Elkhart 4: Innocent Boys and Victims to Harsh Law

It’s all over the news, a murder recently happening. They killed an innocent by beating them with a baseball bat and burning their trailer while they were still inside. Given the proper evidence, most states would sentence the murderer to life in prison without parole. So don’t you think if other murderers receive the same punishment this murderer should too? Would your opinion change if they were a 14 year old boy? Many found this punishment to be breaking the 8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. In the case Miller vs Alabama, 2011, young Evan Miller, along with Colby Smith murdered Cole Cannon. If two young kids could cause an adult crime, they should

The tragic case of Larry and Brandon is a compelling story. It is a reality that stunned the city of Oxnard California when a 14-year-old boy named Brandon McInerney fatally shot a fellow classmate, Larry King, twice in the back of the head. The incident occurred in a computer lab where Brandon ran off after committing the crime. As a result of his actions Brandon McInerney was tried as an adult and was sentenced to 21 years in prison with no chance of parole. He will be released at the age of 39. Now the underlying question is was Brandon’s sentence a just resolution or should he have received more or less years in prison. The truth is that I believe Brandon’s verdict was a fair and just punishment,

On the Summer night of July 15, 2003, Evan Miller along with an accomplice committed murder by the way of battery and arson (Oyez). Nearly a decade later, this case would play a crucial role in the Supreme Court decision on mandatory life without parole sentences of juveniles. In a decision which relied heavily on the beliefs and opinions of those present, the court argued the culpability of youth with regards to actions such as murder. Much of the rationale used on the date of the oral argument stemmed from the former cases of both Roper V. Simmons (2005) and Graham V. Florida (2010). Essentially, the Miller V. Alabama case

Two boys serving a life sentence without parole for a crime only one committed out of sadness and fear. Nathan Ybanez, 16 years old at time of crime, was accused of first degree murder for killing his mother who emotionally, physically, and sexually abused him. Erik Jensen, 17 years old at time of crime, was only present the time the crime was committed. He had no participation, yet was sentenced to life without parole. How is this fair? These boys, children even, without full comprehension of what was happening were locked up for the rest of their lives: never to play again, never to grow up with their families, never to have families of their own, never to be free, one of life’s basic rights. Two teens charged as adults for a crime that could

The criminal justice system can sometimes seem unfair because of the way juveniles are being sentenced. In many cases the question is whether or not to send a child to prison for the rest of his life for commiting a crime.The sentencing of a minor to life in prison is detrimental to society because it's like taking away two lives instead of one. One being the life of the victim and the other being the young criminal who may have been too young to know what he was actually doing. Kenneth Young is an example of how cruel the justice system can be to juveniles because at only 15 years old he was sentenced to life in prison for armed robbery.

After watching the documentary, “When Kids Get Life,” I realized how unfair it is for the kids that have committed crimes. I believe that the kids that have committed murder crimes do not deserve a life sentence. The documentary clearly shows that adults are ignorant about the brain development of a child. As a teenager myself, I would agree that teenagers are more sensitive and ignorant to everyday life. Also, kids are prone to make more mistakes than adults. Being a teenager, it is difficult to understand what is wrong or right because our brain is not fully developed. After hearing why the kids committed the murder, I found it reasonable. I believe that any teenager going through what they went through would have had similar dark thoughts.

Darren Fidow is a teenager who violently robbed an innocent 81-year-old woman, a wife and mother, he ended up disabling her for life. Patricia Sutcliffe was walking back to her car from the bank carrying her life savings in her purse. When out of nowhere Darren attacked her and forcefully removed her bag away. At the time of the robbery he was on bail for burglary. Yet he then committed another burglary! This is outrageous! (pause) What do you think his punishment should be? 6 months in jail?, 2 years? Well the reality is that he only got sentenced to home detention for 9 months only!

Bartollas and Miller (2013) has stated that, in the United States, each year, there are numerous juvenile delinquents who are given mandatory life prison sentences. Although the Supreme Court ruled that Graham vs Florida found that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment for non-homicidal offenses, it must be remembered that there are state statutes still in place that have kept juveniles locked up with mandatory life sentences. One news story that has placed perspective on juvenile delinquency, is the story of how a troubled 15 year old boy, ended up being convicted of 51 felonies and receiving one of the harshest punishments available in the United States.

