Joe Ligon: America's 'longest juvenile lifer' on 68 years in prison(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Joe Ligon: America's 'longest juvenile lifer' on 68 years in prison
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57022924
118 comments
when I read about the model of prison they have in Denmark, I wondered if it's feasible to have that everywhere. Cost might be the biggest problem.
Cost per year of incarceration isn’t the only metric; if more humane and expensive jails lead to reductions in reoffense rates, it can pay for itself quite handily.
Total monetary cost to society isn't the only metric; there is intrinsic value in having a more humane prison system.
> there is intrinsic value in having a more humane prison system.
Not if you're a believer in "harsh punishment", "law and order!!!", "eye for an eye" and similar Evangelical barbarism like way too many Americans are.
Not if you're a believer in "harsh punishment", "law and order!!!", "eye for an eye" and similar Evangelical barbarism like way too many Americans are.
Many see prisons as a way of punishment. Providing any comfort will makes some people upset. Society must be educated to the purpose of prison before any of this is possible.
Prisoners themselves can use the usual sentence "I paid my debt to society" with different meanings.
Personally I see great benefits in locking up people guilty of violent crimes, shielding society from the consequences of their actions. Then the system can - as soon as the person is incarcerated - begin to work on rehabilitation.
Personally I see great benefits in locking up people guilty of violent crimes, shielding society from the consequences of their actions. Then the system can - as soon as the person is incarcerated - begin to work on rehabilitation.
I think the Australia model is pretty good (a country for convicts)
(take it easy, I'm Australian)
(take it easy, I'm Australian)
"Society" can't be "educated" because there's simple a disagreement here. Some people indeed see prison as a punishment and others see prison as a means of improving society.
Indeed, and I suspect that the fundamental factor in how people view prison is based on their personalities. Conservative people are fundamentally more risk averse than Liberal people.
“Educate” me all you want about rehabilitation, but when I hear that a man murdered two people with a knife and slashed six others, I’m going to think that man needs to be locked up for life because he’s too much of a risk to innocent people.
Conversely, I can lecture a liberal person all day about how dangerous these people can be and they’ll think that these people deserve a chance at being let back into society.
“Educate” me all you want about rehabilitation, but when I hear that a man murdered two people with a knife and slashed six others, I’m going to think that man needs to be locked up for life because he’s too much of a risk to innocent people.
Conversely, I can lecture a liberal person all day about how dangerous these people can be and they’ll think that these people deserve a chance at being let back into society.
Why not enforce a quick death penalty. Putting someone away for 2, 5, 10, 20 or 30 years and just letting them back into society seems more dangerous compared to trying to change those behaviours before letting them go free.
Not always the case
Also if they are alive they still have a chance to fight if they're wrongly convicted.
Also if they are alive they still have a chance to fight if they're wrongly convicted.
I'd frame it in a different way.
Conservatives argue for punishment as deterrence and to keep society safe from criminals. Liberals argue for punishment as rehabilitation and are happy to abandon punishment if it is shown to not rehabilitate. Both of these are utilitarian arguments.
A third position is: criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime committed because a society that does not punish criminals is not worth living in. The definition of a crime is a transgression that must be punished, whatever the consequences.
Conservatives argue for punishment as deterrence and to keep society safe from criminals. Liberals argue for punishment as rehabilitation and are happy to abandon punishment if it is shown to not rehabilitate. Both of these are utilitarian arguments.
A third position is: criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime committed because a society that does not punish criminals is not worth living in. The definition of a crime is a transgression that must be punished, whatever the consequences.
I agree entirely, but the cost arguments are useful for the folks who see improved prisoner well-being as a neutral or even negative aspect.
no one said cost was a metric, it's a barrier
But then how are those poor, poor private prisons going to make any money?
Cost not going into the pocket of big companies might be an even bigger problem.
Cost would be a problem because we put too many people in prison.
