The Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama exemplifies the
current trend of perceiving youth as being less capable than adults and
therefore, undeserving of the heaviest punishments of the law. The opinion
delivered by Justice Kagan claims that while Kuntrell Jackson was found guilty
of felony murder, the many factors affected by his young age make the sentence
of life without a parole a violation of the 8th amendment. Such a
decision was only the latest in a series of rulings from the Supreme Court that
had previously invalidated capital punishment, and life without parole in cases
excluding murder for juvenile offenders. The shift away from mandatory
sentencing is a welcome one in the area of juvenile justice, but is it possible
that the pendulum is swinging to far the other way now and preventing juvenile
offenders from receiving punishments they deserve?
The Court acknowledges that the
notion of mandatory penalty schemes “prohibit a sentencing authority from
assessing whether the law’s harshest term of imprisonment proportionately
punishes a juvenile offender,” and they are absolutely right. In a cognitive
sense, youth are far different from adults and are far more fluid and easily
influenced. As such an act such as murder could result far more easily from
youths who have not yet fully developed their senses of responsibility or
morality. Given such an understanding, juveniles should naturally be allowed a
little more leniency and should have their infractions examined on a
case-by-case basis.
However the court changes direction by invalidating the sentence of life
without parole. They are claiming that there are no circumstances in which a
juvenile could be found deserving of such a punishment. Yet one would have to
look no further back than Roper v. Simmons to find such an example. In this
case Simmons committed a premeditated murder on nothing but a whim at the age
of 17. In such a case the premeditated nature of his actions combined with his
proximity to the legal dividing line between juvenile and adult make him a
candidate for life without parole. Discretion is an important part of the legal
process and capping possible sentences can be as detrimental as enforcing a
minimum sentence.
A similar case displaying the leniency afforded to juveniles took place
this summer. While more complicated because of the issue of affluence, the
accused found himself facing an incredibly light penalty after killing four
people in a collision while under the influence of alcohol. You can read up on
it here:
Javert Solorzano
Leniency shown to juvenile offenders seems to lower our standards of youth. One must wonder if upholding them to a higher standard would be more beneficial to our society’s moral. In R. v Dudley and Stephens, the court decided that survival and necessity did not justify murder. Now, these men were castaways who undergo severe hunger and desperation, yet their diminished decision-making capacity was not accepted as a defense. The need to stop less than commendable behavior, murder and cannibalism, was more important than the sympathy one might have felt toward these dying men. Likewise, youth may have diminished capacity and may be easily influenced but lowering their punishment doesn’t hinder crime in any way. Aside from this utilitarian perspective on punishment, higher leniency could be detrimental as it leads to lesser punishment for juveniles. Javert’s post denotes that this may already be happening. His post was especially stimulating as he connected past cases with a current case. Although wealth is a huge component to the affluent teenager, the idea that teenagers can be rehabilitated had a major impact on the case. Perhaps the law should consider that some juveniles are not deserving of leniency, especially when they show no remorse.
ReplyDeleteIn R. v. Dudley and Stephens, the defendants were sentenced to death, but ended up serving less than a year of jail time. Although the court stated that survival and necessity do not justify murder, the defendants served well below the punishment--sending a different message of clemency. Showing leniency to Stephens and Dudley undermined the law and did not stop crime. If adults commit premeditated murder and can receive clemency, then why shouldn't juveniles have the opportunity to receive lesser punishment?
DeleteI think the Miller decision masterfully explained why harsh punishments such as the death penalty and life in prison affect juveniles more by cutting their lives short, or by locking them up for a longer percentage of time. I do think juveniles should receive leniency as it is also detrimental for youth to waste their lives behind bars without any reformation or second chance.
There are two equally viable schools of thought regarding youth justice. One school supposes that youth should be treated no differently than adults when it comes to criminal cases. And when we examine cases such as Roper v. Simmons, it makes complete sense; this is an example of an incredibly heinous crime, and as a result, there should be no wavering when it comes to punishment. The punishment should be exactly the same if it were an adult in court. However, the other school of thought states that there should be leniency because they are youths. As we discussed in lecture, youth and adults think differently, and there are even some differences in brain development between youth and adults, which may or may not account for the differences in thought patterns. Javert’s blog post was excellent at explaining both sides of the argument, and highlights a key problem in the legal system regarding youth; the problem that we simply don’t know how to handle youth justice. It’s difficult to be strict and treat every case the same when each case can vary wildly from one another. I would have to say that it would be better to treat cases depending on the severity of the crime. Some cases, such as the previously mentioned Galt, deserve leniency, whereas cases like Roper v. Simmons deserve to be treated just as harsh as an adult trial..
