If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Fail When even Texas of all places criticizes your juvenile sentencing laws you might want to consider looking at said laws more closely   (masslive.com) divider line 34
More: Fail, Texas, voluntary manslaughter, apex predator, youth service, Massachusetts, Northeastern University, lesser included offenses, mortal wound  
•       •       •

3124 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jan 2012 at 10:43 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
HappyTheDog
2012-01-08 10:54:56 AM
Well,. look on the bright side. 100 years ago, you'd be swinging from a tree.


Hell, maybe that would be better.
 
Emposter
2012-01-08 11:12:17 AM
Eh, I have no problem with 16 year olds being given adult sentences for murder. Is anyone here really willing to argue that at 16, a person doesn't understand murder is wrong? That they think murder is some kind of childish indiscretion?

If he was 11 or some age where it could reasonably be argued that a person didn't really understand the ramifications of what they were doing, or lacked the maturity to control themselves, it would be different.

HUGE variations in sentencing for similar crimes, however...that I don't like. Nor do I really understand how this kid was considered a "super criminal." I gotta agree with the article that his murder doesn't really approach the murders that inspired the law he was punished under. Even for murder (at least "normal" murder), life without possibility of parole seems excessive.
 
dave1y
2012-01-08 11:12:30 AM
Isn't 'Texas' complaining about the fact that the kids didn't get the death penalty or something? Certainly not that the laws are too harsh.
 
LiberalWeenie
2012-01-08 11:13:23 AM
TFA: The killer in Springfield, Edgardo Rodriguez, accepted a plea deal for the 2004 slaying of Joel Rivera Delgado, allowing him to potentially walk free within the next decade.

The other teen, Antonio Fernandez, took his 2002 case to trial and received the harshest juvenile sentence which Massachusetts law permits.

Well, no shiat.
 
Dwight_Yeast
2012-01-08 11:14:18 AM
Emposter: Eh, I have no problem with 16 year olds being given adult sentences for murder.

Why 16? Why not 15? Or 14?
 
Emposter
2012-01-08 11:19:07 AM
Dwight_Yeast: Emposter: Eh, I have no problem with 16 year olds being given adult sentences for murder.

Why 16? Why not 15? Or 14?

Cause the article seems to be about 16 year olds. Sure, there is definitely some point where I would have trouble drawing a line (and would err on the side of leniency), but that point is well below 16, so irrelevant to my stated opinion here.
 
Need_MindBleach
2012-01-08 11:21:01 AM
Dwight_Yeast: Emposter: Eh, I have no problem with 16 year olds being given adult sentences for murder.

Why 16? Why not 15? Or 14?

16 is age of consent in most states. At that age you're considered capable of at least some judgement. But, a 16-year-old is not an adult, and IMO should receive a lesser penalty than one. Not "get out of prison after 10 years for first-degree murder" lesser, but less than "life in prison with no chance of parole."
 
BitwiseShift
2012-01-08 11:26:07 AM
In not sure Chuy Hinojosa considers himself to the be great State of Texas but he's probably amused that Subby does. As he is really amused at Subby's shoes.
 
Theaetetus
2012-01-08 11:32:50 AM
The difference in ages for crimes is based on the idea that the defendant may lack the capability to form the necessary mens rea to commit the crime - hence why juveniles typically face lesser charges.
But charging them as adults based on the heinousness of the crime ignores that mens rea... Essentially, it says "we have this rule... but we're going to throw it out because we're so emotionally outraged." It takes away objective justice.

If you think the important part is the severity of the crime, then do away with age distinctions completely, since you're already essentially doing that.
 
Theaetetus
2012-01-08 11:34:12 AM
The Bay State is "meting out unequal justice" to teenagers, declared Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after serving 40 years of their life sentence.

I do think there's an issue with the Texas idea... You take a maladjusted, violent teenager, lock them up for 40 years, and release them in their 50s. They're likely uneducated, unemployable, and probably not able to fit into society. I'd guess you'd find a recidivism rate approaching 100%.
 
Theaetetus
2012-01-08 11:40:06 AM
HappyTheDog: Well,. look on the bright side. 100 years ago, you'd be swinging from a tree.

100 years ago, when the state executed people by hanging, they used scaffolds... seems more like you're thinking of, well, lynching.

