Eight Amendment Issue or Children's rights by dreamtrove

I hate the death penalty, and I like life imprisonment without parole only slightly more. Speaking from a socio-economic perspective, you're throwing away someone's entire potential for service to the community or production. That's stupid.

It also costs a heck of a lot more money to pay for food and shelter for people as opposed to them earning and providing it for themselves. Also costs money to execute someone "humanely," moreso, I hear, than even the cost for imprisoning them.

Stupid, stupid waste of life.

On the other hand, a non-homicide could include the possibility of rape, and when we're not talking about bullshit trumped up charges like statutory rape committed by TEENAGERS, it's very hard to rehabilitate actual bona-fide rapists.

Still, I do think that for minors, this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I think for a while there, there was a lot of movement towards "tough love" in the justice department for all these supposed juvenile delinquent hoodlums running around. I don't think a minor should ever really be charged as an adult, I don't even want to try to contemplate the thought processes of the attorneys who salivated and jumped at the opportunity when that precedence was first set.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 8:29 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I have an issue with treating children as adults when, as a society, we absolutely REFUSE to treat them as adults. Hell, we don't even treat them as human.

It's ironic - you can get arrested for statutory rape for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl if you yourself are also 15 - but then you can be tried for that "rape" as an adult, and sent to adult prison as an adult.

I know there are plenty of people who think that folks are just "born bad", but I'm loathe to throw away a teen's entire life for what would be, if they were an elected official, little more than "a momentary lapse of judgment". And I'm reluctant to throw kids in prison for life without parole for doing things that, if done by OUR soldiers in the name of protecting OUR country, would be cheered as "heroic" and "brave", or at the very worse, would get them branded as "a few bad apples".

But maybe that's just me...

If you aren't willing to extend the full legal and societal rights of adults to children, you don't get to apply the full judicial punishments of adults to them. Seems pretty fair to me.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 8:45 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
One issue which comes to mind is that a teen involved in a robbery or perhaps aggravated trespassing does not have the same background to be able to organize a legal defense as an adult would.

Is this law and order or state sponsored genocide?

Your issue about ability to organize a defense is one they will consider. This is a complex decision and will contain many complicated issues such as the one you mention.

It cannot, however, be genocide unless you may not know the definition of genocide.

Whether or not it is cruel and unusual is complicated. It is certainly not unusual since it is common practice to try older children accused of serious offenses as adults.

Imprisoning a child for life can be cruel. Are we to assume that a teenager lacks the ability to grow and reform? While I cannot go that far neither can we ignore the consequences of their crimes.

Mostly cases like this make me sad since I can find no solution to satisfy either the interest of the child or the interests of the victim. I am forced in these cases to make a value judgement based upon the person I see before me and the crime they have committed, not the person they might someday become and the good they might someday do. Very sad.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 8:55 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's ironic - you can get arrested for statutory rape for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl if you yourself are also 15 - but then you can be tried for that "rape" as an adult, and sent to adult prison as an adult.

While your observation may have once been true, it is now the law in most states that there be an age difference. Also, if the older child is still a minor, such a 17 with 13, then its a different offense. Also, minor sex offenders are handled differently.

Quote:

I know there are plenty of people who think that folks are just "born bad", but I'm loathe to throw away a teen's entire life for what would be...if they were an elected official "a momentary lapse of judgment"...if done by OUR soldiers in the name of protecting OUR country, would be cheered as "heroic" and "brave"

Thats pretty much a load of crap.

Quote:

If you aren't willing to extend the full legal and societal rights of adults to children, you don't get to apply the full judicial punishments of adults to them. Seems pretty fair to me.

Seems fair to you? Fine. That's your opinion, but it flies in the face of hundreds of years of legal precedent and the laws of EVERY State and most if not every nation on Earth.

Children are not adults, they cannot make decisions as adults, their rights are exercised on their behalf by their parents in trust, but they still have them, same as everybody else. Trying them as adults recognizes that some minors can form the requisite Mens Rea to commit the offense and the consequences and State interests are severe enough to overcome the presumptions in the child's favor.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If you aren't willing to extend the full legal and societal rights of adults to children, you don't get to apply the full judicial punishments of adults to them. Seems pretty fair to me.

Annnnd Mikey one-shots it straight out of the park.

Was a time when I found great irony in the fact that I was legally old enough to slaughter in the name american imperialism with a heavy machinegun...

