Discussion 13

Provide two arguments for and two  arguments against life without parole for juveniles who have not  committed murder. Should they be given life? Is that the same or similar  to the death penalty? Should the Supreme Court’s diminished  responsibility standard be applicable to these cases? Is this cruel and  unusual punishment?

Post/Reply Requirements

Please  answer the question(s) above fully with no less than 300 word response  (80%). You must also reply to at least one student with a minimum of 150  word response (20%). Make sure to use proper grammer and cite any  resources utilized. You will not be able to see your classmates posts  until your post your original response.

Remember  that your post must be at least 300 words and you are required to  respond to two classmates with at least a 150 word response.

Make sure to:

• Write a short essay or paragraph of at least 300 words.
• Use concrete examples/details and avoid generalities.
• Address all questions.
• Use proper grammar and punctuation.
• All initial discussion post must be support by academic sources even if asked your opinion.
• Do not plagiarize.
• You will not be able to edit your assignment once you post, so please proofread and spell check before hitting post!
• As part of the assignment, you must also reply to TWO of your classmates with at least 150 words. You will have to POST FIRST to  see your classmates’ postings. Make sure your replies are a thoughtful  and relevant to what your classmate has posted. Try to build the  discussion and keep it going.

Runninghead: LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE 1

4

Johana response

Life without parole for juveniles has been a matter of debate for many decades with many states in the United States of America reviewing their laws to exclude it from their judicial process when dealing with juveniles. There are numerous reasons why many states do not accept the same and some of the reasons include immaturity of their brain. This implies that adolescent stage is marked with rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences. Many adolescents act out of curiosity and are in no position to analyze issues before they act. Their brains are not fully mature to the point of fully comprehending that which is wrong and that which is right without proper guidance thus they need rehabilitation and not life without parole (Siegel & Welsh, 2017). The second reason why many are opposed to the idea of life without parole for the juveniles is because it fails to take into account the childhood experiences of the juveniles. Some of the children involved in juvenile cases are they themselves victims of abuse at their early stage of life and so what they are doing are just a reflection of the experiences. If and when such adolescents are given life without parole they are more likely to be immersed into more violence and withdraw from others rather than reform. The best way to deal with such cases is through a proper form of rehabilitation. When it comes to those who support life without parole for juveniles the reasoning is some of the adolescents are incorrigible meaning that they are not likely to change and that if left they are likely to assume that is just okay to commit such crimes and walk free or receive a lesser sentence. The other argument is that subjecting juveniles to life without parole deter crime and leads to public safety in the long run.

In my opinion, those juveniles who have not committed murder should not be given a life without parole kind of sentencing by the courts. Life without parole is similar to death penalty because one is fully locked away from the world for the rest of his or her life in my view and as such it is like does not even exist (Alviola & Canaman, 2012). The only difference is that the death penalty is a penal code where one is likely to face death in its literal meaning. The Supreme Court’s diminished responsibility standard should be applicable in these cases because in these cases, the adolescents do not even fully understand the consequences of their actions as would be the case with the adults. Their reasoning is not logical and some even act out of peer pressure. It therefore implies by all standards that life without parole for juveniles is a cruel and unusual punishment as per the universal rights of the child by the United Nations.

Darya response

The most important arguments which support life sentencing for juveniles without possibility of parole are criminal intent and seriousness of the crime. Youths could commit violent crime and involve in serious offendings with the intent. So, they really know and understand all negative consequences of their actions, and still want to do them. Regardless of their age, juveniles form criminal intent and should be fully responsible for their illegal actions accordingly (Siegel & Welsh, 2017, p. 378). Furthermore, serious crimes such as terrorism or rape demonstrate a high level of violency, aggression and danger to victims and sosiety in total. These types of crimes cause serious harm and suffering to victims and even take their lives. It is absolutely inappropriate in democratic country and should be punished accordingly. If a sentence of life without parole is used toward violent and cruel adult criminals, serious juvenile offenders could be punished in the same manner.

 

However, the capacity of youths toward change, growth and rehabilitation is one of the major aspects against life imprisonment of juvenile offenders without possibility for parole. Young criminal offenders still have “undeveloped” consciousness, they are in a process of socialization, psychological, social and personal development. It means that they have better chances to become a law-abiding person through special school-based and community-based treatment and intervention programs (Siegel & Welsh, 2017, p. 378). Moreover, family and friend support, education and employment could significantly improve juvenile offenders’ rehabilitation, reformation and further reintegration to society.      

 

Another argument against life imprisonment of juvenile offenders without possibility for parole is racial disparities. According to the Sentencing Project Organization (2019), 80% of youth serving life sentences are youth of color and more than 50% are African American (SentencingProject.org). Moreover, in the Southern states over 80% of the youth life-sentenced population is African American (SentencingProject.org, 2019). So, such extreme racial disparities and racial bias in juvenile sentencing oppose the implementation of life sentencing without parole toward young offenders. 

 

In my opinion, both life without parole and death penalty is completely inappropriate, cruel and unusial types of punishment, which contradict to the Eightth Ammendment and violate basic human rights. Furthermore, juveniles could commit crimes due to the young age, psychological issues, socioeconomic disadvantages, educational failure, abuse, genetic factors, family dysfunction, and/or influence of peers and adults with criminal behaviors (Siegel & Welsh, 2017, pp. 378-379). So, they are not fully capable and responsible for all their antisocial actions and wrongdoings. Juveniles deserved to be treated and rehabilitated, but not to be punished by life imprisonment without parole or even death penalty. So, the Supreme Court should diminish the responsibility standard to be applicable to such cases. Moreover, the Supreme Court decision should be applied retroactively in all States, because life without parole and death penalty mean approximetely the same for juvenile offenders: no future life and no positive life perspectives. However, death penalty is “quicker” sentence than life without parole, because incarcerated youth offenders would be suffer from psycical, sexual and mental abuse during rest of their live, would witness violence, cruelty and agression on every day basis. It seems for me like ”slow and cruel death penalty”. (Word count 522).