The scope of this isn't limited to this extremism-leaning effort currently, but to others, and we need to keep in mind other details I listed earlier, elsewhere, when considering this and the necessity by those objecting to the details in this case not to risk extremism in the name of “reform” — to put things into their proper perspective (which dispels so much of and so many claims of “cruel” or “unusual”):

We know about maturation of the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex and of judgment. (Yet, lefties constantly demand lowering of the age for things like not only drinking, but also voting, down often at least to age sixteen. Why?)

That is not the only issue at stake. Also at issue is the nature of serious crimes committed, as well as the obvious fact about humanity, that after age 6-7 young people are expected to know the difference between right and wrong. Another item: murder is not the only crime that merits consideration for life imprisonment, or death, obviously. Nobody can claim with a straight face, or imply, that only murder is such a crime at issue here.

Common sense and sound judgment should prevail. Age 6-7 is the “age of reason” and expectation of distinguishing between right and wrong, but we don't expect to execute or imprison for life anybody that young (this isn't old England, hanging little pickpockets or shoplifters). Age 12 or onward is where serious crimes merit serious sentences, or around the pre-teen or pre-pubescent to pubescent threshold. From there on, just as rights and privileges grow, so should responsibilities and penalties for crime — obviously.

I don't know – I'm always wanting a little more research. And even here in Cleveland, we have this absolutely horrific case of the guy who is alleged to have raped and murdered 11 women, after having already served for rape and then being judged okay to be released. So…you know, the “mistakes” in judgement are what scare everyone. And those mistakes result in scary consequences, no question.

But even so…we have to ask ourselves what kind of people we are and what are we willing to trade off. And then there's the whole reality that people in general just don't give enough thought to these issues.

Which is why we have TMV! Thanks for the discussion. I think that's very cool that you serve on a state juvie detention center's board.

I have personally spoken with the parents of kids who did nothing worse than Simpson suggests he did, but once in the system they ended up in a state facility. I have spoken with parents who thought they would teach their kid a Simpson-type lesson, only to find that once the police were involved, there was no way out. Our culture has clearly moved from a Restorative Justice place to a wholly Retributive Justice system. It's far simpler to have a black and white, zero tolerance, absolute position than it is to navigate the reality of a world where circumstances matter.

We don't pay for the justice system we need to manage the punitive laws we pass, and that inevitably means innocents swept into it. Even if you disagree with that, you might agree that the result of warehoused criminals is not likely to be reformed citizens, chastened and contributing to the community when they're released.

News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8

During law school, we spend a decent amount of time in criminal law class examining what it is that people want out of sentencing. Punishment is big, of course, but there are other reasons, and of course not all lawyers – or people – support all or even the same sanctions for different or even the same crimes. And when it's you or someone you love involved, well then, there's that too.

I've never ever thought in terms of “which is preferable” in terms of which is more or less cruel, depending on what we're seeking to accomplish (in other words, some people I suspect want to be as cruel as they can be when thinking about sentencing, others don't and so on). So if you're saying you think that I personally would “prefer” a quick execution – I have to tell you, I really can't even get into the mindset of thinking about that. I just don't look at sentences that way, at all.

As I wrote, I think Alan Simpson is far closer to what we should be thinking about when it comes to juveniles. It's our job, those of us who feel that way, to project and protect and persuade toward that belief as best we can. If we don't, who will?

Young people are reflection of their parents and the culture into which they are born. Maturity is a complex gradual biological and learning process. There are difference between physical, emotional, and intellectual maturity, both across age groups and individuals. The law draws a single line, if for no other reason, because it's easier that way.

By the logic of the comments so far, these kids would be better off being put to death. What I read here is that they should pay for their offenses. I see payment as pointless. My goal is that they not commit a crime again. Our system, as it stand now, serves only to warehouse and train hardened criminals.

My interpretation of “cruel and unusual,” indeed any interpretation other than that of the courts', is irrelevant. But a life spent in prison seems more cruel than a life cut short through a quick execution. I wouldn't be surprised to find you agree a quick execution is preferable. And I wouldn't be surprised if a culture dominated by people with that view is a violent, criminal, and cruel one.

From that you can guess that I oppose life without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenses.