14 year old Life without parole

betsy · April 12, 2009

According to your logic, if all people are sent to jail and let you alone on the streets, then no one can hurt you.
However, you might (again) need to fight with tigers, wolves, lions, or snakes.

I do agree with you that there is no consistency in how the law is applied. It depends on what part of the US or the world you are...some laws are too lenient and some laws are too harsh.

ironstone · April 12, 2009

This case of the 14 yr old contrasts sharply with a recent case here in Ottawa.A few years ago,a young man sitting near the back of the bus was approached by some "youths".One of them demanded that the victim,one Michael Oatway,hand over his ipod.When he refused to do this,the "youth" who was armed with a butterfly knife,stabbed Oatway.The stab wound would prove to be fatal.This happened a few years ago and the trial just finished recently.The "youth",who was 17 at the time and physically bigger than the victim recieved a ten year sentence.Not once has he expressed an ounce of remorse for his horrible crime.His own mother isn't much better,referring to the victim as "that boy".The killers friends and family are screaming racism but that's another topic.The family and friends are also quite adamant that the accused is really a wonderful person(society going downhill... anyone?).The killer apparently has a history of dominating and bullying those around him.I think the sentence is too lenient but the kicker is that the only reason he got ten years is that there was a lot of publicity surrounding this case.Otherwise he would have recieved a slap on the wrist,as most juvenile offenders get in Canada.Don't always be fooled by youth,as some of these kids are stone cold killers and will always remain so.

I frequently watch a program called "The First 48" on A&E.It's a true life crime show set in the U.S. in certain cities.Often,the killers they catch are youths and it's shocking that how cold hearted these so called kids are.There are countless cased where they have killed without a seconds hesitation.These one's deserve to be locked away for life.

betsy · April 12, 2009

Don't always be fooled by youth,as some of these kids are stone cold killers and will always remain so.

Stone-cold killers. No emotions. They don't seem to be human.

Remember that poor girl (Veena Virk?) who was beaten by a gang of young girls? After the beating, a girl and a boy followed her and beat her some more? Then the girl casually stepped on her neck to force her face into the water, as she casually smoked a cigarette?

The boy was already convicted. The girl's been re-tried again. But from what I read not too long ago, this same girl was implicated on an assault on an elderly while awaiting trial for the murder of that girl.

And what about that 14 year old girl and her boyfriend who killed her parents and her young brother?

Something is very wrong among some of today's youth.

GostHacked · April 12, 2009

I think the kid feels bad enough that he was the reason his step brother is not around anymore. I would hope anyways.

betsy

Something is very wrong among some of today's youth.

I agree 100%

Partly due to the generation of parents that brought up these kids. I understand factors like poverty will play into this, however for the most part parents shuffle much of raising the kid into the states hands. I respect my parents, because at the same time I fear them some. I fear my dad more than any other man on this planet. My dad will punish me before anyone else can. So I never got out of hand to the ends of killing someone. Kids should fear their parents in this aspect. When I did something wrong at home, I got a spanking. And now the onus is on you to learn from it. The physical pain connected to the 'crime' told me .. hmm k, don't do that again. You may think spanking kids is not a good thing, but what have you got left when they simply do not listen? Now many out there think spanking is child abuse, but a spanking allowed me to now conciously think of my actions and the reprocussions. I don't think this is there anymore.

But, what I would do is lock up the parents as well. If parents know they could go to jail along with the kid for the crime, parents might get more involved in their kids lives and correct this thing at an early age.

tango · April 12, 2009

You talk of "might"....and "probably."
I speak about a fact. If he's in jail he cannot commit any crimes on the streets. Period.

There's no might or probably about that.

I don't think you bothered to read the op.

This is not a street criminal.

eyeball · April 12, 2009

Immediately no. But society can only be safe if rule breakers feel there are consequences to their actions. This kid was likely sent a message over and over again that he was not responsible for his actions and that bad behavoir would be forgiven because he is a "innocent child". It will take a generation to fix this moral rot in our society and putting a 14 year in jail for life is not going to change that on its own but it would be a start.

I agree with Tango, this is straight up bullshit, here's why I think so. He was not responsible for his actions because Quantel Lotts was a 14 year old kid. Not an adult, a kid.

Its no surprise to me that our society is so rotten either. In fact any society...any person, that is willing to let their government break its own laws and do things like arbitrarily decide when a kid is an adult based on public vindictiveness or outrage deserves to rot.

Quantel Lotts should have been treated, not convicted. He is clearly a victim, in every sense of the word.

Edited April 12, 2009 by eyeball

tango · April 12, 2009

All young offenders should be treated. Sadistic, serial killers can be distinguished from kids like Lotts.

Life without parole is just way out of line, in this case.

Riverwind · April 12, 2009

Quantel Lotts should have been treated, not convicted. He is clearly a victim, in every sense of the word.

Sentencing has three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation and prevention.

I agree that treatment is appropriate if all we cared about was rehabilitation. The issue is we don't. We need a system that also makes people feel that crimes and being punished and a system makes future criminals realize that they will face serious consequences for their crime.

I think it would most effective to throw the kid in jail to rot while expanding outreach programs to other kids at risk. It is a lot easier to break down someone's resistance to change if they believe their current path will have serious consequences if they don't change. The current system sends a message to problem kids: do whatever you want, nothing bad will happen to you because you are a "victim" and its not your fault. It is a mystery why any rational person cannot see that such attitudes simply make the problem worse. Human society only functions when rule breakers face real consequences for their actions.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Riverwind

ironstone · April 12, 2009

Which of the following is most important:

-The rights of the person or persons that have committed the crime?

-Public safety?

-The victims?

Too bad that there are no easy answers.

betsy · April 13, 2009

I don't think you bothered to read the op.
This is not a street criminal.

No, I didn't get the chance to read how it all happened. Somehow I can't connect to the news link.

I was giving a logical answer. If he is incarcerated, of course he cannot personally commit any crimes on the street. That is an undisputable fact. How can he? He cannot be in two places at the same time.

But just because he is not a "street criminal" doesn't give the conclusion that therefore he won't be. I'm not concluding that he will commit crimes either. That's all I'm saying....

And I do think that there is no consistency how law is applied. The punishment should fit the gravity of the crime. LWOP is usually given to Murder 1st degree.

The youth should realize that their age does not serve as an automatic excuse for them to commit crimes. EVERYONE should be made to realize that. Some adults actually recruit and use kids to do the crime!

We do not serve our youth well if we act like those parents who spoil their children rotten...who let their kids get away with anything. In the end those parents usually end up regretting it.

That's how we're sounding now.

Just take a look at that recent thing in Quebec when a child sued her father because her father forbade her to go to a school field trip as a punishment for not obeying him. The fact that it was even entertained in court and cost taxpayers money is just so ridiculously stupid!

Edited April 13, 2009 by betsy

tango · April 13, 2009

No, I didn't get the chance to read how it all happened. Somehow I can't connect to the news link.
I was giving a logical answer. If he is incarcerated, of course he cannot personally commit any crimes on the street. That is an undisputable fact. How can he? He cannot be in two places at the same time.

But just because he is not a "street criminal" doesn't give the conclusion that therefore he won't be. I'm not concluding that he will commit crimes either. That's all I'm saying....

And you have said exactly ... nothing of value.

And I do think that there is no consistency how law is applied. The punishment should fit the gravity of the crime. LWOP is usually given to Murder 1st degree.
The youth should realize that their age does not serve as an automatic excuse for them to commit crimes.

Oh I think this kid realizes that. He's in jail for life, remember?

EVERYONE should be made to realize that. Some adults actually recruit and use kids to do the crime!

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

We do not serve our youth well if we act like those parents who spoil their children rotten...who let their kids get away with anything. In the end those parents usually end up regretting it.
That's how we're sounding now.

Just take a look at that recent thing in Quebec when a child sued her father because her father forbade her to go to a school field trip as a punishment for not obeying him. The fact that it was even entertained in court and cost taxpayers money is just so ridiculously stupid!

betsy, you are exactly the kind of gullible reader the news headlines are slanted for: You never read anything but the headlines, and you fall for the media scare-propaganda everytime!

It shows in your posts. You make gross generalizations about things you have not informed yourself about.

You don't know the real story for either of those situations, and yet you make gross generalizations of catastrophy because of "those parents who spoil their children rotten...who let their kids get away with anything"

What bullshit!

Uninformed opinion is useless at best, and at worst it is dangerous propaganda.

Edited April 13, 2009 by tango

kimmy · April 13, 2009

I agree with Tango, this is straight up bullshit, here's why I think so. He was not responsible for his actions because Quantel Lotts was a 14 year old kid. Not an adult, a kid.

Are all 14 year olds the same? Can they all be rehabilitated? Is there just no chance that a 14 year old might be too dangerous to be allowed to return to society at large?

I certainly don't know the specifics with regard to this particular 14 year old, but to suggest that it's always wrong to imprison a 14 year old strikes me as somewhat naive.

-k

tango · April 13, 2009

I certainly don't know the specifics with regard to this particular 14 year old
-k

Well then read the op so you can discuss this issue in an informed manner ... please!

eyeball · April 13, 2009

Are all 14 year olds the same?

I don't know, lets say we were talking about adults having sex with 14 year olds. Is it always wrong?

Edited April 13, 2009 by eyeball

kimmy · April 13, 2009

Well then read the op so you can discuss this issue in an informed manner ... please!

Eyeball's post seems to indicate he believes that imprisoning a 14 year old is never justified.

I don't care to discuss the specifics of this case, I am interested in this blanket assertion.

I feel there could certainly be situations where a 14 year old could be too dangerous to be allowed free ever again.

-k

eyeball · April 13, 2009

Eyeball's post seems to indicate he believes that imprisoning a 14 year old is never justified.

No, I simply believe that when the state starts arbitrarily changing the legal definitions of what a child is the door is open to all sorts of abuse. Why shouldn't labour or sex laws be as flexible?

I feel there could certainly be situations where a 14 year old could be too dangerous to be allowed free ever again.