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with the idea that the cognitive capacity along with the maturity level of youth and adults differ, I personally feel that letting youth, who have committed serious crimes, have a more lenient sentence than an adult is detrimental to our society as a whole. While I understand sentencing depends heavily on the circumstances and facts in each case, I believe that in cases where a youth is nearing 18, such as 16 or 17, along with evidence showing that the youth was clearly conscious of the crime he or she was committing, the youth should be tried as an adult and handed the same punishments. This is my personal opinion because I feel that protecting the youth too much could cause them to not be afraid of the law and its consequences. A youth who knew he wouldn't be tried as an adult or knew he wouldn't face serious consequences may be more inclined to commit crimes.
ReplyDeleteI do acknowledge however that there needs to be certain protections for youth as there is a cognitive difference between youth and adults. Youths who may have mental disabilities for example, and are being tried for crimes, should be closely examined to determine if there was a clear conscience during the crime. However I strongly believe that immaturity or a diminished cognitive capacity should not exempt a youth from the consequences of committing a serious crime.
Very well information of Miller v Alabama, Javert. I have to agree that the shift of sentencing to youth offenders without parole has created a new punishment to simply prevent any case-by-case trial. According to Arkansas Law, it gives charge to 14 year old as adults when they alleged commit serious offenses. According to lecture, youth are “underdeveloped sense of responsibility.” Javert, presents the case of youth not yet fully developed their senses of responsibility. This argument relates to Roper and Graham it establish that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing. They are less deserving of the most severe punishments. Referring the gaps between juvenile and adult. Graham states that children have a “lack of maturity” and children character is not “well formed” as an adult his traits “less fixed.” Therefore, the decision shows the flaws of imposing mandatory life-without-parole sentences on juvenile homicide offender. Also, children are more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures that clearly refers to “Youth-as-not-quite-adults.” Javert, points a great point that juveniles should naturally be allowed a little more leniency. In my opinion, court should consider the background of the children since many of the youth have been influenced by horrific life experiences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points this essay makes about Miller v. Alabama and the difficulty in finding a punishment for juveniles who have committed serious crimes. The facts surrounding Miller v. Alabama do make a good judgment call in taking into account a juvenile’s mental capacity versus that of an adult as well as the fact that a juvenile being sentenced to life in prison ends up being much harsher of a sentence for a youth than an adult since they would be spending the majority of their lives in prison. However the fact that the overall ruling is that life in parole is too cruel of a punishment to juveniles who have committed acts of murder creates a huge controversy as found in the article about the drunk driving teen. Life without parole is a serious punishment for a person under 18, however I think the courts need to find a more severe punishment for acts of juveniles convicted with murder to put possible victims’ families at ease as well as the rest of society.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Pendulum Swings Both Ways,” I feel that Javert successfully described the lack of consistency in the court rulings regarding juveniles and their punishments after committing serious crimes. I found it especially effective that Javert brought up both sides of the argument: that youths differ greatly from adults in terms of cognitive states of mind, but that, in some cases, the deemed legal age of 18 is used to their advantage. In fact, this made me feel that declaring the age 18 as a form of a definite divider between who is legal and not legal should not be applied as consistently. Of course, there are cognitive differences between youth and adults, but is also important to consider that everyone develops at slightly different rates. For example, in the Roper v. Simmons case, as Javert mentions, Simmons committed murder fully aware that he would not yet be tried an adult since he did it only months prior to his eighteenth birthday. I completely agree that discretion needs to be exercised in every case since there is a discrepancy in the consistency between the severities of rulings.