Money is not a problem at the Federal level. We just spent around what, $6T, on Covid inspired programs and we are gearing up for an infrastructure bill on the order of 1 to 2T more. There are no true money/affordability constraints. The real constraints are on capacity to produce. Its not can we afford things, its can we build or buy the things we want.
Dane here. It is a system where I could rape somebody and be out quicker than they would have time to heal.
i don't think that is something to emulate.
By al means have the space for people to fuck up. But some people are not suitable to live in society again.
i don't think that is something to emulate.
By al means have the space for people to fuck up. But some people are not suitable to live in society again.
Or this talk about one of Denmarks neighbours (Germany) by an American, Jewish, (grand-)son of Holocaust survivors visiting a German prison with a bunch of other Americans ("60 Minutes" reporter, some Governor, a DA, a convicted murderer etc.).
A bunch of stats and comparisons to underline the effects of different prison systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtV5ev6813I
And the related segment from "60 Minutes": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOmcP9sMwIE
And the related segment from "60 Minutes": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOmcP9sMwIE
i can tell you that in the united states we have an abundance of money, so cost isn't the problem here.
Abundance for punishment, yes. Little for helping others.
If you ask an American expert in punishing and hurting people, here's what they say:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/424263-tru...
>Trump supporter complains shutdown is 'not hurting the people he needs to be hurting'
>A prison employee in Florida who voted for President Trump argued that Trump is to blame for the current government shutdown.
>“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” Crystal Minton told The New York Times in an article published Monday. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shu...
>Though Mr. Trump said on Twitter over the weekend that “most of the workers not getting paid are Democrats,” that is far from true in places like Jackson County, Fla., where Marianna is the county seat. It is a Republican bastion so deeply conservative that it was illegal to sell liquor by the drink until November 2017. The president and his plan for a wall along the border are popular here, as they are across much of the state, which might explain why Florida Republicans in Congress have done little to pressure party leaders in the Senate to put an end to the shutdown.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/424263-tru...
>Trump supporter complains shutdown is 'not hurting the people he needs to be hurting'
>A prison employee in Florida who voted for President Trump argued that Trump is to blame for the current government shutdown.
>“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” Crystal Minton told The New York Times in an article published Monday. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shu...
>Though Mr. Trump said on Twitter over the weekend that “most of the workers not getting paid are Democrats,” that is far from true in places like Jackson County, Fla., where Marianna is the county seat. It is a Republican bastion so deeply conservative that it was illegal to sell liquor by the drink until November 2017. The president and his plan for a wall along the border are popular here, as they are across much of the state, which might explain why Florida Republicans in Congress have done little to pressure party leaders in the Senate to put an end to the shutdown.
While the article confirms his acceptance of his circumstances, I still find it hard to understand how a man who went into a prison at 15 and came out at 83 can see anything as positive. An entire life spent behind bars. Maybe he really tapped into a sense of contentment and acceptance that I'm missing or am too young to understand.
I worry about a 15 year old going into an adult system without even understanding his sentence. Prison guards aren’t known for being kind and prisons are full of people who belong in prisons. What did he learn? What did he experience? And how incredibly scared could that man be to raise hell now that he’s out??
I hate to put it so bluntly, but prison takes people who made mistakes and breaks them, sometimes beyond repair. Somehow, I feel like that’s a greater crime than many prisoners are sentenced for.
I hate to put it so bluntly, but prison takes people who made mistakes and breaks them, sometimes beyond repair. Somehow, I feel like that’s a greater crime than many prisoners are sentenced for.
I’ve been stopped at knife point at dark by two people. It was traumatizing and I have no sympathy towards bad actors. What am I supposed to do? Just get stabbed and be thankful that the criminals were nice enough not to kill me?
I was going to night class and getting harassed by people my age. Lock them up and maybe they become rehabilitated but there’s something seriously wrong with people who are willing to go right up to killing someone over a few possessions. I personally will always vote strongly against crime. You can keep having sympathy for criminals I hope you’re never afraid of going outside after dark.