But not old enough to legally drink, get laid, vote, or even operate the beef slicer at the local fast food joint I was part-timing for to obtain pocket money.

Does it never occur to anyone that their grudge against us might have something to do with holding them to adult standards, responsibilities, and penalties while not offering them any of the rights ?

A child does not magically morph into an adult on the spot when they become eighteen, it's an incremental, ongoing process, and towards the end of it, typical mistreatment results in a fairly profound backlash effect immediately after, often with disastrous results as "parents" have either via overprotection, or by treating their children as servants, rivals or prisoners, have denied them the critical life skills they NEED to survive alone at an age when no one will take them seriously.

And yes, this DOES lead to crime, often enough.

One thing I would propose, in situations like this, came out of my thoughts towards the negligence of the therapist who failed in his duty to act with regard to Cho...

If it comes clear that the child in this position has petitioned the legal or social system for aid and been denied, or has been "serviced" by the juvenile "justice" system previously...

Those folk involved in the decision making which lead to the situation at hand damned well ought to be held responsible for their part in creating it.

But no, they're adults, humans, people...
And the perp is just a kid, a subhuman, non-human, unperson with no rights who can be treated with impunity - and better to lock them up for all time than maybe deal with the inevitable consequences of their retaliation when they DO legally become people, right ?

Cause there WILL be consequences.
In the words of my niece, echoed by so many uncountable others...
"They better hope I die before eighteen, hope to hell, because if I don't...."

Problem with your assessment though, Mikey - is any assumption whatever that the "justice" system is any kind of fair in the first place.

-Frem
"The decision rests... with you."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 9:13 AM

Quote:
Seems fair to you? Fine. That's your opinion, but it flies in the face of hundreds of years of legal precedent and the laws of EVERY State and most if not every nation on Earth.

Are we making law as a moral authority arguments now?

Kwicko made a statement about fairness, not the legality of it. Perhaps "fairness" is an arbitrary term, but I'm inclined to agree with him, and I second the opinion that trying a minor as an adult is unjust no matter what the law says, or what the justifications for the law are.

I think that would be why this very issue and those same precedents are under review.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 9:52 AM

DRAGO

I think it's a suitable action in the case of premeditated murder. At that point the 'child' has shown a combination of childish immaturity and the capability of extreme violence that are a very dangerous combination. They should not be allowed to just walk for being children who didn't know better, when it's obvious they did know better, and didn't care, and in all likelihood wouldn't care again.

In the case of other crimes I don't think they should be tried as adults or sent to 'adult' prisons, but my reasoning is more practical than moral - Thanks to our practice of imprisoning people for what are otherwise minor infractions, the US has a major prison population problem. We already literally do not have enough room for all the adults caught smoking joints we throw into jails and prisons, we do not need to swarm them with a sudden influx of 'children' caught doing the same thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 10:10 AM

Quote:
I think it's a suitable action in the case of premeditated murder. At that point the 'child' has shown a combination of childish immaturity and the capability of extreme violence that are a very dangerous combination. They should not be allowed to just walk for being children who didn't know better, when it's obvious they did know better, and didn't care, and in all likelihood wouldn't care again.

Well, but the issue IS strictly non-homicide...

I mean, yeah, okay, things get a little more murky when there's someone never going to breathe or laugh or cry again.

I'm still very much of the school that two wrongs don't make a right, adult or minor. And life-time incarceration is still kind of too an eye for an eye for me. People can change, especially when it involves naturally becoming more mature. People who don't change, even someone who seems like a monster can still have an important role. I'm not religious, but I don't think that's anyone's place to judge.

Quote:
In the case of other crimes I don't think they should be tried as adults or sent to 'adult' prisons, but my reasoning is more practical than moral - Thanks to our practice of imprisoning people for what are otherwise minor infractions, the US has a major prison population problem. We already literally do not have enough room for all the adults caught smoking joints we throw into jails and prisons, we do not need to swarm them with a sudden influx of 'children' caught doing the same thing.

I concede the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 10:32 AM

Quote:
Posted by "Hero":

Thats pretty much a load of crap.

So you WEREN'T one of the ones cheering the torture of kidnap victims at Guantanamo Bay? You WEREN'T one of the ones calling our soldiers "brave" and "heroic" in spite of all evidence to the contrary at Abu Ghraib?

THAT is a load of crap.

