There was an issue covered in today’s paper that made me ask
myself how I really felt about the issue.
It had to do with juvenile killers that are sentenced to
life in prison without the chance of parole: JUVENILES GIVEN LIFE SENTENCES
HAVE SHOT AT RELEASE by Robert Snell in the Detroit News.
Six months ago, the Federal Supreme Court struck down the “mandatory”
no-parole sentences for first degree murder committed by individuals under the
age of 18 years. We assumed the ruling would be in force going forward, but a
Michigan U.S. District judge has ruled that the ruling applies retroactively.
The judge said that prisoners serving life for crimes
committed as juveniles must receive a “fair and meaningful” chance at getting
out of prison. Believe it or not, here in Michigan, we have 350 people serving
life for a murder they committed while teenagers. The oldest is a 68 year old
that has been jailed since he was 16 for a crime committed in 1962.
I have never liked anything “mandatory “as far as sentencing
is concerned because I feel that it does not give the judge or jury any leeway
as far as “mitigating circumstances” are concerned and certain cases may have
circumstances that would cause the judge to give a sentence other than life
without parole, although I don’t have any ideas what those circumstances would
be; after all, a murder is a murder.
The other point that many consider is the fact that a crime,
no matter how horrendous, is committed by a juvenile; a person not yet mature
and given to impetuous, immature actions that through time, may actually grow
up and become a responsible adult.
The case cited in the Article was that of Henry Hill, Jr.
who was sentenced for a murder committed in 1980 when Hill was 16.
A psychologist said that Hill had the education level of a 3rd
grader when he entered prison. Since then he has attained his GED and earned
certificates in skilled trades and has finished several college classes.
Obviously, to the family of the person murdered by a
juvenile, no punishment will ever return their loved one and releasing the
individual that committed the murder because that individual is now a better
person would certainly not sit well with the victim’s family and friends.
Can a parole board really ever be sure that a person jailed
for murder as a juvenile has really been rehabilitated and will no longer be a
threat to society? I seem to remember cases where very young offenders were
sent to a jail for juveniles where they remained till the age of 21 and then
had to be released and upon release went right back into a life of crime.
I guess I agree that juveniles imprisoned for first degree
murder should, at some point, be at least granted a parole hearing and not rot
under a “mandatory” life sentence but I would have to see proof that that
individual is really rehabilitated and I don’t know if there is a sure way of
knowing that; some may just act rehabilitated, just to get out.
Still conflicted…
No comments:
Post a Comment