should then have all the rights of an 18 year old?

[Logical]

18. I like knowing who voted 14 or below because I can then realize why they post other things. Sick! nt

[Warren Stupidity]

35. +

[MicaelS]

19. I would say 12.

Either in a prison or mental facility.

[Logical]

36. Wow, you scare me worse than them. n-t

[Iggo]

20. 18

Only adults should be tried as adults.

[655351]

21. At the age the crime is committed.

This is why I have no real objection to the death penalty, some crimes must be punished with as much severity as possible. There are many people in prison who are otherwise decent save for the instance of the crime they committed, or at the best have some redeemable qualities; for them rehabilitation is certainly a possibility. A petty thief might be redeemed into a productive member of our society.

But what of those that would rape, whom would kill, that would harm the innocent? I fully believe that there are people in this world that are broken beyond redemption. Those individuals might be broken by external forces in their lives; abusive parents for example; a few of them are simply born that way; a flaw in the mind or in the structure of the brain itself. Those are the people for whom there is no redemption on this earth. It isn't for their sake we have prisons or lethal injection; the point of executing murderers is to rid ourselves of them. Simply executing a killer won't deter murder from happening again, and since we all die in the end execution isn't that big of a punishment; no as I said execution is simply just to get rid of them for good. Life in prison without parole is very much along the same lines; 'throwing the key away' on an individual isn't to punish, it's to protect the rest of us from them.

A few 'broken' individuals might benefit from psychiatric treatment; in those instances long-term involuntary confinement in a medical institution would be the best course of action. Any act sentencing a criminal to execution or life in prison should go hand in hand with a psychiatric review.

However, not every broken individual is mentally ill to the point of them committing the crime against their will. Take for instance the recent case of the student raping and killing his teacher in the bathroom; a premeditated act of murder with an attempt to conceal the crime. Painful as it might be to consider, I would certainty consider him eligible for life imprisonment if not execution.

[Fumesucker]

23. Crimes like starting a war based on a lie, perhaps?

[655351]

24. Well of course.

Directing people to commit crimes on your behalf makes you responsible for those crimes. Then again I consider being anything other than a registered Democrat to border on treason; so I might be biased in the case of a Republican president.

[gopiscrap]

40. welcome to DU

[Fumesucker]

22. Certainly no younger than the age of consent, whatever that might be

Not old enough to consent to sex?

Then you aren't old enough to be sentenced to life without parole.

[NaturalHigh]

25. I'm not in favor of LWOP for juvenile offenders...

However, I have no objection to life sentences with the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders and only granting parole if those offenders prove without question that they deserve another chance. Lifetime supervised parole after release should then be mandatory.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. we need to make a decision as to what we consider "adult"

and stick to it and not arbitrarily move that number up and down. it should be the same age to join military/drink and smoke and be given adult sentences.

[Iggo]

28. ^^^ This.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. human brains do not finish growing until the mid 20's especially the part that controls

foreseeing consequences for one's actions and impulse control. That's why I said 21 or over.

[2naSalit]

30. Perhaps if we

could get beyond our penchant for dehumanizing each other in all facets of life, we could come to some agreement on this. What I'm seeing here with regard to this topic is our taste for dehumanization based on a capitalist system that perpetuates dehumanization for profit... which, I suspect, is the main driver of yet uglier crimes with more regularity as time goes on. We revel in violence and reward it with recognition and praise giving it more credibility than any other mindset... so we have wars on everything.

Until we can get to this sort of approach, we aren't really considering our human potential and how to deal with those who act on the general mindset of rewarded violence and the engineered deterioration of our social contract:

http://www.wimp.com/haldenprison/

[Rex]

32. Based on their cognitive ability.

IMO.

[geek tragedy]

38. Depends if there's a system that would permit lifetime detainment if they're

shown to be a threat/not shown to not be a threat if released.

If they catch a young Ted Bundy after one murder, there should be a mechanism to prevent him from ever being allowed to kill again.

[LWolf]

39. I passed, because I'm really ambivalent about this.

My heart says "when the person is an adult."

When IS that? My knowledge of brain development says mid-twenties. Here is one link with a little information:

http://teenbrain.drugfree.org/science/behavior.html

I also know that there is no expert consensus on whether or not it is possible to successfully treat sociopathy or psychopathy, and that both of those conditions start in childhood. For a long time, the short answer on all sides was simply "no." Currently, there is debate, and disagreement, among professionals about this topic.

Whether or not it is theoretically possible, it is statistically improbable. And a "child" who has committed a horrible crime is likely to do so again given the opportunity, unless he or she is the individual who is going to prove the professionals wrong or satisfy the debate once and for all.

My first instinct is to err on the side of liberty. Until I remember that NOT incarcerating the young person may likely mean that someone else, or multiple someones, will have to die when adulthood is reached to achieve that same thing.

So I'm ambivalent.

I have an 11 yo student this year. He is a sociopath. That's his official diagnosis. His condition was caused by a horrific first 8 years. It took DPS way too many years to get him out of harm's way, and by then, he had learned too many of the wrong skills. He's 11. He's charming. He's highly intelligent. He complies in the classroom, and is respectful to adults. Of course, there are times that the gleam in his eye is obvious, and we spot the manipulation he is attempting. He's manipulating ALL the time; just sometimes, it's more obvious than others.

He's also a sexual predator, and cannot be allowed out of sight and hearing of an adult at any time. Ever. Which creates a logistical nightmare in our regular public school, and a risk for all of our other students. We are working on finding a more appropriate placement for him, but it takes time, it takes documentation, it takes an open space somewhere in an over-crowded, under-funded system. Will that be the answer? I don't know. At least he'll get more intensive therapy and more intensive oversight than he can in a classroom with 33 other children.

He breaks my heart. I hope with everything I've got that the professionals can help him; that he won't hurt anyone, and that he'll live a functional life outside of a correctional facility. But I see that feral gleam, and I know that the odds aren't good.

Again, for him and for others like him, I choose to err on the side of liberty and opportunity to grow and evolve and change. But...will someone, someday, be asking why their child or other loved one paid that price? Why "something wasn't done" to protect the general public BEFORE he hurt someone?

And that's for someone who has only begun to experiment with, to exercise, his tendencies, not someone who has committed the most horrible of crimes.

Is there a point when a child is too broken to save? How do we know? What do we do? Ugly questions, and even uglier answers. But, if your poll is REALLY going to be answered with substance, someone has to ask.

[BlueJazz]

41. I could very well be wrong about this but for the present time, I believe some people....

....are just Broke. Their genes, brain cells or whatever are not working correctly and can not be fixed.
I'm against the death penalty but do not want defective extremely violent people around others...even if they are children.

Children??... Yep, I've met 2 boys in my life, one was 9, the other 11. I wouldn't trust my life with either of these 2 monsters.
They kill animals for fun...they throw rocks at older people (who can't run) and I THINK they MAY have had something to do with a terrible crime. anyway....