If you caught a child doing the same things to one of their classmates as our soldiers and contractors have done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo, you'd call them "monsters" and demand that they be locked away for life.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 11:30 AM

DREAMTROVE

Hero,

I'm still not here, so I have to get back to work, just had to say this

Quote:
Hero:

It cannot, however, be genocide unless you may not know the definition of genocide.

And they actually pay you for this lawyer job? [/snark

Sorry, the definition of "genocide" was written down in the UN convention on genocide, which was signed by the US in 1948. I recall posting a few years back when Condi said "I assume everyone knows the UN convention on genocide states" and then managed to misquote it. It comes from the same place as the errors you make here, which is *not* *looking* *things* *up*.

Okay, that said, here it is:

Quote:

Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide

Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:

* (a) Genocide;
* (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
* (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
* (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
* (e) Complicity in genocide.

Okay. Now we have that out of the way, I'd like to return to Articles 2d and 2e.

Any of a number of programs could fall within 2d, especially if they are targeted specific groups. Prison populations in general are, and a whole lot of issues could get pulled in here, and both the left and the right could get a battering, so let's just move on to article 2e.

If you forcibly remove children from society, say, to prison, for in this instance "home invasion" which IIRC, is entering an unlocked home without an invitation, or more generally known to some as "visiting while black," then you are in fact removing children from one group, society and placing them in another group, called prison, a group which does not reproduce, see article 2d again, as in that this is a conceivable motive of lawmakers.

Is there a test I can take to get this job or something? I have a 5th grade education, will that swing it? I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of shortcut for the non-rich.

Quote:
Hero:

Thats pretty much a load of crap.

Oh, my bad, I didn't understand the high level of rhetorical discourse required for the profession. You're right I may not be qualified for the position.

Quote:
Seems fair to you? Fine. That's your opinion, but it flies in the face of hundreds of years of legal precedent and the laws of EVERY State and most if not every nation on Earth.

Actually, children have far fewer rights than they used to, but if you want to go back far enough to places where they were property, than I assume you will have to favor condemning the eating of shelfish, hunting on the King's land, marrying out of class, and the burning of witches.

You would also I assume support legal immunity for those in power, the institution of slavery, the extermination of indigenous peoples, forced adherence to the state religion and the ability to off ones spouse or children.

I think that the long term historical list of international precedents is pretty spotty, but I'm sure that there are still a few Wahabi in the Mujahideen who think that your logic here is perfectly sound.

Frem,

I don't expect the law to be fair, I actually think the whole system is appalling, but the very least it could be is consistent. Say a child murders someone because they were imprisoned, by a parent, which would be legal for the parent to do to their child, "grounding" or whatever, clearly you can do it for 10 years running and get away with it if you're christian enough, but it would not be legal to do to an adult. If the child were to react to that situation in order to get out of it, and their status is *not* taken into consideration, then, well, a certain irony to the whole thing, ain't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 11:49 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you WEREN'T one of the ones cheering the torture of kidnap victims at Guantanamo Bay?

There are no kidnap victims at Guantanamo. If there were, I'd be opposed to their torture.

I note for the record that the only way for a kidnap victim to end up in US custody is if he is kidnapped from home by Al Queda or the Taliban as a child and brainwashed into a soldier for militant Jihadism and then captured on the battlefield.

Quote:

You WEREN'T one of the ones calling our soldiers "brave" and "heroic" in spite of all evidence to the contrary at Abu Ghraib?

Your the one who thinks they are not "brave" or "Heroic" because of a handful of bad apples at Abu Ghraib...and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary such as the almost daily acts of tremendous courage on the battlefield and the heroic efforts we make to save lives of our soldiers and the lives of enemy combatants (such as this fella in Texas who survived four gunshot wounds).

Quote:

If you caught a child doing the same things to one of their classmates as our soldiers and contractors have done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo, you'd call them "monsters" and demand that they be locked away for life.

If their classmates where trying to kill them and destroy America...like those our soldiers are fighting in Afganistan and Iraq...

If I saw a child doing heart surgury I'd call them a monster...because its a child, not a trained heart surgeon. Kids are not soldiers (unless as previously noted they are kidnapped and brainwashed with drugs, sex, and Jihadist rhetoric into pint sized killing machines).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 12:21 PM

Quote:
I note for the record that the only way for a kidnap victim to end up in US custody is if he is kidnapped from home by Al Queda or the Taliban as a child and brainwashed into a soldier for militant Jihadism and then captured on the battlefield.

