In December, the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for children and young teenagers. The vote was 185 to 1, with the United States the lone dissenter.
Indeed, the United States stands alone in the world in convicting young adolescents as adults and sentencing them to live out their lives in prison. According to a new report, there are 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at 13 or 14.
Mary Nalls, an 81-year-old retired social worker here, has some thoughts about the matter. Her granddaughter Ashley Jones was 14 when she helped her boyfriend kill her grandfather and aunt ”” Mrs. Nalls’s husband and daughter ”” by stabbing and shooting them and then setting them on fire. Ms. Jones also tried to kill her 10-year-old sister.
Mrs. Nalls, who was badly injured in the rampage, showed a visitor to her home a white scar on her forehead, a reminder of the burns that put her into a coma for 30 days. She had also been shot in the shoulder and stabbed in the chest.
“I forgot,” she said later. “They stabbed me in the jaw, too.”
But Mrs. Nalls thinks her granddaughter, now 22, deserves the possibility of a second chance.
“I believe that she should have gotten 15 or 20 years,” Mrs. Nalls said. “If children are under age, sometimes they’re not responsible for what they do.”
I sort of have mixed feelings about this topic. Part of me does not like the idea of sentencing a 13 year old to prison for life without parole. I mean, if we don’t trust a 14 year old’s competence to vote or drink alcohol, how are we trusting them to have weighed the consequences of a decision that will force them to live the rest of their life in prison? On the other hand, somebody, regardless of age, who kills multiple times is a menace to society.
Ditto.
It would depend on the crime, of course, the severity and if it were multiple offenses, but I think they do need a second chance, that is what redemption is all about. I would suggest a longish parole period, however.
i agree with you archer, but i would have to look at the crime itself. if it was unusually cruel, i would have to think that there was an element of evil involved. look at those 2 kids who put a broiled a live puppy in an oven in atlanta…this girl in question did unspeakable acts-there is something evil in people that compels them to commit such acts. simple murder is one thing-somehow this type thing seems different.
I’m with you on that, Archer. I don’t like it, but someone capable of doing what the girl in the story did, do we really need them out in society? Perhaps the possibility of parole, but only after extensive psych evaluations?
“I believe that she should have gotten 15 or 20 years,†Mrs. Nalls said. “If children are under age, sometimes they’re not responsible for what they do.â€
Then make them realize that they are responsible for their actions.
Send them home with the folks who voted in the affirmative.
I was struck by the title of the article, American Exception. Is it not the case that the same mentality that afflicts the Episcopal Church is part of a broader American mentality? We call it exceptionalism.
eg The Episcopal Church is right, most of the Anglican Communion is wrong
eg The rest of the world may ban land-mines but the US is exempt
eg Many nations may ban the death penality but the US (along with China, Iran … ) is right and they are wrong
Terry – I think you are onto something there.
There is an assumption of superiority involved.
Sometimes an exception is simple arrogance. Sometimes it is the lone voice of sanity in a world losing its grip on reason.
Why should America ever listen to the world? What wisdom is there in “the world”? Better to listen to a peanut butter sandwhich. America should listen to principles of reason, principles which exist independent of whether the rest of the world agrees with them.
This is far different than the question of whether a church in America should listen to the rest of the church in the world, but not of it.
Chris, why should TEC listen to the Anglican Communion?
then you do not answer if a 14 year old should be sentenced for life. A teenager’s brain is much different than an adult’s. this is simply a fact. Anglican Papalist blithely says “make them realize…” avoiding the fact that once you’re in prison, it’s not a good place to learn that some actions have good consequences. In prison, you get punished. There is no reward. Not in what is presented.
It seems to me that a Christian works first with charity, forgiveness and redemption. It’s not the way of the world. It is the way of Christ. The world punishes. that’s easy. That’s what we did to Jesus.
I’ve been examining the forgiveness project and it is remarkable: what DMstroudmd illustrates is that we’ve given up our responsibility for each other. That’s unfortunate. It is simply an example of our desire for vengeance rather than Christ. We are hard hearted, its true.
There are plenty of people “out in society” who would be very dangerous if they didn’t have help. Some people are always dependent upon others. Do we make them into victims? Or do we wait until they victimize others?
I have to disagree.
Life without parole is a sentence handed down in lieu of a death penalty. The alternative to it is not a “longish sentence with the possibility of parole”. It is death. Which would you rather?
Secondly, there are people who do not need to be free. Such as the young lady mentioned in the article. While it may seem a tad unfair to sentence a 13 year old to a lifetime in prison, if the crime they committed is horrific enough and exemplifies a total lack of conscience, then society as a whole is safer with that person is incarcerated.
For those who propose such a course of action, I ask: What hard data do you have, other than opinion polls? In particular, what evidence can you produce that shows a sociopathic killer can reform or be cured? I’m all for Christian hope, but we have to stay grounded in reality.
The world punishes. that’s easy. That’s what we did to Jesus.
News flash, John. Jesus was INNOCENT. A big point about this was made in the NewTestament. I don’t know if things like guilt or innocence compute for you.
As to why shoulf TEC listen to the Anglican Communion: because TEC claims to be in the Anglican Communion.