ReplyDelete-Marlow McCurdy
Javert has written about the shades of grey in regards with dealing with youth crimes and how we don't quite know how to deal with them. I suggest, that in order to debate whether or not the punishment for youths should be more lenient than they are for adults (whether it be murder or theft) we need a better understanding of our institutions (ex. Juvenile hall etc). If our institutions are built on a framework and belief in rehabilitation and enforces this ideology on-the-ground, I would argue that leniency for youths is best. Although, this would only work provided that they are given the resources to help with self-sufficiency and rehabilitation, such as: qualified social workers, psychologists etc. Therefore, you’re left with the question of whether our institutional system and youth punishment are based upon utilitarian or retributive justice, one forward working and one backward working. In today’s world, it seems we’re more concern with the utilitarian side and profitability of the institution, not rehabilitation.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to, "The pendulum swings both ways" Javert raises an interesting question regarding whether or not the way in which the pendulum is moving is preventing juvenile offenders from receiving the punishments they deserve. I feel that there are several issues to consider before that question can be answered. One that particularly concerns me is that the line that is drawn between what is considered an adult and what is considered underage. Javert uses the example of Roper v. Simmons, which ties in perfectly with what he is trying to argue. The biggest problem in this case is whether or not he should be sentenced as an adult, given the nature of the crime and the fact that he is very close to being considered an adult. In my opinion, every case should be considered as an independent case in order to give a fair trial. To me, an independent case is one that does not take into account the age of the individual but one that actually looks at a person as an individual and not a part of a category. The law should take into consideration people’s motives and use age as a secondary factor in ruling. Overall, I really liked the clarity of Javert’s paper and how it took into account whether or not youth has been sentenced in a just manner, even today.
ReplyDelete-Karen Ruiz Pina
Like Sheng, I also think it’s important to revisit the original purpose of juvenile court when considering whether or not the juvenile court has swung too far into leniency. I agree that there ought to be a consequence for every offense, that every offender deserves some sort of punishment, and that every case must be considered within its own unique context. However, I think we also must ask what the purpose of the punishment is in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIf the purpose of punishment is solely to make the offender suffer in proportion to the amount of suffering he might have caused someone else, then, as Javert describes, the question becomes how much a youth offender really “deserves” to suffer, given his unique experiences, upbringing, and cognitive development. On the other hand, if punishment by the court is meant to rehabilitate—to convince the offender that what he did was wrong and evoke remorse such that he does not repeat the crime, similar to the way a parent disciplines a child—then it seems that punishment only needs to be as harsh as is necessary to achieve such change. Granted, the level of punishment required to evoke change varies from person to person, and relies on the assumption that every offender is capable of change. Still, I would guess that if someone isn’t “sorry” after 10 years in prison, he still won’t be sorry after 50 years, at least not without some sort of counseling; a maximum sentence doesn’t seem to accomplish this purpose, no matter how heinous the crime, and despite what the offender seems to “deserve.”
I found this essay quite interesting as it tackles the issue of what is fair as far as youth sentencing. In the Roper v. Simmons case, most would agree that because of his prior encounters with the law, and the premeditated fashion in which the murder was committed, Simmons deserves a severe punishment for his actions. The problem is that it is so difficult to draw the line of what is an adult and what is a juvenile. It is not as if the second one turns 18, they magically become an adult, but in the eyes of the law this is the case. Javier suggested that juveniles should have their offenses be looked at in a case by case basis. The problem I see with that is, that it gives so much power to the judge. In the link provided by Javier, it was about a case where a boy driving under the influence killed 4 people and the judge gave him a very light punishment and blamed his parents' wealth for the boy's actions. Well these are the types of things we can come to expect when judges are given so much power. If the boy had been a black kid from Chicago, I doubt that same judge would have shown him the same type of generosity. The biggest issue with youth is that even they themselves are different from one another while all adults are considered equal. Until we find a way to group them according to age, and mental capacity, in the end we are just guessing as to what really went on in their head.