So do I, but I draw the line at convicting 14 year olds for life without a chance of parole. That's just plain mean.

Edited April 13, 2009 by eyeball

tango · April 13, 2009

I feel there could certainly be situations where a 14 year old could be too dangerous to be allowed free ever again.

Then show us one, and we can discuss it.

Lotts is one of at least 73 U.S. inmates -- most of them minorities -- who were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison for crimes committed when they were 13 or 14, according to the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit organization in Alabama that defends indigent defendants and prisoners.

The 73 are just a fraction of the more than 2,000 offenders serving life sentences for crimes they committed as minors under the age of 18.

Across the country, most juvenile offenders and many adults are given a second chance. Charles Manson, convicted in seven notorious murders committed when he was 27, will be eligible for his 12th parole hearing in 2012. He's been denied parole 11 times. Even "Son of Sam" killer David Berkowitz, who confessed to killing six people in the 1970s when he was in his 20s, has had four parole hearings, though he has said he doesn't deserve parole and doesn't want it.

But Quantel Lotts has no hope for a parole hearing. At least not yet.

Charles Manson gets a parole hearing. 'Son of Sam' gets a parole hearing.

Quantel Lotts does not.

hello?

Oleg Bach · April 13, 2009

Evil is rearing it's ugly head and we are normalizing evil and not even attempting to resist or correct it - they release killers into the streets to kill again and the jail children... wtf?

kimmy · April 13, 2009

No, I simply believe that when the state starts arbitrarily changing the legal definitions of what a child is the door is open to all sorts of abuse. Why shouldn't labour or sex laws be as flexible?
So do I, but I draw the line at convicting 14 year olds for life without a chance of parole. That's just plain mean.

As I said earlier (post #14) I don't believe that "without parole" is appropriate in a situation like this.

But your comment wasn't that he should not be held without parole. Your comment was that he should not be held responsible at all, because of his age: "He was not responsible for his actions because Quantel Lotts was a 14 year old kid. Not an adult, a kid."

I am open to the idea that in the case of Quantel Lotts, there may have been mitigating circumstances.

However, I reject the idea that 14 year olds, in general, can't be held responsible for their actions. If someone doesn't understand concepts like death and murder by age 14, it's because they're completely psychotic.

Then show us one, and we can discuss it.

Just off the top of my head... some time ago, two English boys, aged (I believe) 14 and 15, lured a much younger boy to a vacant yard, tortured him, and finally smashed his head open with a brick.

If I were in a position to decide such things, I would require the strongest possible evidence of their rehabilitation before I would ever consider letting those two see daylight again. I am not sure I could ever be adequately convinced that it was safe to let them back out among unsuspecting society. I would question the sanity of anyone who did not likewise feel grave doubts about unleashing them on society again.

-k

DogOnPorch · April 13, 2009

kimmy...

Boys charged with attempted murder

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews...E5363DX20090407

LONDON (Reuters) - Two boys aged 10 and 11 were charged on Tuesday with attempted murder after two other youngsters were left with serious injuries following an alleged attack near Doncaster at the weekend.

kimmy · April 13, 2009

kimmy...
Boys charged with attempted murder

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews...E5363DX20090407

Shocking, but not the incident I recall. The incident I was thinking of was years ago.

-k

DogOnPorch · April 13, 2009

Shocking, but not the incident I recall. The incident I was thinking of was years ago.
-k

That one's recent. I do recall the one you're thinking of.

eyeball · April 13, 2009

Your comment was that he should not be held responsible at all, because of his age: "He was not responsible for his actions because Quantel Lotts was a 14 year old kid. Not an adult, a kid."

That's right. Kids cannot and should not be held criminally responsible because of their age.

I am open to the idea that in the case of Quantel Lotts, there may have been mitigating circumstances.
However, I reject the idea that 14 year olds, in general, can't be held responsible for their actions. If someone doesn't understand concepts like death and murder by age 14, it's because they're completely psychotic.

We should should reject it, catagorically in all criminal cases involving kids. When this legal principle is arbitraily ignored you end up with cases like Lotts.

Legal principles are supposed to be universal. If the state can simply throw these out whenever and wherever it pleases according to things like the public's mood then they might as well not exist and we might as well just resort to mob justice.

The state has no business processing people who are psychotic through a justice system. I shudder to think what sort of injustices these would suffer in a system that also throws 14 year olds away forever without any hope.

M.Dancer · April 13, 2009

That's right. Kids cannot and should not be held criminally responsible because of their age.

I agree. They should be held responsible for their actions, not their age.

bush_cheney2004 · April 13, 2009

.....The state has no business processing people who are psychotic through a justice system. I shudder to think what sort of injustices these would suffer in a system that also throws 14 year olds away forever without any hope.

Nonsense....the state has a very specific responsibility to do just that. Spending so much time worrying about the "injustices" that a 14 year old perp might suffer ignores the states responsibilty to public safety and your oh so precious "justice".

Juvenile court systems are still "justice" systems whether you like them or not, particularly since you are not offering up any better idea.