A murder has killed a family only to be arrested the next day. The judge gives the murder the sentence of 2 lifetime in a medium to high security prison. For the murder this means 40 years in prison. That’s 40 years of food and clothing that could have gone to a prisoner that would be out of jail in a few years. Instead the murder eats and in a few years he finds a way to escape the prison only to kill another family. That’s a family that did nothing wrong and now they are in a grave, because a murder was put in a underfunded prison and managed to escape.

The argument towards Juvenile Offenders who are in prison brings justice for extreme crimes. First “Goldmark” explains “Offenders who are Juveniles when they committed a capital offense-or a crime that is eligible for the death penalty, such as premeditated murder-the justices concluded that juvenile offenders under eighteen years of age are not eligible for capital punishment”. (Goldmark). This shows that Juvenile Offenders who do extreme crimes should be sent to prison. Second “Juvenile Offenders” explains“In 1993, a 17-year-old high school student murdered a woman he encountered when robbing a home and later bragged about it to his friends”.(Sentencing for Juvenile Offenders). In addition if a Juvenile Offenders shouldn’t kill somebody then brag about it because that can give them life or death penalty. Juvenile Offenders who are in prison not only affects them now, but it will also affect them later in

The brutal murder of a family of four has implanted the sense of confusion into the minds of many, to whether or not the death penalty should be inflicted upon the two criminals or not. The killings set off a chain of questions to if the death penalty was even humane. The two killers seemed to have no remorse in the their actions, and fought their hardest to get off the hook. They plead insanity, but the prosecution argues that they knew exactly what they were doing. Dick Hickock and Perry Smith should be put to death because of their lack of remorse, the grotesque actions of the crime, and the fact that their deeds were premeditated.

Upon hearing this story, the question is, “should the two perpetrators be given a second chance or be sentenced to death?” Those opposed to capital punishment believe that the perpetrators have a right to keep their lives because killing criminal offenders instead of giving them a chance to rehabilitate is the same as murder. However, keeping these murderers alive will tarnish the value of human life as keeping every murderer alive cheapens human life and belittles the act of murder. It is a given that not all criminal offenders should face the same sentencing, as it depends on the severity of the crime and also the views of society. Capital punishment is an appropriate sentencing for severe criminal activity, as it is an effective deterrent to crime, it is a morally acceptable punishment, and saves taxpayer dollar in several different ways.

In 1989, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted and executed for the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 house fire near Corsicana, Texas. In 2009, the Texas Forensic Science Commission received an arson expert’s report that the investigation leading to his conviction was so flawed, that it’s finding could not be supported. Scientific experts — who debunked the arson evidence used against Willingham at his 1992 trial — convinced District Court Judge Charlie Baird in 2010 that the state of Texas wrongfully convicted him. However, Baird’s intended order never came to light because the court of appeals criticized his handling of the case and prevented him from working on it before he left the bench at the end of 2010 after choosing not to seek re-election. This case is a perfect example of why capital punishment should be abolished. Capital punishment, which is commonly known as the “death penalty,” is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment in response to a crime. Its motive is not found as morally correct but rather found as getting revenge against those who have committed an atrocious crime. Like the Willingham case, the justice system contains mistakes or flaws, which evolves into the killing of the innocent who are imprisoned. Consequently, it is imperative the focus is centered on the awareness that killing a human is absolutely wrong under all circumstances. Capital punishment is cruel, inhumane, and degrading; therefore, regardless of who is accused, the crime

Imagine that a teen is out with their friends. They are all having fun, until one friend suggests that they steal the teen’s parent’s car. The teen says no at first, but then they start to call him a wimp and really get to him. Beginning to think about how small of a possibility it is if they get caught, he makes the impulsive decision to steal the keys and help them. As they are driving down the highway, he accidentally crashes the car due to his inability to drive and costs the lives of his friends. He will then get put in jail for the rest of his life for a dumb decision he made as a teen, already having the guilt of taking the lives of his friends. Juveniles should not be tried as adults. This is true because peer pressure is more effective on teens, their brains aren’t as developed as adult brains, and it gives them a second chance at living life.

More than a quarter of juveniles given life without parole were not the main perpetrator of the crime, and nearly half of all youth given life without parole did not actually commit the murder (CFSY). This means that over a thousand people have had their entire lives just thrown away for murders it is known they did not commit. Part of the reason for this is mandatory sentencing. Life without parole for adolescents should not be a mandatory sentence, as it leads to unfair rulings and does not consider the individual situation. For example, Kuntrell Jackson of Arkansas was only fourteen when he and two other boys decided to rob a video store. One of the boys, Jackson’s cousin, threatened a shop clerk with