ReplyDeleteJavert did an excellent job at presenting a new perspective for interpreting Miller v. Alabama by citing the possible repercussions of such a ruling. I was especially challenged to consider whether there are certain circumstances in which juveniles should be found deserving of a life-without-parole sentencing. As heinous as a crime may be, I do not think that it should be in the State’s power to issue a death sentence. In Graham, the Court likens life-without-parole to the death penalty, stating that life-without-parole terms “share some characteristics with death sentences that are not shared with other sentences.” For this reason, and because life-without-parole is extremely much harsher for juveniles because he/she will most likely serve more years, I think there should be a protection against mandating life in prison without parole. This is not to diminish the magnitude of the crimes the juveniles committed, but it is to acknowledge that life-without-parole is not a fair sentence for youth and adults. Javert brings up a interesting point about how capping possible sentences can be just as bad as enforcing a minimum sentence. I think there is a difference: banning a minimum sentence will protect the offender while banning a cap on something like life-without-parole has the possibility of hurting the offender. There needs to be a cap on punishment, the existence of the “cruel and unusual punishment” speaks to this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think that my colleague Javert did a great job describing the two main controversies in the Miller v Alabbama case. The main two controversies are based around the idea of youth as not yet adults & undeserving of a life sentence without parole because of their not yet fully developed brain. However, as Javert argues in his post, does this leniency toward youth allow many dangerous criminals to slip through the cracks? Although science has show that youth frontal lobes aren't fully formed until their twenties, crimes such as in the Miller case show signs of premeditation & maybe warning signs that the youth may have an inclination toward sociopathy making him/her a repeat offender. I think that in terms of this case, youth that show understanding of their crime (premeditation) should be punished to the full extent of the law as an adult, but whereas youth crimes such as Alabama where the crime is more by association & wrong place/time, they should be treated more leniently. I think the main disparity between these cases is that in one, the youth plans to commit a crime of their own will, but in the other the actual crime maybe set in the inability of the youth to pick the right crowd of friends to hang around with etc. In Javert's post, he describes these two arguments and the dilemma in judging youth in these two conflicting lights (as not yet an adult & adults as rights holders).
In respect to the question regarding juvenile punishment, while I agree that the severity of youth punishment is dependent on a case by case bases; it can’t be denied that due to this idea of “protecting children” youth have been let off the hook for serious felonies. It is true that a juvenile's cognitive capacity differs from adults thus to some extent diminishing their culpability, however, courts have waged this excuse too far hindering the punishment of adolescents who commit heinous crimes. While, I make the argument youth who commit severe crimes and show no remorse should be tried and convicted as adults. The fact is at its inception the aim of the juvenile court was to reinstitute “rowdy” youth into society-- recall the court's statement during Mary’s case that the refugee house was not punishment but rehabilitation. In this light, when the aim of an institution is not to impart punishment but rehabilitation it makes sense for courts when dealing with juveniles to give light punishments (e.g.the recent Texas case). This brings me back to the point many of my peers have made, discretion should be exercised when dealing with youth. However, discretion is a tricky thing to leave in the hands of the court because, as noted in the sub posted case Javert linked, many times a judge's discretion is tied hand in hand with the youth’s parent financial ability to get a “good lawyer” vs a state appointed one. Thus, not only is the pendulum swinging in favor of lenient punishments for youth offenders but more threateningly it leans more favorably towards financially fortunate youth offenders.
ReplyDeleteThis essay raises an important issue that is the evaluation of the standards of leniency in criminal cases involving juvenile offenders. The fairness of a number of recent judgments can understandably be questioned when considering the rare brutality, coldness and recklessness perceived in the behaviors of characters like Simmons or Couch (respectively in Roper v. Simmons and in the “affluenza” case of Ethan Couch). Can these juveniles really be treated with considerably more clemency because they are one or two years under the legal majority even when they are responsible of or associated with crimes that are clearly heinous? There is no evident or easy answer to this question, and judgments emitted in trials like the “affluenza” case cast a very negative image of this leniency trend on the rest of society. Yet, this new inclination is, in my opinion, part of a necessary and welcome evolution of the American juvenile justice system. The majority in Roper v. Simmons had already used legal borrowing to cite international sources that proclaim the necessity to spare youth offenders from disproportionate punishments. They cited foreign national texts as well as international covenants (like the article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, recognized in virtually every country in the world except for the US and Somalia, and which contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18). This evolution of the American justice system that involves more leniency towards juvenile offenders is a natural progress that is part of a wider international trend of recognition of the particular status of minors and of the non-necessity to punish juveniles disproportionately.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in some cases the harshest of punishments, in this case being life in prison without parole, is not always appropriate for juveniles but it is not something that should immediately be dismissed for all cases. As he points out some juveniles, such as Simmons who committed a premeditated murder, should be considered for the maximum punishment. Simmons was very near the age where he would be tried as an adult, had he committed this crime a little later in time life in prison without parole would have definitely been considered as a punishment. These few months should not deter from the crime receiving the appropriate punishment for its severity. However, as mentioned before there are cases in which a juveniles age or circumstances do factor into how he or she should he punished for their crimes. Consequently, the punishments of juveniles needs to be decided on a case by case bases and not according to a preset rule.
