Supreme Court Should Listen to Alan Simpson on Juvenile Sentencing
By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole for crimes that do not involve the taking of a life. One of my all-time favorite Republicans, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, made a better argument than any of the lawyers could have—on his spending part of his youth with guns and jail, and facing the possibility of being locked up for good. It's a great read, and very persuasive. In the weeks since he wrote his opinion piece, it's been quoted in newspapers all over the world. You can read it here.
- Check out our political cartoons.
- Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.
- Follow the Thomas Jefferson Street blog on Twitter.
Tags: prison sentences
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (6) | Print
Reader Comments
Let's be fair...
If, as Mr Simpson sugguests, children are dumb and "do not think of the consequences", then no one under the age of 18 should be charged as an adult.
When I was 16 or 17, my friends stole a car. There were 5 of us. I and one of my friends refused to get in the car or help because we knew it was wrong. I also didn't want to go to jail.
Teenagers know what the consequences are, they just don't care.
I.P. Dailey...
the cases going before the supreme court deal with the Constitutionality of sentencing juveniles to life where the crime did NOT result in the taking of a life.
But, to address your argument, the criminal justice system distinguishes between crimes that have the same result based upon the mental state of the actor. If the murder was premeditated, then the murderer is subject to greater punishment. It seems unfair to me to say that mental state is a relevant factor and then fail to acknowledge that children are underdeveloped mentally. How often have we heard someone qualify a criminal's culpability by saying something like, "He had the mental capacity of a ten year old." Clearly, we think an adult with such a disability is not as responsible for his actions as one who has full adult capabilities. Aren't children entitled to the same consideration?
L.P.Dailey
You write of vengeance - not justice. And, you're quite right - I probably would feel differently if someone harmed my children, but that wouldn't make me right - only human.
advertisement
