16 year old sentenced to 36 years for felony robbery.

dlofnep

Browsing youtube, I came across this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3lw6PMjj40

It follows a number of youths, who have been sentenced as an adult and are kept in an adult prison (confined to a specific youth wing). One kid who is 15 got 30 years for killing his stepfather. It doesn't explain his motives, so it's difficult to comment on the circumstances of it and the rights/wrongs of the sentence.

However, one case that I found troubling was a kid who was 16 who was sentenced to 36 years for felony robbery. After hearing of his sentence, he wrote his parents a suicide note and hung himself - only to be rescued at the last minute. In his situation, I would probably have done the same.

Now, I'm all for punishing and rehabilitating young kids who fall on the wrong side of the law.. But 36 years is insanely excessive.

I know we have problems in Ireland with some sentencing being too lenient, but could anyone ever see it as justifiable to sentence a 16 year old to 36 years for robbery? In my view, 2 years in a juvenile home where he could rehabilitate would be a much more productive (and cheaper to the tax-payer) solution. The kid in question is apparently now a model prisoner, who's engaging deeply in education. But ultimately, it is a futile exercise as he'll be in prison until he is 52 - during which he will probably transform from a troubled youth into a genuine criminal. Such are the ways of prison.

This documentary is shocking. America's justice system is seriously messed up. Thoughts?

Red Hand

Justice system is sh*t/too lenient...justice system is too harsh.

AH, would ye ever just make up yer minds?

minidazzler

Red Hand wrote: »

Justice system is sh*t/too lenient...justice system is too harsh.

AH, would ye ever just make up yer minds?

Justice system is just wrong. It should be about rehabilitation, but it's really about punishment.

Rayne Wooney

dlofnep wrote: »

America's justice system is seriously messed up. Thoughts?

And in Ireland you get away with rape if you have a lot of money.

Pottler

minidazzler wrote: »

Justice system is just wrong. It should be about rehabilitation, but it's really about punishment.

3 years is punishment, 36 years is damnation.

Chancer3001

that'll learn him etc etc

DarkJager

That's the right job for it. These young scumbags feel invincible from the law due to their age. Sentences like this knock that sense of invincibility out of them. No sympathy for him and we should have equivalent sentences for our own little scumbags in this country.

My name is URL

The way they implement the '3 strikes' rule is insanely rigid and counterproductive. There are tens of thousands of young adults serving massive sentences for being caught with drugs.

HondaSami

That sentence is harsh, i would be all for helping them turn their life around first and if that did not work then fair enough harsh sentence it is.

100200 shih

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

And in Ireland you get away with rape if you have a lot of money.

you don't have to have money to get away with rape in Ireland !! Just say sorry & promise you will never do it again & out the door they go

Red Hand

My name is URL wrote: »

The way they implement the '3 strikes' rule is insanely rigid and counterproductive. There are tens of thousands of young adults serving massive sentences for being caught with drugs.

Are the drugs they are caught with, legal?

aN.Droid

A justice system is hard to get right.

You have countries like America which would not even be the worst in the world for prison standards but yet they are still known as training camps for criminals. Con's go in and come out worse. Not applicable to some though as some are genuinely rehabilitated.

Then you have the other end of the scale such as norway where you have prisons such as this one: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083_2137372,00.html

To quote wikipedia:
The maximum determinate penalty is 21 years imprisonment, but only a small percentage of prisoners serve more than 14 years. Prisoners will typically get unsupervised parole for weekends etc. after serving ⅓ of their sentence (a maximum of 7 years) and can receive early release after serving ⅔ of their sentence (a maximum of 14 years). In 2008, to fulfill its requirements under the Rome Statute, Norway created a new maximal penalty of 30 years for crimes against humanity.

Do you think this is too lenient to have so much comfort in a prison. The guards even play sport with them to promote relations between them. The guards aren't even considered guards, they are rehabilitation agents or something along those lines.

From what I understand the Norway system works very well but I can understand that it must be very expensive to implement something like that so you come back to places like Ireland that is somewhere in between. Inmates have comfort but not too much and the country can't afford them so usually give short sentences or are released early.