Umm... Aren't most of the raw recruits for Al Queda young teenagers?

Also got to wonder when they're "recruited" how many of them are given an option.

But this also neglects a number of politically inconvenient folks that were arrested locally and sent to Gitmo. I don't know if you read Frem's thread recently about phony terrorism, where the guy got shot because he resisted arrest? The locals all say he was innocent, just didn't trust the authorities to not be discriminating against him. If he hadn't shot their dog and been shot himself, where do you think he'd have ended up?

Quote:
If their classmates where trying to kill them and destroy America...like those our soldiers are fighting in Afganistan and Iraq...

...I really don't think actually that destroying America is what these people are after? I mean, I don't think that's something that can be done with a few bombs thousands of miles away from American soil. Or even with 9-11.

I think actually what they're after is to send America a message about it's interference in the Middle East. "Death to America!" is just the battle-cry of, yeah, dumb ignorant teenagers who mullahs are shoveling bullcrap into. The LEADERS of the movements know better.

Quote:
If I saw a child doing heart surgury I'd call them a monster...because its a child, not a trained heart surgeon. Kids are not soldiers (unless as previously noted they are kidnapped and brainwashed with drugs, sex, and Jihadist rhetoric into pint sized killing machines).

Doogie Howser is a bastard.

I dunno, man. If some of the conflicts in Africa can tell us anything, it's that children and teenagers actually make the best (read: most fanatic and expendable) soldiers. I don't really think you can hold them accountable for when people exploit them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 12:57 PM

Here's something interesting I found on this. It looks like I'm wrong about Al Qaeda, but then perhaps that should be expected, considering their origins.

However, Palestinian terrorists do tend to be young teenagers.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA5E4.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 1:23 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
There are no kidnap victims at Guantanamo. If there were, I'd be opposed to their torture.

I note for the record that the only way for a kidnap victim to end up in US custody is if he is kidnapped from home by Al Queda or the Taliban as a child and brainwashed into a soldier for militant Jihadism and then captured on the battlefield.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what he's referring to is victims KIDNAPPED by our soldiers--as in people who are taking from their homes on the flimsiest of charges who are later found to be totally innocent.

Yes, one can call it something else, some military term if you wish, but the FACT remains that there have been people at Gitmo who were kidnapped, taken against their will, who did nothing wrong whatsoever. Just clarification of how I read it...

Dunno quite how I feel about children being punished as adults...just like the death penalty, I abhor it but have to view it in a case-by-case way. By the way, it costs MORE to put someone through the full death-penalty procedure and execute them than it does to house them for the rest of their lives sans parole. Just FYI.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 1:49 PM

Hero, I take it you have no respect for the laws of other countries, then? Yet you somehow still seem to expect them to honor OUR laws, and show us any amount of reciprocity?

23 CIA agents and associates were just convicted of kidnapping and other charges in an Italian court of law. You may have heard something about it, but probably not on Fox. Seems they kidnapped the wrong guy - an Egyptian cleric who is known to NOT be either a terrorist OR an enemy combatant - and tortured him.

So once again, you prove that you're pretty much full of crap. For someone who's actually supposed to make a living dealing with facts, you are remarkably shitty at dealing with facts.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 6:16 PM

DREAMTROVE

Oh, great, senseless infighting. I knew I can count on you. Okay, I started it, but still. There was an issue to discuss? Not to be an IRC mod and yell "Topic!" but just to mildly and quietly suggest "topic?"

The topic at hand was the trial of juveniles, and while that could definitely relate to what we refer to as Al Qaeda, it isn't really being discussed here; or in the supreme court for that matter.

I was taking a potshot at Hero because he took a potshot at me, but I'm more interested in the topic, which is why I posted it, than in the ignorance of Hero which I'm very well aware of.

I'm actually not here, and if I were to admit why I'm posting, it's actually that this reply box makes a great spell check, that would be the unfortunate but very honest truth.

Since I'm here, I might as well mention the number of children that we have tried as "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan is appalling, and no, I'm sorry, almost no one being tried as a terrorist was caught in an act of terrorism, since those types are usually dead.

Interesting about the intellectual Al Qaeda. For Al Qaeda itself, I'm sure that's accurate, but we use the term extremely loosely. We now do the same with the term "Taliban." I read recently that there were 3 million enemy combatants on the Afghan side of the border, and a similar number of the Pakistani side, and of those, the total who were actually members of the Taliban militia was 25,000, and the total who were members of Al Qaeda was about 10% of that. Which does bring up the question, who exactly are we fighting?