ReplyDeleteI believe the author of this article tackles part of the important issue at the heart of these cases involving capital punishment and life sentences without possibility of parole. This issue being the necessity to deter, punish, and create workable standards so that youth do not commit despicable acts but at the same time understand that youth's diminished capacity precludes them from "full" liability of their action. In addition, the Court's analysis of this issue in Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama has shown its willingness to understand the context and modern advances in scientific understanding of the mind. The frontal lobe [tasked with decision making among other functions] is not fully developed until the mid twenties and to assume that youth have full cognitive ability would be irresponsible. At the same time, it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that even a teenager can understand a vast array of moral dilemmas and act according to a norm, whatever that may be. So in understanding this debate, the Court fashions a compromise in which youth will be punished, but will not be stripped of their right to live without chance of redemption for they do not have all the tools to make a fully rationale and thought-out decision upon which to act. This distinction may well be drawn from our legal history which deems 'criminal intent' to be, in most cases, far worse than the result of the crime. If a youth has this diminished capacity to act then it only reasons that they have a diminished capacity to intend the crime they commit.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting conversation that falls along this discussion is the issue of liminality of the youth category. Many find it hard to believe that a youth only months away from their 18th birthday can be given a less severe sentence than a youth a few months older. This arbitrary line drawn to separate childhood and adulthood ignores the complexity of the issue. One's actual age and one's mental age can vary significantly and their capacity to make fully rationed decisions depends on the later rather than the former. This is not to say that on average, actual age and mental age do not correlate strongly, but that it is not always necessarily the case.
This essay is a good analysis of the ambiguity of youth punishment, that is how it is so difficult to determine whether punishment under adult law should be applied to and enforced on to youth. This is especially notable in the cases mentioned such as Roper vs. Simmons. I agree that juveniles should generally be given more leniency. The vulnerability and gullibility of youth should certainly be taken into account when coming to a conclusion with regard to punishment. There are vasts differences between youth and adults, especially in terms of psychological development. Even so there are many cases with youth in which the extent of punishment that ought to be afforded is unclear. As previously stated, I think that in general youth should be afforded more leniency; however, I think that there are many situations in which perhaps they shouldn't be given more leniency.
ReplyDeleteI agree that juveniles should have their infractions examined on a case-by-case basis to avoid harsh and unusual punishment. However the emphasis on the cognitive sense that youth are different from adults and are easily influenced should not be heavily relied on. Juveniles are taught to be responsible and morally right if they do not pick up on these ideas on their own. Whether or not to treat juveniles and adults should depend on the crime committed, however lessening a sentence by allowing parole will not make a juvenile a better person.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking on how putting a limit on possible sentences for juveniles can cause harm as enforcing a minimum sentences. Overall the peer did a great job in showing the mercy afforded to juveniles in courts.