I was going to night class and getting harassed by people my age. Lock them up and maybe they become rehabilitated but there’s something seriously wrong with people who are willing to go right up to killing someone over a few possessions. I personally will always vote strongly against crime. You can keep having sympathy for criminals I hope you’re never afraid of going outside after dark.
Although I don't doubt the traumatic nature of your experience and I am genuinely sorry. Surely it would make more sense to diagnose why we have bad actors and seek to rehabilitate them as opposed to dehumanising them and tossing them into a dank cell.
I obviously agree, but can you do me a big favour?? Let's just love the hell out of swman and let them believe what they believe.
Won’t somebody please think of the humanity of those who rob others at knife-point?
At some point, people need to realize that some human beings are just born bad. Psychopathy and Sociopathy are real things that have a genetic component.
And, while we can try to rehabilitate those who score low on measures of psychopathy and sociopathy, we need to recognize that some people really do just need to be locked away from society at large to preserve the lives of innocent people.
At some point, people need to realize that some human beings are just born bad. Psychopathy and Sociopathy are real things that have a genetic component.
And, while we can try to rehabilitate those who score low on measures of psychopathy and sociopathy, we need to recognize that some people really do just need to be locked away from society at large to preserve the lives of innocent people.
Psychopathy and sociopathy are defined as antisocial personality disorder. There are treatments, unfortunately modern prisons are nowhere near conducive to the types of treatments that are effective. And the spiral continues...
I'm very sorry that happened to you. If you'd ever like to talk to someone, my Dad was a police officer and I bet he would open up his network to you. My email is in my profile and nobody ever even has to know your name.
I completely sympathize with you. I hate criminals, I'm tough on crime.
But... 68 years?
At that point, I almost think it's kinder and more honest to execute people.
But... 68 years?
At that point, I almost think it's kinder and more honest to execute people.
You argument is very egocentric.
It's proved that a light penalty system leads to much lower crime numbers.
Too bad that so much people look at it from an individual perspective and not from a society one. The great danger of a individualistic society
I think being able to state - here is my trauma and here is how it’s part of my decision making - is pretty brave. It’s the opposite of egocentric. It clearly states a reasonable bias and makes it easier to communicate about sensitive topics.
Not saying that this is the right example, but usually when throwing in some emotional things to get attention is considered egocentric.
In the case of non-violent crimes for drug possession and distribution, I entirely agree with your second paragraph.
In the case of armed robbery with accompanying multiple murders, I'm much more concerned for the victims than the perpetrators (beyond taking steps as needed to ensure they won’t do it again in free society).
In the case of armed robbery with accompanying multiple murders, I'm much more concerned for the victims than the perpetrators (beyond taking steps as needed to ensure they won’t do it again in free society).
I agree completely - some people deserve cages. My Dad was a police officer and one of his good friends was heavily involved in Victim Services - I grew up hearing about the need for reform in that area and am in complete agreement with you.
It gets tough when you look at entire systems. On one hand, you've got some brave dedicated people who work with asshole criminals. We need a carrot of freedom and parole to keep those people somewhat safe. On the other, if prisons make people worse, that carrot of freedom is dangerous to everyone else. When I look at recidivism rates, I don't think that North American prisons make people better so what the heck do we do??
It gets tough when you look at entire systems. On one hand, you've got some brave dedicated people who work with asshole criminals. We need a carrot of freedom and parole to keep those people somewhat safe. On the other, if prisons make people worse, that carrot of freedom is dangerous to everyone else. When I look at recidivism rates, I don't think that North American prisons make people better so what the heck do we do??
Fix North American prisons?
That's the best/most obvious solution but at this point, things are so messed up and have been so messed up that that's practically a 'rent bulldozers and start over' situation. I'd give my right arm if we did that, but honestly, I feel pretty safe knowing my right arm will stay intact with that bet.
I know that sounds cynical but in the last year, the 'shining lights' of my city's youth offender program 'quit' for sexually harassing the young people they were charged with. That's Canada's Young Offender system and that is one heavily scrutinized system. If that kind of evil can hide for a decade in our young offender system, we're passed the point of draining the swamp and need to bring in heavy earth movers.
I know that sounds cynical but in the last year, the 'shining lights' of my city's youth offender program 'quit' for sexually harassing the young people they were charged with. That's Canada's Young Offender system and that is one heavily scrutinized system. If that kind of evil can hide for a decade in our young offender system, we're passed the point of draining the swamp and need to bring in heavy earth movers.
Fix the system and reduce the number of people in exercise. Then fix factors in society that leads people to jail.
Preferably doing all the above at the same time.
Preferably doing all the above at the same time.
Could also be a function of age. People mellow out with age. You learn to take more things in stride without getting in a huff. This topic actually came up in another HN post this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27117142
Some westerners tried to help very young kids living on a garbage heap. Most didn't have a shirt or still had to find shoes. They put one in a foster home and send him to school. He ran away back to the garbage heap. He just wanted to play with friends all day, this school stuff was like prison to him. The thing that surprised me the most was how happy they were. Kids will just be kids regardless apparently and people get used to anything.
People can find acceptance and happiness in their less than ideal circumstances. Maybe it is just a mental trick to keep on living. I've heard similar things about how after a few years paraplegics report happiness higher than their happiness before their paralyzing accident.
Most humans just adapt and accept their circumstances.
Contrarians and discontents are actually uncommon.
Contrarians and discontents are actually uncommon.
You're fed and clothed your whole life. Plus 60+ years is a lot of time to build some robust rationalisations as to why it aint so bad.
> You're fed and clothed your whole life. Plus 60+ years is a lot of time to build some robust rationalisations as to why it aint so bad.
And compared to being a black youth in Jim Crow Alabama—Ligon’s only pre-prison experience—“ain’t so bad” is a pretty low bar to clear.
And compared to being a black youth in Jim Crow Alabama—Ligon’s only pre-prison experience—“ain’t so bad” is a pretty low bar to clear.
For people digging into what young Joe Ligon was a part of which landed him in prison:
>"We started asking people for some money so we could get some more wine and one thing led to another..."
>He trails off. But he admits the night ended in a stabbing spree in which he was involved, violence which left two people dead and six injured.
He goes on to say that although he admits to stabbing someone, the person survived, so he didn't murder anyone.
>"We started asking people for some money so we could get some more wine and one thing led to another..."
>He trails off. But he admits the night ended in a stabbing spree in which he was involved, violence which left two people dead and six injured.
He goes on to say that although he admits to stabbing someone, the person survived, so he didn't murder anyone.
Most countries treat organised crime episodes as severe aggravation - this is to deter participation in organized crime and avoid "you can't prove who did the actual stabbing" situations
But Mr. Ligon claims he was a bit of a loner and didn't know any of the people that he was with at the time very well. It sounds like "we rounded up a bunch of black people, and we're going to call it a gang". Which I bet was absurdly common. Probably a bit less so now in most places, but certainly the late 20th century had a lot of that sentiment that I can remember, and maybe there is a bit of a resurgence lately in some circles, "tough on crime" and "anti-gang" rhetoric that can be seen as veiled racism.
what sort of person goes on a stabbing spree with total strangers?
The article says he was a 15 year old kid (read: underdeveloped prefrontal cortex) out underage drinking, the group asked somebody for money for booze and it escalated into a fight.
This is not saintly behavior but also not worthy of 68 years in prison.
And yeah, it's conceivable that he was out doing this with people he didn't know very well, and that nobody expected or wanted a knife fight to break out.
This is not saintly behavior but also not worthy of 68 years in prison.
And yeah, it's conceivable that he was out doing this with people he didn't know very well, and that nobody expected or wanted a knife fight to break out.
>the group asked somebody for money for booze and it escalated into a fight.
You are seriously downplaying what is described in the article as a "stabbing spree" with 8 different victims, 2 of them killed.
You are seriously downplaying what is described in the article as a "stabbing spree" with 8 different victims, 2 of them killed.