In which case, you probably could have gone with 50 years ago.
 
overfienduglar
2012-01-08 11:48:42 AM
Theaetetus: The Bay State is "meting out unequal justice" to teenagers, declared Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after serving 40 years of their life sentence.

I do think there's an issue with the Texas idea... You take a maladjusted, violent teenager, lock them up for 40 years, and release them in their 50s. They're likely uneducated, unemployable, and probably not able to fit into society. I'd guess you'd find a recidivism rate approaching 100%.

They are comfortable in prison. They probably don't have much in the way friends on the outside.

Don' most prison system offer education programs? Even with a state provided education, they still aren't employable.
 
BarbadoSlim
2012-01-08 11:49:36 AM
I, reeeeally can't bring myself to expend any energy on any of the two examples presented in the article. Just human garbage.
 
Cuchulane [TotalFark]
2012-01-08 11:51:30 AM
No cases from Roxbury and Dorchester in the story?
 
Cathedralmaster
2012-01-08 11:58:03 AM
If the state doesn't think you have the judgment necessary to vote, it shouldn't then turn around and say you have the judgment necessary to properly weigh a decision that will affect the rest of your life.

We're all against tests for kids that determine the course of their whole lives (such as they used to use in the USSR). Why not this?
 
deadcrickets
2012-01-08 12:00:02 PM
Emposter: Eh, I have no problem with 16 year olds being given adult sentences for murder. Is anyone here really willing to argue that at 16, a person doesn't understand murder is wrong? That they think murder is some kind of childish indiscretion?

If he was 11 or some age where it could reasonably be argued that a person didn't really understand the ramifications of what they were doing, or lacked the maturity to control themselves, it would be different.

HUGE variations in sentencing for similar crimes, however...that I don't like. Nor do I really understand how this kid was considered a "super criminal." I gotta agree with the article that his murder doesn't really approach the murders that inspired the law he was punished under. Even for murder (at least "normal" murder), life without possibility of parole seems excessive.

If they are able to understand that murder is wrong they are able to understand the nuances of sex.
 
Barakku
2012-01-08 12:04:13 PM
Theaetetus: The Bay State is "meting out unequal justice" to teenagers, declared Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after serving 40 years of their life sentence.

I do think there's an issue with the Texas idea... You take a maladjusted, violent teenager, lock them up for 40 years, and release them in their 50s. They're likely uneducated, unemployable, and probably not able to fit into society. I'd guess you'd find a recidivism rate approaching 100%.

You have a violent, maladjusted teenager who murders people. They already don't fit into society, that's kind of the point. I don't see how releasing them earlier is supposed to help anyone but the murderer.
 
largedon
2012-01-08 12:13:17 PM
Didn't read the article but the headline really made me want a comma or three.
 
Britney Spear's Speculum
2012-01-08 12:14:50 PM
LiberalWeenie: TFA: The killer in Springfield, Edgardo Rodriguez, accepted a plea deal for the 2004 slaying of Joel Rivera Delgado, allowing him to potentially walk free within the next decade.

The other teen, Antonio Fernandez, took his 2002 case to trial and received the harshest juvenile sentence which Massachusetts law permits.

Well, no shiat.

Thread
 
Theaetetus
2012-01-08 12:17:06 PM
Barakku: Theaetetus: The Bay State is "meting out unequal justice" to teenagers, declared Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after serving 40 years of their life sentence.

I do think there's an issue with the Texas idea... You take a maladjusted, violent teenager, lock them up for 40 years, and release them in their 50s. They're likely uneducated, unemployable, and probably not able to fit into society. I'd guess you'd find a recidivism rate approaching 100%.

You have a violent, maladjusted teenager who murders people. They already don't fit into society, that's kind of the point. I don't see how releasing them earlier is supposed to help anyone but the murderer.

I don't see how releasing them at age 50 is also supposed to help anyone but the murderer, if you're not taking any steps in the interim to help them adjust to society. Either they get out and commit other crimes, because they're broke and unemployable, or you keep them in forever.
... or you figure out ways to make them employable on release, as well as get them used to living in a non-criminal society so that they won't reoffend.
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2012-01-08 12:45:34 PM
Pot -> Stealing Video Games -> Shooting someone who said something not nice to you.
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2012-01-08 12:47:05 PM
Theaetetus: The Bay State is "meting out unequal justice" to teenagers, declared Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after serving 40 years of their life sentence.