Aside from the fact that we bomb more civilians than actual combatants, we actually do have enemies who are killing us at an alarming rate, far higher than in Iraq, and I get that the simple definition of enemy combatant here is "people who shoot at us." However I have yet to see even a decent analysis of who that is, or if there is even an organized resistance. It might be that every Afghan with a gun wants us gone to the same degree that if a Jihad were to try to take over america and install Sharia law, we might very well want them gone, and the resistance might be random americans with guns, rather than an actual organized defense (assuming that such as situation wouldn't happen unless there was already no longer a functioning US military.) Maybe this is the situation, maybe these are militias fed by China or Russia or Iran, but I'm not even convinced that anyone knows, and I mean Gates, Obama, McChrystal Take your pick really, does anyone have a clue what we're gotten ourselves into?

Sorry, I strayed from the topic. Anyone have any thoughts on children's rights and the 8th amendment. Personally, I thought this was an open and shut case, but the court is still hung on it, there's a stand off, the conservatives are losing any sort of credibility on this one, and some idiot is waffling in the middle. It's not a state's rights issue, guys, the 8th amendment is in the constitution. Life in prison for minors is definitely both cruel and unusual.

Another ironic touch: The Sniper case, which doesn't apply here, as it does involve homocide, is up at the same time

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 6:31 PM

Hmm, in that case, before we got on the odd Al Qaeda tangent, I'm not even sure HOW, Hero was doing a very good job of playing devil's advocate for the appropriateness of life sentences for minors.

I think a lot of us on these boards advocate for children's rights, but I suppose that if we wanted to understand the other side of the argument, we might try looking up Hero's legal terminology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 9, 2009 11:53 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Black kid + white woman + white jury = automatic life sentence, so the Police State can rape white taxslaves for $5-million.

Legalized kidnapping and ransom.

Average sentence for murder is under 2 years.

5 years for your 2nd murder conviction.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:03 AM

Well, thing is - granting folk like Hero any serious credibility on the matter is a mistake, you see, because it fails to take into account he's not a neutral party - his whole job is to find people guilty whether they are, or aren't, and he plays from a pre-stacked deck to do it.

And if you think the "justice" system deck is stacked for an adult, it's even worse for juveniles.

Firstly, much of the time the parents will not, or cannot, support the kids defense efforts due to financial inability, or pressure from the court, both legal and illegal - there's just so MANY untrackable, unprovable ways they can make your life hell, and many parents are willing to write-off their own kids, especially if they happen to be a "problem" instead of nice obedient little drones, and then cuddle up to bullshit tough-love theories to make themselves feel better about it - I've seen this a thousand times, remember ?

So the kid gets stuck with a public defender, who's whole *job* is to take a dive while putting up just enough of a fight to make the prosecutor look good, in hopes of eventually getting to play the game on the other side of the court with the loaded deck, you see ?

Then there's the cops, and well...
What can I really say I haven't said before - if you think their attitude toward non-cop adults is bad, you ain't seen how they treat kids.
In fact it's SO bad that when the Supreme Court says such things as "there are many legitimate reasons for fleeing from the sight of police." and "fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is not enough to create reasonable suspicion."
(See Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Wardlow )

Also relevant.
Why The Innocent Flee From The Police
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-innocent-flee-from-po
lice.html

It was fairly common back in my day even, in a decent suburban neighborhood to bolt at the sight of police, cause they WOULD shake you down, rough you up - and with no cruiser cam and you just a scummy sub-human who's going to believe you anyway ?

One reason I touch on this - both because being hammered for something you did not do is VERY common in juvie court, and also because it DOES contribute to criminal behavior, since if one feels they're going to pay the price for it no matter what, might as well fucking do it then, right ?
And then onward and downward the spiral goes.

And worth noting is from this story on the topic a particular statement.
Supreme Court to Review Cases of Juveniles Sentenced to Life in Prison
http://www.truthout.org/topstories/110909ms03

For almost two decades, lawmakers and state juvenile justice administrators have mounted an unprecedented assault on youthful offenders -- prosecuting teens in adult court, sending them to military-style boot camps and imposing long sentences as their weapons.

Of course, that's the only mention of hellcamp involvement, but there's a damned lot of it in there, up to and including shit like THIS.