I think you may be missing something too. You don't see how a non-stabbing fight could escalate into a stabbing fight, even a deadly one, and the participants can have (1) not set out to do it, (2) rather not have done it and (3) not be irredeemable people?
And that some participants were escalating more than others, and it not to have been a "gang" conspiracy?
This is I think what I am complaining about. So eager to see perpetrators as irredeemable villains, rather than possibly at a wrong place at a wrong time, with the wrong company, and/or they just messed up. There's often a racial thing at the root of that too.
Don't get me wrong, the event sounds like a tragedy. But so is spending 68 years in jail for a 15 year old's tragic mistake. And make no mistake, a white person who did the exact same thing or worse would get off easier.
And that some participants were escalating more than others, and it not to have been a "gang" conspiracy?
This is I think what I am complaining about. So eager to see perpetrators as irredeemable villains, rather than possibly at a wrong place at a wrong time, with the wrong company, and/or they just messed up. There's often a racial thing at the root of that too.
Don't get me wrong, the event sounds like a tragedy. But so is spending 68 years in jail for a 15 year old's tragic mistake. And make no mistake, a white person who did the exact same thing or worse would get off easier.
> You don't see how a non-stabbing fight could escalate into a stabbing fight
It wasn't a single incident/moment in time.
Dig a little deeper. These articles don't like to focus on the negative which is why they haven't even named the 2 dead innocent victims(Charles Pitts and Jackson Hamm,):
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4604687/com-v-ligon-j/
> Appellant and four others imbibed wine and, over the course of approximately two hours, proceeded to rob and stab eight people, killing Jackson Hamm and Charles Pitts. When Appellant was arrested that night, he was carrying a knife sheath on his person. A knife was recovered from the patrol car where Appellant had been sitting.
It wasn't a single incident/moment in time.
Dig a little deeper. These articles don't like to focus on the negative which is why they haven't even named the 2 dead innocent victims(Charles Pitts and Jackson Hamm,):
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4604687/com-v-ligon-j/
> Appellant and four others imbibed wine and, over the course of approximately two hours, proceeded to rob and stab eight people, killing Jackson Hamm and Charles Pitts. When Appellant was arrested that night, he was carrying a knife sheath on his person. A knife was recovered from the patrol car where Appellant had been sitting.
The event sounds like an outrage.
Do you have some additional facts on the case, or are you just regurgitating your preconceived notions?
You seem to be so sure that Mr. Ligon was just a victim drawn into this situation but for all you know he could be a completely cold-hearted killer.
As someone with a friend who was stabbed to death, I personally am glad to live in a society where stabbing people is more gravely punished than a *tragic mistake*.
You seem to be so sure that Mr. Ligon was just a victim drawn into this situation but for all you know he could be a completely cold-hearted killer.
As someone with a friend who was stabbed to death, I personally am glad to live in a society where stabbing people is more gravely punished than a *tragic mistake*.
We are supposed to read the message for our own kids here: if the brawl starts, move out, not in. Not too racist, right?
Under US criminal law, defendants can often be found guilty of murder due to participation in a group criminal activity even if they didn't directly attack the victim. For example, if bank robbers kill a security guard the get-away driver will often be charged with murder even if he never physically entered the bank.
Felony murder? I was on the jury of one case. I kinda felt bad for the defendant - he was 18 and some juvenile in his group pulled the trigger. Probably accidentally.
My guess is that if a pair of robbers hit a liquor store and the liquor store clerk killed one of them, the other can be charged with some form of murder.
edit: easy enough to find.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/hillsborough/2019/12/16/robber...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/20...
edit: easy enough to find.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/hillsborough/2019/12/16/robber...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/20...
That's a recent law so it shouldn't apply to this timeperiod.
Felony murder rule is old and well established in common law, dating centuries back.
How far back…well there is a scripture in the Old Testament that essentially says if you are party to a crime then you are just as guilty as the one who committed the crime…so this common law practice actually dates back at least 4000 years. Also Japanese law held the same types of practices for thousands of years and Is m sure many other ancient cultures.