I do think there's an issue with the Texas idea... You take a maladjusted, violent teenager, lock them up for 40 years, and release them in their 50s. They're likely uneducated, unemployable, and probably not able to fit into society. I'd guess you'd find a recidivism rate approaching 100%.

but at least that haven't killed anyone for those 40 years.
 
Emposter
2012-01-08 12:47:43 PM
deadcrickets: Emposter: Eh, I have no problem with 16 year olds being given adult sentences for murder. Is anyone here really willing to argue that at 16, a person doesn't understand murder is wrong? That they think murder is some kind of childish indiscretion?

If he was 11 or some age where it could reasonably be argued that a person didn't really understand the ramifications of what they were doing, or lacked the maturity to control themselves, it would be different.

HUGE variations in sentencing for similar crimes, however...that I don't like. Nor do I really understand how this kid was considered a "super criminal." I gotta agree with the article that his murder doesn't really approach the murders that inspired the law he was punished under. Even for murder (at least "normal" murder), life without possibility of parole seems excessive.

If they are able to understand that murder is wrong they are able to understand the nuances of sex.

Having sex has all kinds of complicated and far ranging consequences that can be difficult to understand for adolescents, while "killing is wrong" is generally a pretty simple concept pounded into our kids repeatedly from a fairly early age, well before many, if not most, even know what sex IS. While killing has its own nuances, generally they are fewer and more straightforward than those of sex.

Whether the correct age is 18 for sexual consent...maybe not, but just arbitrarily saying the two concepts are understood at the same age is dumb.
 
rjakobi
2012-01-08 12:51:09 PM
I'm guessing rehabilitation is still a dirty word in the correctional facilities if we're going to throw juveniles into prisons what with the overcrowding and the power structures and whatnot.

/oh, and the rape
 
Emposter
2012-01-08 12:52:37 PM
Emposter: deadcrickets: Emposter: Eh, I have no problem with 16 year olds being given adult sentences for murder. Is anyone here really willing to argue that at 16, a person doesn't understand murder is wrong? That they think murder is some kind of childish indiscretion?

If he was 11 or some age where it could reasonably be argued that a person didn't really understand the ramifications of what they were doing, or lacked the maturity to control themselves, it would be different.

HUGE variations in sentencing for similar crimes, however...that I don't like. Nor do I really understand how this kid was considered a "super criminal." I gotta agree with the article that his murder doesn't really approach the murders that inspired the law he was punished under. Even for murder (at least "normal" murder), life without possibility of parole seems excessive.

If they are able to understand that murder is wrong they are able to understand the nuances of sex.

Having sex has all kinds of complicated and far ranging consequences that can be difficult to understand for adolescents, while "killing is wrong" is generally a pretty simple concept pounded into our kids repeatedly from a fairly early age, well before many, if not most, even know what sex IS. While killing has its own nuances, generally they are fewer and more straightforward than those of sex.

Whether the correct age is 18 for sexual consent...maybe not, but just arbitrarily saying the two concepts are understood at the same age is dumb.

Oh, and it should be pointed out that there are plenty of states where the age of sexual consent IS 16, which kinda kills whatever point you were trying to make, I think.
 
Jim_Callahan
2012-01-08 01:16:58 PM
Theaetetus: Barakku: Theaetetus: The Bay State is "meting out unequal justice" to teenagers, declared Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after serving 40 years of their life sentence.

I do think there's an issue with the Texas idea... You take a maladjusted, violent teenager, lock them up for 40 years, and release them in their 50s. They're likely uneducated, unemployable, and probably not able to fit into society. I'd guess you'd find a recidivism rate approaching 100%.

You have a violent, maladjusted teenager who murders people. They already don't fit into society, that's kind of the point. I don't see how releasing them earlier is supposed to help anyone but the murderer.

I don't see how releasing them at age 50 is also supposed to help anyone but the murderer, if you're not taking any steps in the interim to help them adjust to society. Either they get out and commit other crimes, because they're broke and unemployable, or you keep them in forever.
... or you figure out ways to make them employable on release, as well as get them used to living in a non-criminal society so that they won't reoffend.