I don't know. It's a tough one.

mikemac1

I don't understand this tried as an adult lark

Either you are an adult or you a minor

Why does it change case to case?

dlofnep

DarkJager wrote: »

That's the right job for it. These young scumbags feel invincible from the law due to their age. Sentences like this knock that sense of invincibility out of them. No sympathy for him and we should have equivalent sentences for our own little scumbags in this country.

So, all emotion aside - you firmly believe that 36 years for robbery is an apt punishment? You don't feel that 2-3 years, with focus on rehabilitation and education would be a better investment?

Let's say we imprison every thief (petty and more) to 36 years. What next? Well, we have an unsustainable prison population and zero rehabilitation.

I was a troubled youth. I used to hang out with the wrong crowd, and I was a wee bit of a scumbag. I acknowledge it. I failed my leaving cert, and felt hopeless. But I turned my life around, got away from drugs and the ilk that came with them - and went back to college and earned a degree. I know lots of my old friends who didn't, 3 of which who committed suicide because they were unable to escape the trap of poverty and lower class society. Had I have been sent to prison, I would have lost every last nuance of faith in myself, and would be on the wrong side of society right now.

Treat a person like slime, and they'll act like it. Give them some love, respect and faith - and they'll learn to love and respect themselves.

My name is URL

Red Hand wrote: »

Are the drugs they are caught with, legal?

Obviously not... but that shouldn't warrant being sent to prison for 25+ years.

aN.Droid

mikemac1 wrote: »

I don't understand this tried as an adult lark

Either you are an adult or you a minor

Why does it change case to case?

I believe if the crime they commit is so heinous then they are tried as an adult as it is believed that a child could not be responsible for such actions and would get a lighter sentence. Which they do not want.

3ndahalfof6

We are the minions.

Privately-run prisons present an issue as more prisoners=more income and corruption can follow. A judge was sentenced to a few years for taking kickbacks from a prison for being overly-harsh with his sentencing, a silly thing like a teenager having a bong resulting in a year in prison being the example mentioned in the article.

mikemac1

dlofnep wrote: »

Treat a person like slime, and they'll act like it. Give them some love, respect and faith - and they'll learn to love and respect themselves.

The Brits had this

The media called it hug a hoodie :P

The King of Moo

DarkJager wrote: »

That's the right job for it. These young scumbags feel invincible from the law due to their age. Sentences like this knock that sense of invincibility out of them. No sympathy for him and we should have equivalent sentences for our own little scumbags in this country.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Some might feel like that, others would be well aware of the risks of getting caught and punished. You can't generalise about all 16-year olds everywhere, living in countries with different justice systems.

And do you really think it takes 36 years to teach them that crime doesn't pay? That's a very, very long time, and takes away basically the most crucial part of adult life from a person. Do you think that doing that to a person is necessary to punish them for a robbery and to teach them a moral lesson everyone knows at least by young adulthood? Do you think a few years in prison is an easy experience that might not communicate this lesson more quickly?
Do you entirely disregard the fact that this young man has clearly been rehabilitated to a great extent and turned his life around, but will be denied the chance to benefit society and provide a good example to young potential criminals by being locked up?

My name is URL

Very good article about mandatory sentencing in the NY Times froma couple of weeks ago

Stephanie George and Judge Roger Vinson had quite different opinions about the lockbox seized by the police from her home in Pensacola. She insisted she had no idea that a former boyfriend had hidden it in her attic. Judge Vinson considered the lockbox, containing a half-kilogram of cocaine, to be evidence of her guilt.

“Even though you have been involved in drugs and drug dealing,” Judge Vinson told Ms. George, “your role has basically been as a girlfriend and bag holder and money holder but not actively involved in the drug dealing, so certainly in my judgment it does not warrant a life sentence.”

Yet the judge had no other option on that morning 15 years ago. As her stunned family watched, Ms. George, then 27, who had never been accused of violence, was led from the courtroom to serve a sentence of life without parole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/science/mandatory-prison-sentences-face-growing-skepticism.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=2&

Crazy stuff

DarkJager

dlofnep wrote: »

So, all emotion aside - you firmly believe that 36 years for robbery is an apt punishment? You don't feel that 2-3 years, with focus on rehabilitation and education would be a better investment?

Let's say we imprison every thief (petty and more) to 36 years. What next? Well, we have an unsustainable prison population and zero rehabilitation.