One thing I wonder, though, is how accurate his memory is at this point one way or the other.
There are things you forget as time passes, Stabbing people isn't one of them. Unless you're a psychopath.
The guy admitted to murder at the time. His claims otherwise now are both conflicting with other statements he makes now, and conflict with his admissions at the time.
He says himself he has no friends inside or out and that he was better off in prison... Which also means society was better off.
He says himself he has no friends inside or out and that he was better off in prison... Which also means society was better off.
"...Which also means society was better off.".
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Violent crime was very high in the 80s and 90s, after laws were passed that greatly increased prison sentences for violent criminals in the mid-90s, violent crime has dropped off a cliff. If violent criminals are not out there committing crimes, crime goes down obviously.
> Violent crime was very high in the 80s and 90s, after laws were passed that greatly increased prison sentences for violent criminals in the mid-90s, violent crime has dropped off a cliff.
There were continuous tough on crime efforts throughout (and beyond) the very long “crime wave” period, but there’s very little evidence that they has any impact on turning things around. Better explanations are the demographic bugle aging out of the age range that drives most crime, the lead-crime link, and the legalized abortion crime effect.
There were continuous tough on crime efforts throughout (and beyond) the very long “crime wave” period, but there’s very little evidence that they has any impact on turning things around. Better explanations are the demographic bugle aging out of the age range that drives most crime, the lead-crime link, and the legalized abortion crime effect.
I think such a grave accusation will bring you to write a story into your permanent memory due to how many times you have to repeat it and go over it. If you go to prison, it’s also the last story of your free life. Once inside, your brain will probably be stuck in a loop over what you could have done differently that could have avoided your current situation.
There's no such thing as a "permanent memory," each time you relive it it's liable to get warped by your thoughts at the moment. Decades of thinking "I must have done something to deserve this" are likely to make the memory of his role in events worse.
That's exactly what happens. See for example the murder of Helen Wilson [1], for which six (!) people were falsely convicted, because they were manipulated into forming false memories.
[1] www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/remembering-the-murder-you-didnt-commit
[1] www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/remembering-the-murder-you-didnt-commit
From what I understand, with murder generally all who participate can be charged equally.
A bit of googling finds the name of the men that were murdered that night, Charles Pitts, 60, and Jackson Hamm, 65.
He admitted to murdering them. (Which is what a guilty plea fundamentally is.)
He admitted to murdering them. (Which is what a guilty plea fundamentally is.)
He admitted to murdering them. (Which is what a guilty plea fundamentally is.)
Isn't the accused sometimes advised to plead guilty (regardless of the truth of the matter) because he has little chance of winning a plea of innocence? Or is that just in fiction?
Isn't the accused sometimes advised to plead guilty (regardless of the truth of the matter) because he has little chance of winning a plea of innocence? Or is that just in fiction?
No, it's true. 95% of felony convictions in America are from plea deals, not trials.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/prisons-are-packed-because-p...
>he admits the night ended in a stabbing spree in which he was involved, violence which left two people dead and six injured.
>he has since accepted in an interview with US broadcaster CBS that he stabbed someone who survived
>”I didn't murder anybody."
I wonder if there’s some very simple investigative work that took place, but the article doesn’t mention it, as the author attempts to portray the convicted murder in a way that would foster empathy.
For instance, did the wounds suggest more than one knife was used? If not, that would mean they were handing the knife off to each other. It would be pretty unrealistic that a group of inebriated youngsters could rack up 8 stabbings and 2 murders with 1 knife before the streets were completely cleared and the police were on the scene.
As he’s been convicted, he’s a murderer unless proven otherwise, and deserves his original sentence.
>he has since accepted in an interview with US broadcaster CBS that he stabbed someone who survived
>”I didn't murder anybody."
I wonder if there’s some very simple investigative work that took place, but the article doesn’t mention it, as the author attempts to portray the convicted murder in a way that would foster empathy.
