dunadan

I have been following a story on NPR for a number of years now about a 15 year old who shot and killed his father's drug dealer. He was tried as an adult, and sentenced to 20 years. He was a straight 'A' student at the time, is quite thoughtful, literate, and it makes me wonder what people here think about murder, punishment, and forgiveness. I am not really looking for a discussion of laws, just opinions. Some questions:

1) Should the 'relative merits' of the lives of those involved be examined? Is a high school 'A' student worth 'more' than a drug dealer? i.e Should the punishment have been different if the drug dealer had killed the 'A' student? How about young versus old?

2) Which is a greater crime? A random act of violence against a stranger or an act of passion against a loved one?

3) When is it appropriate to judge a juvinile as an adult? Mental capacity? What are objective criteria to try someone under 18 as an adult? Given this logic, what about other age-based legal rights such as voting or driving? Should there be a 'national maturity test?'

*edit for clarity

Strawberry

The law should, theoretically, be the same for everyone, because once you start to privilege one group over another, that can turn into things like politicians having legal immunity, etc. That said, I think the death penalty is barbaric under any circumstances, and life in prison seems like enough punishment anyway.

Again, theoretically, the random murder and the crime of passion should be considered exactly the same, as long as the level of brutality in the two murders was the same (i.e. an unplanned gunshot that kills the victim instantly is not as bad as torturing the victim for days before killing them as slowly as possible).

I'm not sure about the juvenile thing. I think 18 is kind of a random number, anyway. It really depends on the individual case.

Jamie_L

I'll second Strawberry in that it is dangerous for the law to make distinctions about the victim. Such a system would not only be unfair on the face of it, but have the potential for great abuse.

The nature of the crime, however, is different. As the legal system is intended to protect the public, it is valid to compare the threat posed by different criminals, and the nature of the crime is one good indicator of the nature of the criminal. With that said, in the specific example, which is worse? I think it depends on additional details. Someone who is capabale of remorseless random violence on a whim would seem to be a greater threat than an individual driven to a single act by specific circumstances (though it also shows a degree of instability in that person). Then again, someone who just drives around firing random may not be as dangerous as someone with the mental capacity to torture and mutilate someone in an act of passion. *shrug*

The juvenile thing is tough. I think the adult justice system is not a good place to send juveniles. Even long sentences for juveniles can allow them to get out at a reasonably young age - and after spending formative years in a rough environment with older, more powerful, ruthless adults, they may become more threatening to the public than before they went in.

A better solution might be varying degrees of juvenile justice/penal systems.

Jamie

keyser_soze

I propose three levels of murder

Predators=Instant death if caught red handed, death if overwhelming evidence(and I don't mean southern evidence either), life if any doubts.

Cold blooded killing for passion or profit: LIFE, they most likely would suffer in such a circumstance.

Justified homicide: defense of self or other from harm or death. This to be used if there is overwhelming evidence or assumption that this person would harm one or another shortly(One does not need the snow to fall in one's face to realize it's winter)

Other than that, it's not murder, it's manslaughter, which would have other punishments.

In all honesty, those convicted of killing as predators(rapists, child molestors, etc..) should be adequately punished. Yeah, I know, I'm not nice, but it's the way I feel. Of course I have no rational basis for this stance other than an overwhelmingly protective nature for women and children.

Of course in all of the above, excepting predators, other factors would enter the judgement. If a wife conspires to kill her husband, but he was a batterer, no harm, no foul I say. True, she should have left the cycle, but I find her response acceptable.

keyser_soze

Gonna catch hell for this one...using emotion and setting aside my mental faculty, but I've a flame retardant suit on so bring it.:notworthy

Ab_Normal

I give you two thumbs up for that comment alone, though I seem to recall that they have recently 'fessed up to a similar problem in Chicago - the governor pardoned four (?) convicted murderers who were on death row who had been convicted based on coerced confessions.

I heard the same segment on NPR last night, and without knowing all the details in the case, it's quite easy for me to say that the kid shouldn't have been put in an adult maximum security prison at the age of 16. When a juvenile is tried as an adult and receives an adult sentence, I think they should serve their time in a maximum-security juvenile facility until they reach the age of majority in their state, then transfer to the regular prison system.

edited to add:
Jamie_L said it better, of course:

keyser_soze

Yeah, but down here it's a way of life. We frame with panache! And regularity.

dunadan

That is such a common sense idea that I can't believe it does not happen that way. At the very least we should give the juvinile a chance to physically 'grow up' with their peers. The story mentioned that he started at a maximum security prison and was transferred to a medium security prison. It also touches on the 'reform' vs. 'remove' argument - are the prisons supposed to 'fix' criminals or just remove them from society?