America does not claim to be part of a larger body with which it might be expected to conform. America started off doing its own thing, something called Liberty. It might have taken the English heritage of Common Law and looked back to the Greeks and early Roman Republic, but our Founding Fathers never thought that we needed to ask the world’s permission or get its guidance. Why should that change now? Even the UN wasn’t originally set up with the idea that we would all turn over our sovereignty to a common international body. It was a forum for helping us work together at common tasks.
There is something to be said for giving a younger teenager (convicted at 13, 14, or 15, for example) another shot at life after serving a significant sentence. While I don’t work with youthful offenders, I occassionally see them after they have moved from the youth facilities to adult facilities. I do know that they can have their lives changed and that they can grow up to be faithful citizens. I’ve seen too many hardened criminals have their hearts and lives changed by Jesus Christ to say otherwise. If we are going to release them into society, we need to do so in a planned and systematic way that gradually introduces them to the world of responsibility and decision making. If they are incarcerated at 13 or 14, they will not learn how to make decisions as an adult in the prison. Something that we learn by osmosis and by trial and error will not be available to them. So, they need to be gradually reintroduced to society where they learn more and more about freedom and responsibility by becoming gradually more and more free and responsible.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Frankly, I think that not only should 13 year olds be given another shot at redemption, but that all criminals should have such another shot.
I would like to see (after a suitable period, let us say 14 years of imaculate behavior), records for all but the judges/criminal corts, expunged, and it be forbidden to ask if anybody had a criminal conviction 14 years ago. This would take a large number of hopeless, unemployable people off the homeless roles, and give them a reason for trying to straighten out their lives.
Currently, if you have a record, (even if it was 20 years ago) it is impossible to reenter society.
I do think that kids are more likely to turn around than adults. But I also think that one should not lose hope for adults, either.
Clueless, I hope you do not mean 14 years of imaculate behavior in prison. Controlled envoronments like that are no indication of an ability for or propensity toward good behavior outside.
Do you exempt any crimes from your list. Should serial killers, even if they behave themselves, have their record expunged?
I say nothing blithely. My children knew and I knew at 13 that it is morally evil to torture and or kill someone. I knew it at 5. Because my parents loved me, taught me wrong from right and were not afraid to discipline me. My point is merely this. Raise them to understand the difference between wrong and right. Otherwise you have no solution.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
AP+
Actually I do mean 14 years of immaculate behavior _in prison_. (Where else?). Ideally, one would then graduate to some sort of half way house or monastery that would be more free, but where one could be among people who knew the individual’s weaknesses, and who could keep some sort of check on the individual.
Ideally this would be done in a setting of regular public confession, so that again, one could be kept from deviating at the thoughts, rather than the deeds stage.
I do not remember when I learned that it was morally evil to deliberately hurt somebody, however I do know that it was sometime before first grade. I do not excuse people who commit crimes. I will say that this is not always due to lack of discipline, or lack of knowledge; some kids seem to “dissociate”. This is a nasty trait of separating the sin from the sinner, that begins as simple dishonesty, pretending that you really didn’t do that, but can lead to people honestly not understanding what they are doing. Then there the kids who are unable to separate themselves from evil peers. Such kids should, of course, be locked up for the protection of society.
However, I have seen amazing growth in both young people as well as some older people, and I think that there should be room for redemption and release, even for the worst crimes. Obviously, if there is no evidence of “rehabilitation”, there would be no release, but 14 years of going straight is a long stretch of time. Jacob was rehabilitated in about 14 years, going from “grabber” to “Israel”. Joseph’s brothers were rehabilitated in 14 years, going from fratricidal to fraternally protective.
How many people have been judged to have been “rehabilitated” by some shrink or parole board and then have gone out to kill again? Quite a lot, actually. What are you proposing to change that situation?
I think what would be far more effective than either a “shrink” or a “parole board” would be for such offenders to enter a relationship of spiritual direction with a group of people who actually cared about him/her, and with whom that individual would reside later (again a monastery of some sort comes to mind).
If I did not have kids (or if my children were grown) I would consider setting up something of the sort in a monastic community.
While this would not eliminate the possibility that that individual would kill again, it would at least give hope to the hopeless and give a reason for those who had lesser crimes to try to stay straight.
Gee, sounds wonderful, except for the part about not eliminating the possibility of their killing again.
I wonder why God didn’t set up your plan instead of telling us to kill murderers, which of course is what I favor instead of the farce that is “life” in prison.
#19:
I wonder… would it be possible, with the cooperation of the authorities, to set up a monastic community for selected inmates in prison? Being imprisoned is not entirely unlike strict cloistering to begin with, and the rest of the monastic routine ought not to be incompatible with the requirements of prison.
I have in mind the comment someone made — I think it was on a previous thread — about prison being a soul-crushing environment, that actively works against whatever sparks of spiritual growth might be present. Obviously not all inmates would respond positively — or would respect — this hypothetical prison-monastic environment; but for those who could, it seems like it would be a much better way to spend their years (or possibly life) away from society.
I’m just thinking out loud here. What do those of you with experience with the criminal justice system think?
I think it’s a good idea, but the ACLU would leap out with daggers drawn and blood in their eyes. Church-State and all that.