Do you think it’s appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole? **MNHQ WARNING details of murder mentioned**

[Frosty6611]

Was watching an interesting documentary recently about a 14 year old in America who got a life without parole sentence for stabbing someone to death. The crime was really brutal and he definitely needed to be punished harshly for it, but I couldn’t help thinking that not giving him the chance to ever move beyond what he’s done is a bit much?
Sentencing in the UK is pitiful (the Jamie Bulger case is one that sticks out in my mind - even though the boys were very young when they murdered him, they still shouldn’t have been let out when they were).
It seems to me like America is sometimes too harsh with their sentencing and the UK are too lenient

But I’m wondering where your assertion came from that adults who are psychopaths were undiagnosed psychopaths as children and whether this is actually published research or just guessing

There is plenty of research out there about the cause of psychopathy, and whilst it is a complex subject indicates something neuorological or genetic that is present from birth with something environmental such as childhood trauma.

I do think the criminal justice systems in the US and the UK (and likely much of the world) need some rethinking as to how to do things better. I think we need a wider range of facilities for different types of crimes and criminals that meets the need for confinement away from others, punishment, rehabilitation, and justice being seen to be done. I know there is some range now, even in the US (speaking from personal experience of having relatives that have been in jail and under house arrest), but most of it - particularly in the US - is profit driven rather than considering how to best deal with criminals in society.

I do think there are cases where a teenager should be sentenced for life including violent cases like this one. I don't think we should sentence with the expectation that young people will be rehabilitated faster than anyone else. I think cuts to sentences on solid evidence would work better. I also don't think prison means a person's life is thrown away and that the prison system can be built to enable people to better themselves and contribute to society without putting others at risk. I mean, there is a lot of good writing and art that comes out of prisons.

There are a lot of big issues with the prison system including things like access to sanitary products and usage of prison labour in dangerous professions including children (California has just been raked over the internet coals for how it's using prison labour including "youths" to deal with wildfires). Dealing with victims of domestic violence is another as noted in this thread. It's a hard area to make improvements on as better prisons for prisoners aren't really a vote winner but there are a lot of problems with how things are now everywhere.

I do agree with life without for parole for crimes like murder yes.

In all circumstances, Janni01? How about mercy killing? Or someone who snaps after years of abuse? What does putting someone in that situation in prison for ever actually achieve?

There is plenty of research out there about the cause of psychopathy

I’m sure there is, but could you just link to one of the studies you read to lead you to your assertion? You’ve obviously already read one / several so it would be good to have a pointer rather than wade through every scientific paper on the subject.

link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10802-005-5722-2.pdf

What sort of society writes off a child at 14?

If a 14 year old ran off with their teacher, everyone on here would be saying she had no blame she is just a child can't consent etc, so how come the same logic isn't applied to criminal acts?

There are certain red lines which people can cross, after which it is foolish to set them loose in society again.

Sexually motivated child murder is one of them, as is serial murder/rape. Perfectly happy to not execute such people if they can be permanently removed from society in some other way, and I don't think punishment matters much if you're doing that - mercy can be shown in how they are treated. I don't think the age or capacity of the perpetrator matters in these instances, indeed we might be mistaken in worrying about them: the priority has to be the protection of society, and the vulnerable from them. By and large we can identify these red lines with research already available, and I think we are a bit soft in the UK about doing so because we want to believe everybody can reform. The US has possibly got the opposite problem.

By and large for other crimes (including murders in the heat of the moment etc) there is often a chance of someone mending their ways, I would not automatically consign such people to prison and their age/capacity should be taken into account.

Thanks, laguna - I’m off to read that now.

You can’t read it unless you subscribe to the journal, sadly. How did you get to read it?

Rhonda I work for the NHS here in Scotland and have an Athens account, I can access articles through the Knowledge Network. Sorry I didn't realise it wasn't accessible.

SuburbanRhonda
Yes I know the official term I just wrote a commonly used term in haste/error as its not one of my psych essays.
Frosty
Psych theories are abberrant sexuality doesn't often deviate from it's first preferences. (can't think of better word than prefs: it's late, mind fog). Louis Theroux doc bore that out, so did sex crimes unit doc last month. Offenders usually have sexual leanings to children from very early on, often even before puberty acc to their Psychologist & the unit Director, (especially if abused themselves).

I caught the end of one of those piers Morgan programmes tonight about a group of teen killers, he was interviewing someone called amber Wright so I googled the story. Absolutely horrific crime, that poor kid died a deeply traumatic death and no - I don't think people who are capable of that should be released to pose a risk to anyone else.