I was a troubled youth. I used to hang out with the wrong crowd, and I was a wee bit of a scumbag. I acknowledge it. I failed my leaving cert, and felt hopless. But I turned my life around, got away from drugs and the ilk that came with them - and went back to college and earned a degree. I know lots of my old friends who didn't, 3 of which who committed suicide because they were unable to escape the trap of poverty and lower class society. Had I have been sent to prison, I would have lost every last nuance of faith in myself, and would be on the wrong side of society right now.

Treat a person like slime, and they'll act like it. Give them some love, respect and faith - and they'll learn to love and respect themselves.

Yes I do, because he certainly won't be trying that again when he gets out. If it was up to me I'd have a 3 strikes rule, but not 3 strikes and you go to prison for a long time. If you end up in prison 3 times, it should be an automatic death sentence. If the first 2 stretches haven't educated someone to change from a scumbag to a decent human being, then there's no point allowing the cycle to continue. They obviously have nothing to offer society and no intention of reforming so strap them in and spark them up.

We are too soft in this country with this talk of rehabilitation and lenient sentences. Every week I read stories about some scrote with 20+ previous convictions gettin suspended sentences because they had a "tough childhood" or some other bull**** excuse. I say **** them. 20+ times in front of a court means that person is ingrained in the ways of being a scumbag and has no intention to change. Sure, we could just send them to prison, give them the kid gloves treatment and then release them, at which point they simply go and act the bollox again. Ultra severe prison terms and a threat of death would stop quite a few of those types in their tracks.

aN.Droid

DarkJager wrote: »

Yes I do, because he certainly won't be trying that again when he gets out. If it was up to me I'd have a 3 strikes rule, but not 3 strikes and you go to prison for a long time. If you end up in prison 3 times, it should be an automatic death sentence. If the first 2 stretches haven't educated someone to change from a scumbag to a decent human being, then there's no point allowing the cycle to continue. They obviously have nothing to offer society and no intention of reforming so strap them in and spark them up.

We are too soft in this country with this talk of rehabilitation and lenient sentences. Every week I read stories about some scrote with 20+ previous convictions gettin suspended sentences because they had a "tough childhood" or some other bull**** excuse. I say **** them. 20+ times in front of a court means that person is ingrained in the ways of being a scumbag and has no intention to change. Sure, we could just send them to prison, give them the kid gloves treatment and then release them, at which point they simply go and act the bollox again. Ultra severe prison terms and a threat of death would stop quite a few of those types in their tracks.

That view is pretty much as flawed as any to be honest. If the death sentence was a good deterrent then the prisons in say texas for instance would be empty rather then overflowing.

Rehabilitation rather than punishment is the way to go.

I mean by all means keep someone in prison for a full term of 30 years if thats what it takes to rehabilitate them but don't just leave them in there without the chance to better themselfs and educate themselfs.

Some sort of mandatory prison school system would be a good idea.

In Brazil, prisoners can reduce sentences four days by reading books and submitting book reports, cutting off up to 48 days each year.

dlofnep

DarkJager wrote: »

Yes I do, because he certainly won't be trying that again when he gets out. If it was up to me I'd have a 3 strikes rule, but not 3 strikes and you go to prison for a long time. If you end up in prison 3 times, it should be an automatic death sentence.

So, someone ends up in prison 3 times for drug abuse - You would call for the death sentence? I can see you've given this deep thought.

DarkJager wrote: »

Ultra severe prison terms and a threat of death would stop quite a few of those types in their tracks.

That's not what's reflected in reality. Harsh prison sentences or the death penalty do not prevent crime in most cases.

My name is URL

DarkJager wrote: »

Yes I do, because he certainly won't be trying that again when he gets out. If it was up to me I'd have a 3 strikes rule, but not 3 strikes and you go to prison for a long time. If you end up in prison 3 times, it should be an automatic death sentence.

What, for any offense that leads to prison time? You don't think it's a bit arbitrary? In the US for example, copyright infringement is a criminal offense and can lead to jail terms. Under the 3 strikes law; if such a thing was to befall a person; they could be sentenced to life. Would you want them put to death... because that's the sort of lunacy that ensues from those things.

Holsten

Norway has a brilliant system, based on rehabilitation. I believe they have some of, if not THE lowest rates of recidivism in the entire world.

Now contrast that with the States, once you're a felon they make it EXTREMELY hard to fit back into normal life.

Harsher sentences do NOTHING for stopping crime at all.

ITS_A_BADGER

DarkJager wrote: »

Yes I do, because he certainly won't be trying that again when he gets out. If it was up to me I'd have a 3 strikes rule, but not 3 strikes and you go to prison for a long time. If you end up in prison 3 times, it should be an automatic death sentence. If the first 2 stretches haven't educated someone to change from a scumbag to a decent human being, then there's no point allowing the cycle to continue. They obviously have nothing to offer society and no intention of reforming so strap them in and spark them up.

We are too soft in this country with this talk of rehabilitation and lenient sentences. Every week I read stories about some scrote with 20+ previous convictions gettin suspended sentences because they had a "tough childhood" or some other bull**** excuse. I say **** them. 20+ times in front of a court means that person is ingrained in the ways of being a scumbag and has no intention to change. Sure, we could just send them to prison, give them the kid gloves treatment and then release them, at which point they simply go and act the bollox again. Ultra severe prison terms and a threat of death would stop quite a few of those types in their tracks.

Thats a bit of a strong approach 3 strikes = death. I rather have them made to study the leaving cert as alot of them might not have it. Or give them some sort of education like a craft or some new skill so that when they would be released they would have leaned something to get themselves a job

Froyo

DarkJager wrote: »

If you end up in prison 3 times, it should be an automatic death sentence.

Bloody hell. Have you had a few beers too?

This is completely mental!

dlofnep

Holsten wrote: »

Norway has a brilliant system, based on rehabilitation. I believe they have some of, if not THE lowest rates of recidivism in the entire world.

This should be the most important qualifier for how to implement a prison system.

long range shooter

Holsten wrote: »

Norway has a brilliant system, based on rehabilitation. I believe they have some of, if not THE lowest rates of recidivism in the entire world.

Now contrast that with the States, once you're a felon they make it EXTREMELY hard to fit back into normal life.

Harsher sentences do NOTHING for stopping crime at all.

Yes one of the best systems in the world,and it works.

Norway is much less repressive than America is. Norway has one of the lowest incarceration rates in Europe at 66 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 738 per 100,000 inhabitants in the U.S.

Spunge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ZxdSXTLx8

Froyo

Thinking out loud: if we had a much lower rate of reoffenders, we would perhaps have a much higher rate of unemployment, given they're not in prison and the current economic climate.

Not saying it as a solution to tougher sentences but... Worth mentioning maybe?

Ah I'm going to get off boards and get another beer.

Eathrin

I believe in punishment for people who commit crimes, 36 years is clearly excessive though.

Emphasis should be on preventing children committing crimes in the first place.

aN.Droid

Froyo wrote: »

Thinking out loud: if we had a much lower rate of reoffenders, we would perhaps have a much higher rate of unemployment, given they're not in prison and the current economic climate.

Not saying it as a solution to tougher sentences but... Worth mentioning maybe?

Ah I'm going to get off boards and get another beer.

It costs the state MUCH more to imprison someone then for them to the on the live register even getting rent allowance and a medical card.

long range shooter

He should have been sent to an army school instead of prison.
What he needs is to be taught proper manners.
To send him to prison for 36 years!!!Is it any point letting himout when the time comes???

Capt'n Midnight

Red Hand wrote: »

Are the drugs they are caught with, legal?

They are now in some states.

Overheal

Red Hand wrote: »

Justice system is sh*t/too lenient...justice system is too harsh.

AH, would ye ever just make up yer minds?

Your justice system is ****ed, how about? /I know I know, pot-kettle-black

minidazzler

Eathrin wrote: »

I believe in punishment for people who commit crimes, 36 years is clearly excessive though.

Why do you believe in something that clearly doesn't work? Rehabilitation works far better than punitive action.

crockholm

Is it worth remembering that the victims of said criminals might like to see punishment/justice meted out. It may not be "christian" but victims might feel better that their sufferings have not been trivialized and forgotten in the rush to exonerate the criminal with the usual spiel of "broken home, problems with alcohol etc etc".
How about, first punish, then rehabilitate.
Fair?

Grayson

Limericks wrote: »

In Brazil, prisoners can reduce sentences four days by reading books and submitting book reports, cutting off up to 48 days each year.

A judge here tried that and said he would knock off part of a sentance if the prisioner did his leaving. He was reemed out of it.

Remember, people don't want to see a prisioner rehabilitated. And they don't want to see crime ,as a social issue, get better. What people want is to see criminals get punished and only punished. they'd prefer to see someone leave prison a career criminal, but punished rather than see a criminal turn productive.

juan.kerr

To be honest I'd rather they were in jail than out on the street amassing hundreds of convictions.

It would be one thing if these people didnt know about the '3 strikes' rule, but it isn't exactly a secret.

As for punishment versus rehabilitation...can someone with 100 convictions ever be rehabilitated, even if they want to be (which is highly doubtful)?

Chinasea

I think it is important not to lose the point while focusing on the extreme. I haven't looked at the attached 45 minute documentary, but believe that our legal system is failing law abiding citizens in this country.

Look at the track records of many of the criminals and so called petty criminals that come to the forefront, they have multiple hideous convictions notched up, and not just 1 or 2, more like 40 plus....and are freely walking our streets propped up the welfare system.

We are failing here to address law and order, Dublin City will be absoutely savage tonight. I know so many people who will not go into town for this reason. I can't say I have felt this in many other cities that I have lived.

Grayson

juan.kerr wrote: »

As for punishment versus rehabilitation...can someone with 100 convictions ever be rehabilitated, even if they want to be (which is highly doubtful)?

I really can't be bothered googling this, but yes they can. Think of it this way, for you to be right, it would mean that no-one has ever been rehabilitated. For me to be right, only one person has to have been to prove that people can be rehabilitated.

Plus, have we actually tried rehabilitating these guys? Our system isn't designed for it because it's always been a case of "lock em up if they get too bothersome".

If you picked 50 teenagers who each have say a minimum of 20 convictions for smaller non violent crimes, what efforts are actually made to rehabilitate them? maybe one or two have had some effort made, but most are just given a slap on the wrist each time.

I honrestly have no problem with seeing criminals locked away, but i want to make sure that the time is beneficial to them and therefore beneficial to us. If they just come out tougher criminals, we're failing everyone.

Beefy78

I believe that prisons should primarily be about rehabilition for the greater good of society as a whole but it's not open and shut. There needs to be an element of punishment in there as well. Some crimes deserve sentences which are not primarily about whether or not the time is beneficial to them.

Park Royal

I would like to see additional options for sanctions .....

such as "house arrest"...for what ever period , as per case by case.....if applicable....

Short term "out and about camps/ huts".......( concentration camps)...for suitable citizens....

together with more high profile "community service hours" .....

as for those who refuse to go to school or get a job......and are continual offenders.....continual detention in an educational facility ( concentration camp) until they could read and write and apply to do their driving licence.....even if it took four years.....how citizens who obviously cant read or write get driving licences beats me....

remembering the brain of a male does not fully develop until late twenties...
hence reason a lot of them like .....drinking cansopuss.....

TheDoc

The world needs to shed its cotton wool.

Crime needs to be punished, now "rehabilitation" or any of these absolute money sinks for tax payers. Lavish prisons, facilities, counselling, all this bollox.

There needs to be a deterant from crime, there has to be a reason for you NOT to want to commit one. An even more interesting documentary, Irish based, is the "inmate in the revolving door" who when released will look to commit a crime ASAP as the standards in the prison facility are better then anything they can achieve on their own.

Regardless of age or circumstance, crime cannot be tolerated. Especially in the current age of recession where everyone feels like they have got a bum deal and feels more pressure to commit crime, be it fraud, tax evasion or something more severe.

While we have a system far too leniant, it provides a positive risk for criminals, of any type, to act their crime. A heavy system will be a serious weight on someones head before committing the crime.

Park Royal

How much does it cost to keep an inmate in a prison....

and who pays.....could it be the tax payer?......

How much would be saved if, each year "suitable" persons / those

convicted of a lesser offence were subject to their own home "house arrest"

with monitoring devise attached to arm or leg.......with more severe sanctions

if "house arrest" is breached......of course there would be breaches but in

the mean time the "tax payer" would save tens of thousands per person and

the convicted person would not be immediately surrounded with hardened

criminals...I would prefer to hear of ADDITIONAL feasible alternative sanction

options , rather than generalisations....