For instance, did the wounds suggest more than one knife was used? If not, that would mean they were handing the knife off to each other. It would be pretty unrealistic that a group of inebriated youngsters could rack up 8 stabbings and 2 murders with 1 knife before the streets were completely cleared and the police were on the scene.
As he’s been convicted, he’s a murderer unless proven otherwise, and deserves his original sentence.
"Deserves" is a pretty loaded word there...
I’m not sure I get your meaning? “Deserve” is a consequence of action, whether it’s a reward or punishment depends on the action. The scope of the consequence is usually clearly defined, and a person or group is empowered with delivering that consequence (reward or punishment). So just as “injustice” exists when someone deserves a reward, (some consequence predicated on their actions), but does not receive it, the same must also exist where someone deserves a punishment but does not receive it.
In a democracy what such an action "deserves" is decided by the people and the people are not of one mind on what a person like this "deserves". It seems quite likely that in a different jurisdiction or at a different time a much lighter sentence would have been imposed for this crime.
Perhaps worth pointing out for general awareness that trial by jury has nothing to do with democracy, per se. Not all democracies do it, and it was (is) a pretty unique thing about the American system of checks and balances at the time it was enshrined in the sixth and seventh Amendments of our Constitution. Jury trials can exist with or without democracy.
To your point about different time and place, yes, but that’s the system: the jury you get, absent a mistrial, is the jury you get and their opinion is what decides what you deserve by definition (absent new evidence, appeals, etc, within the confines of sentencing regulation, etc.).
Perhaps what you’re after is that there’s no universally objective standard of what a person deserves for their actions, given all the myriad influences and conditions that lead to a particular moment in a person’s life, and which may lessen that persons agency. Therefore the judgement of society is imperfect in the sense that it cannot adequately grasp all these attributes, and may give attributes differing weight based on something as small as whether their eggs were over cooked that morning. So for a person to use the word “deserves” with authority is flawed because a person or people cannot render a perfectly objective judgement.
I think you’ll find that this is an argument as old as time, but whether by birth or immigration, people living in a system operate by its rules, and the word “deserve” reflects the authority of a society to bring down punishment on scofflaws. Like when I tell you something is “cold” we need not debate the true principle of what cold means, you assume to context. So should you assume context for the word “deserves”. Society has never achieved perfection in balancing agency and justice but herein lies a predictable truism - if you run around with a band stabbing others so severely that some die and by luck some don’t, society will determine ya dun f’d up.
To your point about different time and place, yes, but that’s the system: the jury you get, absent a mistrial, is the jury you get and their opinion is what decides what you deserve by definition (absent new evidence, appeals, etc, within the confines of sentencing regulation, etc.).
Perhaps what you’re after is that there’s no universally objective standard of what a person deserves for their actions, given all the myriad influences and conditions that lead to a particular moment in a person’s life, and which may lessen that persons agency. Therefore the judgement of society is imperfect in the sense that it cannot adequately grasp all these attributes, and may give attributes differing weight based on something as small as whether their eggs were over cooked that morning. So for a person to use the word “deserves” with authority is flawed because a person or people cannot render a perfectly objective judgement.
I think you’ll find that this is an argument as old as time, but whether by birth or immigration, people living in a system operate by its rules, and the word “deserve” reflects the authority of a society to bring down punishment on scofflaws. Like when I tell you something is “cold” we need not debate the true principle of what cold means, you assume to context. So should you assume context for the word “deserves”. Society has never achieved perfection in balancing agency and justice but herein lies a predictable truism - if you run around with a band stabbing others so severely that some die and by luck some don’t, society will determine ya dun f’d up.
> Perhaps worth pointing out for general awareness that trial by jury has nothing to do with democracy, per se. Not all democracies do it, and it was (is) a pretty unique thing about the American system of checks and balances at the time it was enshrined in the sixth and seventh Amendments of our Constitution.
