Discussion for article #245048
Good.
I’m actually surprised at the ruling.
Sounds great…if there is training and education involved after they are released.
Right-wing hysteria to follow:
SCOTUS Pro-Democrat Party ruling to allow thugs to vote for Hillary!
You’re not serious, are you? If this country cared a rat’s ass about anyone in prison more people would know that more men are raped in prison than women anywhere. Oh, and the chances of being assaulted or murdered? Yikes. Once convicted (rightly or not), a person no longer has human rights in this country. It’s shameful, embarrassing, and corrupt.
Consider this. If you are sentenced to life as an 18yo, you average life expectancy is 50yo (an additional 32 years). If you are a free man at 18, your life expectancy is 76yo (an additional 58 years). That’s a reduction of almost 50%. It’s criminal, and wrong for our society to do this. If we want to jail these people, we need to take responsibility. As it is, we just throw them on a leper island, and wash our hands. No amount of “training and education” is going to fix the head of a person who had to live through that.
Again, no one give’s a rat’s ass, including the left.
Excellent!
Next we need to stop trying juveniles as adults --ever. What’s up with that, anyway? You’re either a juvenile or you’re an adult. Come on.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling “is just a devious way of eliminating life without parole for juvenile offenders.”
Yep. Any way that works asshole.
Why am I not surprised at this:
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling “is just a devious way of eliminating life without parole for juvenile offenders.” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia’s dissent.
It may be a long way off, but it will be a good day for this country when those 3 step down.
Studies have shown that the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain involved with personality and impulse control, isn’t fully developed in males until about age 25. So this makes eminent sense. Too bad Scalia et. al. don’t appear to have much humanity in them.
Nonsense. The distinction is necessarily arbitrary. Under your suggested rule, a minute before midnight you would be irrevocably subject to a maximum of few years’ punishment for an act that could get you life if done a minute later. That might not be insane, but it would certainly be idiotic. And the political alternative to the current system—in which the guidelines for determining whether to try a juvenile offender as an adult, if followed punctiliously, allow for giving actual thought to the decision—will be to lower the age at which all persons are treated as adults until the public’s desire for blood is quenched in the very worst cases, dragging along all other criminal acts by the cohort of those worst perpetrators. Is that really what you want?
Feel better now?
Where would you slot Crooze or the donnie?
Actually you could take that a step further. I happened to be born at 8:30 in the morning, so up until 8:31 eighteen years to the day later, I was a juvenile.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia's dissent.
Now there’s a surprise.
Nonsense.
I would add more, but you pretty much summed it up. Well done sir.
That’s not the way it works, at least in Texas, California, and any other state with a variation on the model codes used in those states (which are the ones in which I practiced criminal appeals law). Age is determined by the date of birth. You become 18 (or in Texas, 17) and thus an adult for family code and penal code purposes at midnight on your birthday. If you were born at 11:59 PM, you’d be deprived of almost a whole day of childhood.
I do wonder what that would do to the usual pleadings in criminal cases, where what is alleged is an act on or about a certain date. Would that be enough to invoke the jurisdiction of the adult court? You don’t want to allege too precisely, because what you plead you must prove. Under the current law, of course, the DA’s office could make sure by moving in the juvenile court to try you as an adult. If you had been an adult in the first instance, the order would be moot, because the adult court would have jurisdiction anyway.
Believe it or not, a prosecutor has to think carefully about such little things. The results of making assumptions can be disaster.
Nonsense it may be, but the law is what it is. And if you think the legges wouldn’t reduce the age for trial as an adult you are sadly naive.
Thank you.