Javert Solorzano concisely summarizes the two cases showing the Supreme Court’s decision about whether juvenile deserves a sentence of life without a parole violates the 8th amendment. I liked how Javert describes the decision of the court as swinging pendulum because it describes precisely. There are many things to take into consideration when thinking about the severity of the sentence on juvenile. I would have liked to see more of his opinion on the court’s decision limiting to see how the surrounding environment and family, or his/her capacity to deal with litigators, or other people involved in the trial. In my opinion, juvenile is much more likely to be influenced by their peers and surrounding environment, therefore the decision of the court seems like too myopic thinking, and also an area to be improved for the better. Moreover, in case like Simmions, it is always very difficult to judge whether a person who is almost 18 should be treated the same as who is 12. I really think it depends on the person and should take into his/her surrounding environment when judging, with careful analysis of why he/she committed the crime, and his/her state of mind at the time. Overall, however, Javert’s essay is very straightforward with effective reference to cases, and there was no difficulty reaching to his conclusion and thoughts about juvenile punishment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJaver does an excellent job proving that the U.S Justice system has a wrong approach toward juveniles. Unlike many of the comments posted to this blog, I would argue that juveniles deserve unconditional lenient punishments regardless of the severity of the crime they commit. There are two grounds for this argument. First, the majority of the developed and democratic countries have adapted to a lenient punishment/rehabilitation system against delinquents and the U.S justice system has failed to join this campaign. Second, juveniles are not entitled to the same rights as adults because they are not considered to be “ fully responsible for their actions”. If youths are not fully prepared and capable of enjoying adult rights, then we can conclude that they are not prepared to endure adult punishments. I firmly believe that children are inherently different from adults and it is therefore morally wrong to try them as adults.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Javert' s inquiry as to how the law keeps shifting in regards to punishment for youth and what protocols would be best used in considering that youth are different than adults - not having the same maturity level, less life experience, different brain development etc. It raises the difficult and complicated question of how we should punish youth for their crimes? Does sticking to punishment based on age and how close they are to the adult line make sense? Would more seriously taking into account extenuating life circumstances, reasons that may have led them to committing the crime and being more easily influenced due to their age (youth as not quite adults) create a better protocol for youth justice?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your questions as to whether or not the pendulum has swung too far in terms of the law being to lenient for juveniles, I think it may be useful to consider different types of penalties rather if the penalties are severe enough for the crime committed. Is giving youth life sentence without parole such as in the case of Simmons really the best approach to punish a terrible crime? I would propose that other punitive approaches that don't involve life or long term prison sentences for these youth but rather focus on intense therapy, community services, conflict resolution, short term prison sentences and other similar measures may be more affective and give these youth a chance to redeem themselves as well as re-enter the adult world when they are ready to with a chance to be functional and successful individuals.
In the essay "The Pendulum Swings Both Ways", the author clearly demonstrates his understanding of Miller v. Alabama(2012). He does this by accurately highlighting and analyzing the key arguments and findings of the case. For example, the author starts off by noting "Miller v. Alabama exemplifies the current trend of perceiving youth as being less capable than adults and therefore, undeserving of the heaviest punishments of the law". It is very important, and useful to the reader, that the author offers this information in the introduction because it announces to the reader the central argument that is being made, which is that "because juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform" they should be exempted from a sentence of life without the possibility of Parole. Additionally, by claiming "the court changes direction by invalidating the sentence of life without parole...claiming there are no circumstances in which a juvenile could be found deserving of such a punishment" the author informs the reader of the verdict by the SCOTUS, and the reasoning behind the decision.
ReplyDeleteHowever there are several reservations I have about this essay. For instance, I find the notion that "discretion is an important part of the legal process and capping possible sentences can be as detrimental as enforcing a minimum sentence" to be completely unfounded or at the very least lacking sufficient information/evidence to support this claim. I say this for two reasons, the first being that "prosecutorial discretion" grants prosecutors absolute power and consistently results in abuse of that power in order to obtain a higher conviction rate (and many other disadvantages for the accused). The second reason is that I do not understand how putting a cap on sentencing could be detrimental. It is not like a sentence is being reduced from life without parole to 5 years. The reality is most of these kids sentenced to life will spend most, if not all, of their lives in prison. It is very troubling to me that a fellow "youth" such as the author would call that too lenient of a sentence when the fact is the most modern/industrialized countries do not even try youths as adults.
I personally think that the youth should in no cases be tried as adults. I think it is safe and fair to say that a child's brain and thought process is much more different than an adults and working at a much lower level. Children, as well as young adults are not able to fully understand the consequences of their actions. I do not think the youth should go unpunished, but I think it is wrong to give them a sentence such as life without parole because I dont think you can compare a sixteen year old child to the 40 year old they will become some day. It is not fair to take their life away at such a young age in result of them committing a crime they did not fully understand the extreme of.
ReplyDelete