You realize that, given that we don't really need employees desperately enough to make work for murderers, your argument is basically in favor of the death penalty, yeah?
 
Red Shirt Blues [TotalFark]
2012-01-08 03:08:13 PM
FTFA:
Sok admitted that he chased Keoudone "Tiny" Onexavieng, 18, down the street and put the 30-inch Samurai sword in his back.
"I never meant to hurt Tiny. I only wanted to scare him," Sok told the police in 1999.

Oh I'm sure at one point "Tiny" was scared. But then his heart stopped and his brain stopped functioning and he stopped being scared.
 
thirdful
2012-01-08 03:17:25 PM
Both those kids should have been given a lethal injection, strung up & shot while hanging. If people want to stop senseless murder in this country then make it so people have something to lose when they do it. Life without parole in jail is cruel and unusual punishment in my book, just kill them, their life is over anyhow. As for the "oh but he could have been innocent" crowd, fark off. You keep up this crap then people will continue to be killed because the defendant could have been mind-controlled by aliens and get off with a slap on the wrist.
 
Theaetetus
2012-01-08 03:20:41 PM
Jim_Callahan: Theaetetus: Barakku: Theaetetus: The Bay State is "meting out unequal justice" to teenagers, declared Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after serving 40 years of their life sentence.

I do think there's an issue with the Texas idea... You take a maladjusted, violent teenager, lock them up for 40 years, and release them in their 50s. They're likely uneducated, unemployable, and probably not able to fit into society. I'd guess you'd find a recidivism rate approaching 100%.

You have a violent, maladjusted teenager who murders people. They already don't fit into society, that's kind of the point. I don't see how releasing them earlier is supposed to help anyone but the murderer.

I don't see how releasing them at age 50 is also supposed to help anyone but the murderer, if you're not taking any steps in the interim to help them adjust to society. Either they get out and commit other crimes, because they're broke and unemployable, or you keep them in forever.
... or you figure out ways to make them employable on release, as well as get them used to living in a non-criminal society so that they won't reoffend.

You realize that, given that we don't really need employees desperately enough to make work for murderers, your argument is basically in favor of the death penalty, yeah?

That's certainly one possible conclusion. Mind you, it would also work as an argument for why every felony should warrant capital punishment - we've got unemployment, so let's kill anyone who commits a crime.
 
paj
2012-01-08 03:44:04 PM
After reading the headline I was convinced that TFA would be about Canada. Why? Link (new window)
 
Longtime Lurker
2012-01-08 10:49:26 PM
Man, Booth Newspapers has really gone on this crusade lately. They ran pretty much the same sets of stories in Michigan last month.
 
Gyrfalcon [TotalFark]
2012-01-08 10:49:28 PM
The biggest problem with the Massachusetts law, imo, is that it's based on the now-discredited "superpredator" theory. This idea that somehow some kids are destined to become horrible violent monsters and yet others with the same backgrounds and crimes somehow will not, was mooted in the late 1980's by criminologist John DiIullio, who has since admitted his theory was based on inadequate evidence. But it sounded good (like the crack-baby theory earlier, and the vaccines-cause-autism theory today) so other people ran with it; and now you've got laws like this today.

Either 14 is an adult--which modern MRI research and psychological research tends to show it isn't--and they all get adjudicated as such; or all murderers get adjudicated as adults; or whatever; but don't work it so some kids because of this week's fad theory are labelled "superpredators" and sentenced more harshly than others. Commit heinous murder: Go to prison for life. That's fine and we can all agree with that. But not because one is 14 and a "superpredator" and we want to make an example of him.
 
ignacio
2012-01-08 10:53:51 PM
Could the writer really not notice that everyone who didn't get life plead out to a lesser sentence? It's like he has absolutely no clue how our judicial system works. If you take a plea, you do less time. It's not brain surgery.
 
DON.MAC [TotalFark]
2012-01-10 01:19:25 AM
When I was 10, I was in a school with a bunch of kids who's fathers were in the penitentiary for things like murder. Everyone one of them that stealing and murdering was wrong and many of them already knew how to play the system.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »