Life without parole for children

YouTube Video

Quote:

Support Freedom Of Trafficking Victim Sara Kruzan (Criminal Justice - Change.org)

There are approximately 225 juveniles in California serving a life without parole sentence. California has the worst racial disparity rate in the nation for sentencing juveniles to life without parole. Black youth are given this sentence at 22 times the rate of white youth.

A number of California cases have recently been highlighted in the media due to the background of the juveniles who received the sentences, and the circumstances surrounding their crimes. One such case involves Sara Kruzan, now 28. She was raised in Riverside by her abusive, drug-addicted mother. Sara met her father only three times in her life because he was in prison.

Since the age of 9, Sara suffered from severe depression for which she was hospitalized several times. At the age of 11, she met a 31-year-old man named G.G. who molested her and began grooming her to become a prostitute. At age 13, she began working as a child prostitute for G.G. and was repeatedly molested by him. At age 16, Sara was convicted of killing him. She was sentenced to prison for the rest of her life despite her background and a finding by the California Youth Authority that she was amendable to treatment offered in the juvenile system.

“Life without parole means absolutely no opportunity for release,” said Senator Yee. (of California) “It also means minors are often left without access to programs and rehabilitative services while in prison. This sentence was created for the worst of criminals that have no possibility of reform and it is not a humane way to handle children. While the crimes they committed caused undeniable suffering, these youth offenders are not the worst of the worst.”

“As a society we’ve learned a lot since the time we started using life without parole for children,” said Elizabeth Calvin, a children’s rights advocate with Human Rights Watch. “We now know that this sentence provides no deterrent effect. While children who commit serious crimes should be held accountable, public safety can be protected without subjecting youth to the harshest prison sentence possible.”

Fuck this country

How ya doing, buddy?

21 to 1 you say? Well maybe if they dressed appropriately in court they wouldn't receive such harsh sentences.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Randi

The title for this thead is entirely misleading and dramatic.

I'm not saying that the judge did right in this particular case, but if the circumstances were different, I definitely wouldn't say that a 16-year-old qualifies as a child. By that time, you're entirely aware of the consequences that come with committing heinous crimes.

This is completely false and backed up by decades of adolescent psychology. Adolescents do not have the brain development which renders them capable of higher moral reasoning, not that they do not have a concept of right or wrong but that they're not sufficiently prepared to appreciate the consequences of their actions. This scientific evidence was even cited by SCOTUS in their decision which struck down the Juvenile Death Penalty a few years ago.

SCOTUS is reviewing two cases from Florida regarding young men sentenced to JVLWOP for non-violent offenses. Initial questioning in court makes it look like it will be a 5-4 decision in January either in favor of or against human dignity.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Lauro

I don't know anything about the actual court proceedings but here's my dumbass opinion, durr durr durrrrrr

Incompetence of advocacy is a common theme when it comes to kids sentenced to JVLWOP.

This Frontline from 2007 features at least two kids whose court-appointed attorneys demonstrated massive incompetence.

Additional Spam:
Those 21 to 1 odds are statistically significant indicators that race played a role in her sentencing, by the way.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It's amazing how shocked old cracker judges are when adolescents don't respect a court of law.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm too busy to go looking up research for the old SCOTUS case, but that Frontline I linked to makes it apparent, and cites psychologists.

Quote:

I really cannot say whether she should be in jail in my opinion.

She certainly shouldn't be in jail now. She should have been rehabilitated and allowed to re-enter society when she reached the Age of Majority.

Most amazing jew boots

You don't buy what? That somebody who received a sentence disproportionate to their crime should not have it commuted?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?