Pa. judges accused of jailing kids for cash
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29142654/

Despite Red Flags About Judges, a Kickback Scheme Flourished
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/28judges.html

And if you think this is an "isolated incident" (gee, why does THAT sound familiar?) then I got some oceanfront property to sell ya - in Kansas!

A commission begins hearings on what went wrong in Luzerne County.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Repairing_broken_justice_11-10-2009.ht
ml
We're STILL trying to sort it out, and STILL no one dares admit how widespread and common this problem is, and STILL many of those kids rot in these places cause it's oh-so-important not to overpunish the adults, but hell with the kids, right ?

Shit, they're BARELY even in trouble for that, the only real charges thrown at em are fucking Tax Evasion and Wire Fraud - do you understand, people ?

You wanna talk about "deserves" life in prison - how bout these two assholes?
All they "deserve" IMHO, is a bullet to the back of the head, without fanfare or ceremony.

But no, they'll get off light and easy, hell they didn't even CHARGE Powell, where's the "justice" in that, I ask you ?

Ain't any, and that's a fact.

So now that we've established just HOW loaded the deck is, let's examine the aftermath, shall we ?

Do you HAVE ANY IDEA just how much a Felony Conviction fucks their life up ?

Can't get a job, no one will rent to you, hinders your credit rating, auto insurance laughs in your face, local cops hassle you non-stop cause you're an automatic default suspect of any crime in the county, and believe me they'll make SURE all your friends and family, if you got any left, know they suspect you've done *something* - they just ain't caught you again yet...
Can't even own or possess a weapon for your own defense, even in your own home if not on you, the list goes on and on, and on.
So what do you have LEFT *but* crime ?
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, folks - when we deliver the FOREVER mark of non-forgiveness, that's a whole lifetime down the tubes cause unless you are wealthy or politically connected, you'll never climb that barrier, NEVER.

And heaven help you if you've bagged the sex offender mark of doom, no one is gonna even ASK why - you're pretty much hosed.
One of my lawyers recent cases was a guy who locked his keys inside and was taking a leak behind his own home while waiting for the locksmith, and his bitchy, gossipy, hateful neighbor who's all in like flynn with the local community (in order words, influential to the wives of the cops and the judge) got his ass dropshot on charges for it.
And then there's Alice - don't even get me started, when REPORTING a crime destroys your life, where's the justice ?

Or maybe you could ask Genarlow Wilson, who was gonna get a one two punch on that front, and the only thing what saved his ass was the public ire brought down on that malicious stupidity - which might I add, happens often enough to people without any connections or publicity, who wind up carrying BOTH labels for ALL ETERNITY, because they pissed off their girlfriends parents.
(and why, I ask you, is it automatically assumed that the boy is the guilty party ?!)

Hell, considering WHAT WE ALREADY DO - Life Imprisonment aint much worse, and death is almost merciful in comparison, isn't it now ?

And locked up in a cell they're of no use to anyone - that punishment should ONLY be reserved for someone so irreparably damaged upstairs that they will never, EVER be safe to let out, and that's damned few people.
It's also a decision I would NOT want in the hands of the "justice" system cause they've proven beyond reasonable doubt that they cannot be trusted with it - that call needs to be made by an independent review board who's identities are held private to avoid influence and harassment by judges, prosecutors and police.

I tend to favor a more rehabilitative model focused on making right the wrong, with temporary incarceration NOT as a punitive measure, but to provide a safe, structured environment where they can make right the wrong they have done without needing to commit further crimes to protect themselves or secure food and lodging.

Someone steals $1500.00 from a business, they work in whatever capacity from menial to professional that they are able to repay the debt, same with damage, or bills from personal injury - preferably FOR that business or person if the option exists, but otherwise for the State, with an oversight board drawn from the community to avoid "company-store" type abuses.

Along with rehabilitation, education and a focus on honest work being a safer, surer route, and the personal self-respect that comes along with it, taking responsibility for ones actions and the consequences, without denial of societys role in causing them, because to DO that robs your program of all credibility and dooms it from the start.

And I did say a SAFE environment, not a goddamn kennel and cauldron of woe which our current institutions both educational and correctional, are.

Sure, it'd be more expensive than prisons - but look at it from this angle.
If we went to a truly therapeutic/rehabilitative model WHILE addressing the root causes which create folks who do these things, over time these programs would be less and less necessary since a sane society wouldn't produce them in the first damned place.