This is a really interesting read:
Eprints.Lincoln.AC.uk
'Implicit Theories in High Secure Male Child Sex Offenders with Mental Health Disorders' .

It's not the "whole life" sentence I have issue with, it's the "without possible parole". The sentence needs to be such that there is always the option to keep them in prison for the rest of their life, but that if a team of psychologists and other professionals are convinced that someone has truly faced and acknowledged their guilt and truly repented of it, and is no longer any threat and essentially a different person now, then release on parole should be possible - with a tracker and the ability to be recalled to prison at the merest suggestion of wrongdoing without further trial.

Whilst I have never committed a crime, there are some incredibly hurtful and damaging things I did in my early 20s of which I am deeply ashamed and which I do attribute to extreme immaturity. I'm OK with leniency towards those who make terrible, awful choices when young. The human brain doesn't complete the maturing processes of puberty until the age of 24-25.

I agree the Bulger murderers were let out far too soon though.

CSI/Suburban- actually that term is used in officially capacity. If you read Jon Venables sentencing report this last time the judge uses it. Not saying it's right but on MN people are insistent it's not a term that's used, but in fact it is.

on MN people are insistent it's not a term that's used

It’s not just on mumsnet. People care about accuracy of reporting and are rejecting this term.

If it’s not challenged every time it’s used, whatever the status or legal position of the person insisting on using it, people will continue to believe that there is such a thing as child pornography and will ignore the fact that every image that's produced is an image of a child being abused.

The sentence needs to be such that there is always the option to keep them in prison for the rest of their life, but that if a team of psychologists and other professionals are convinced that someone has truly faced and acknowledged their guilt and truly repented of it, and is no longer any threat and essentially a different person now, then release on parole should be possible - with a tracker and the ability to be recalled to prison at the merest suggestion of wrongdoing without further trial.

For the red line cases I have to disagree - a "team of psychologists" is false security, some of the most dangerous offenders are particularly good at convincing psychologists, this is how some of them get released to offend again, you need that blanket "No" to safeguard society against this.

As for tagging people and letting them roam free when they have committed such crimes, this is negligent at a basic level. If You aren't 100% confident they should be out, then they shouldn't be out with something that doesn't stop them committing any crimes, just helps you pick them up and find the bodies.

Society deserves to be protected more than we need to give 'rights' to someone who has committed a murder.

The criminal would have to live somewhere, shop and work somewhere. Why should anyone be put at risk like that?

I wouldn't want them near me and my loved ones on the chance they had been rehabilitated. Unless you are happy to say that you could sleep easy knowing a murderer was living next door think very carefully about what you wish on somebody else.

The only exception in my mind is when someone has retaliated against an abuser, but then they are highly unlikely to have a murder conviction.

@lunar I’m sure most people wouldn’t take kindly to learning that they were living next door to a child killer like Josh Phillips, even if he had rehabilitated.
He would have to have a completely new identity and change his image drastically so people didn’t recognise him. Otherwise he’d most certainly end up a murder victim himself by a member of the public or someone related to the victim.
I’m sure a lot of people who spend be majority of their lives in prison end up becoming ‘incarcerated’ and feel safe there. Deep down they wouldn’t actually ever want to be released as they know how stressful it would be

Suburban - sorry I do agree with you re the term but its the way posters are pulled up on it I was objecting to. They are not using that term to be unkind or out of order but it always feels that there is a level of spitefulness in how that message is given to them to not use it. Unfortunately people will believe it is a normal term to use all the time judges/press etc use it. I don't think posters who use it are to blame here but yes I essentially agree it shouldn't be used . . .

No need to apologise, zany

I never realised what an offensive term it is until it was pointed out to me.

I now can’t unsee how damaging it is to use it.

I thought the supreme court had said that children are different so should not get life without parole, lots of young people (mainly men) are now receiving amended sentences of 50+ years.

The only exception in my mind is when someone has retaliated against an abuser, but then they are highly unlikely to have a murder conviction.

Have a look at the case of Cyntonia Brown.

@sub I'm not sure it was on a t.v programme
My husband was overly interested so I'll ask him. But that was her prison sentence, electrocution and she's on death row. She was 18 when sentenced

Found it @sub
Her name was Cristina Pike.

She was sentenced to death row at 20 but did the crime at 18.

It was 1995 when she was first sentenced.

I think it was Tennessee.

She was convicted AGAIN in 2004 after attacking Patricia Jones when the two were in a maximum security cell block at Tennessee Prison for Women.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129287/Christa-Pike-appeal-Youngest-woman-death-row-denies-trying-kill-fellow-inmate-Tennessee-prison.html

Here's the link