Of course, any program designed to eventually eliminate it's own need won't find much traction in politics, would it now ?

Sick societies create sick people, which is what leads to their destruction, this is and always has been an absolute truth.

Until we as a nation and a people stop embracing sociopathy as the key to success and survival in our society, until we stop worshipping at the bloody dark altar of that monstrous notion...

We will remain entirely responsible for creating twisted souls which strike out against us as either the enemy of all that they believe (which is what folks like me do) or as competitors, which is what these individuals do, because such "crimes" in the service of the State or Corporation are all too often lauded as heroic - and yet the Corporate State we now live in has scant respect for free-enterprise villainry, cause it might lead folk to ask QUESTIONS about WHY such behavior is acceptable in "legitimate" causes, but not for personal ones.

What's the difference between a thug with a gun taking your money, and tax collection ?
Perceived legitimacy.

So long as we continue to legitimize the crimes of society and the state, how dare we take such umbrage at the crimes of individuals, who in comparison to governments, do far less harm.

-Frem
"This is vengeance...
So I am to ferry you to hell."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:21 AM

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I am being too harsh on prosecutors, just remember they're all but exempt from the law themselves, and no matter how blatantly or outrageously they violate it, they are almost never penalized.

Can Prosecutors Be Sued By People They Framed?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120069519

Video: Arizona Officer Swipes Document From Defense File Behind the Back of Defense Counsel in Courtroom
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/04/video-arizona-officer-swipes-docu
ment-from-defense-file-behind-the-back-of-defense-counsel-in-courtroom/

Prosecutorial Lawlessness is its Real Name
http://forejustice.org/wc/prosecutorial_lawlessness_v1_i6.htm

Compound that with assigning the defense an attorney who's more or less a paid dive-taker, and we've already violated anything remotely resembling the Fair Trial required by Constitutional standard and as such, why should the verdict or sentence hold any weight ?

-From

PS, seems China is building their own hellcamps now, only the excuse is internet addiction instead of drug abuse (Straight, Inc. RUNS on this, considering every teen a current, former or potential drug-abuser to justify the need to "treat" them) - but it's the same game, whatever the name.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43701020091105?sp=tr
ue
Funny how despite the harshness of their society, they responded in a faster and more humane way than we did - what's that say about us ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:54 AM

Yikes. Good thing I kept my grades up, I bet my parents would have shipped ME off to an internet bootcamp if I hadn't...

That article has quoted some rather disturbing stuff from those Chinese officials, though. Such as preferring the term "improper use of the internet" to "internet addiction." Considering who's saying it, that doesn't quite mean the same thing to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:05 AM

DREAMTROVE

Byte,

Yes, Chinese justice is a unique point of view, and somewhat Klingon. A friend of mine in China humbly suggested that the next generation of Chinese are going to be behind the rest of the world educationally because they will be afraid to wander the net, discuss topics on forums, etc. I sure hope we don't follow in those footsteps.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If you aren't willing to extend the full legal and societal rights of adults to children, you don't get to apply the full judicial punishments of adults to them. Seems pretty fair to me.

Annnnd Mikey one-shots it straight out of the park.

Was a time when I found great irony in the fact that I was legally old enough to slaughter in the name american imperialism with a heavy machinegun...

But not old enough to legally drink, get laid, vote, or even operate the beef slicer at the local fast food joint I was part-timing for to obtain pocket money.

Thanks for that, Frem. But all credit really SHOULD go to you, who have done so much to educate me in this area, and open my eyes and mind in ways they previously weren't.

Just wanted you to know, you HAVE made a difference and had an impact. Just in case you ever doubted it, if even for a moment.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:30 PM

Quote:
Straight, Inc. RUNS on this, considering every teen a current, former or potential drug-abuser to justify the need to "treat" them

Y'know, in my day it was "PDAP" - the Palmer Drug Abuse Program. That was before DARE programs and the like. And the people who went to PDAP came back dead behind the eyes, and behaved as if they really had been programmed. Which is why they called it a "program", no doubt. And the one thing they absolutely WOULD NOT tell you was what happened to them at PDAP.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:03 PM

Just another tentacle of the same hydra, Mikey.

This'll prove enlightening.
http://fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=25762

Founded on the same government bankroll as Straight, inc. - despite being religous in nature and execution, and their "enforcement" site was Timberlawn, who I've taken three people out of, one of whom is still with us.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:59 PM