It was adopted directly from the British system; Americans had some recent experience with and anger about being subjected to fairly novel (at least in their breadth of application in the colonies) exceptions to the norm of trial by jury and the guarantee reflected a reaction against that experience, but trial by jury wasn’t an American innovation.
It was adopted directly from the British system; Americans had some recent experience with and anger about being subjected to fairly novel (at least in their breadth of application in the colonies) exceptions to the norm of trial by jury and the guarantee reflected a reaction against that experience, but trial by jury wasn’t an American innovation.
Comment you’re replying to never said trial by jury was an American innovation. Simply that it was pretty unique at the time to have that right enshrined in the country’s constitution, and that the right is not a requisite feature of democracies. For instance, the right to a jury trial for serious crimes in England has existed longer than England could seriously call itself a democracy.
> Simply that it was pretty unique at the time to have that right enshrined in the country’s constitution
Having a set, non-nebulous constitution at all, was unique but the claim that trial by jury “ a pretty unique thing about the American system of checks and balances” is false, it was a well-established basic right in the common law system and the deprivation of it in the colonial administration was a fundamental grievance of the American independence movement not because they had some novel ideas about basic right but because they sought it as a deprivation of the rights they saw themselves entitled to in the British common law tradition.
Having a set, non-nebulous constitution at all, was unique but the claim that trial by jury “ a pretty unique thing about the American system of checks and balances” is false, it was a well-established basic right in the common law system and the deprivation of it in the colonial administration was a fundamental grievance of the American independence movement not because they had some novel ideas about basic right but because they sought it as a deprivation of the rights they saw themselves entitled to in the British common law tradition.
No, you introduced the question of innovation, which was never contained in my statement. Now you are limiting the statement to a comparison with England proper (for they did in fact suppress the right in their colonies), which was also never in my statement, even implicitly. These are called strawmen.
How was France doing with TbJ? How about Japan? China? Russia? Shall we go through the list of countries in the late 18th century to do this by hand? Tally them up and see how many had a guaranteed right to TbJ for criminal offenses by their citizens?
No, the statement I made holds, and you’ll find that by looking at how other countries adjudicated criminal offenses at the time (not just England). Guaranteed TbJ was the exception, not the rule.
How was France doing with TbJ? How about Japan? China? Russia? Shall we go through the list of countries in the late 18th century to do this by hand? Tally them up and see how many had a guaranteed right to TbJ for criminal offenses by their citizens?
No, the statement I made holds, and you’ll find that by looking at how other countries adjudicated criminal offenses at the time (not just England). Guaranteed TbJ was the exception, not the rule.
I wasn't referring specifically to juries. The ranges of punishments that are prescribed for crimes are done so by democratically elected legislatures in most modern nations, including the US, though judges and juries do have varying degrees of discretion in the matter.
My main point is that in a democracy one shouldn't take the law that exists in a particular place and time as some absolute that cannot be questioned because those laws can and do change through political action, as has recently been happening with drug laws and mandatory sentences for drug crimes.
My main point is that in a democracy one shouldn't take the law that exists in a particular place and time as some absolute that cannot be questioned because those laws can and do change through political action, as has recently been happening with drug laws and mandatory sentences for drug crimes.
Murdering multiple people will always be highly unpopular, particularly in the local community where it happens and when it happens, but I take your point.
Would you use the word "deserves" to describe a child hanged for stealing food, which was an expected legal penalty in some times and places? To most people it carries the connotation that the speaker agrees with the appropriateness of the penalty.
A life sentence for participating in a cold-blooded murder spree is something I imagine most members of society would see as just.
For a mentally capable adult, perhaps. We have plenty of research to show that the brains of juveniles are wired differently. That doesn't mean no punishment, but it means that a life sentence is excessive and rehabilitation should be tried.
The overwhelming majority of juveniles do not commit cold-blooded murder like this. Do you believe that this person is not a psychopath? Has any real ground been broken to take violent psychopaths and "cure" their condition? I've seen no evidence of this, and I don't see rehabilitation as anything more than a tool that is useful in certain circumstances.
Most of us on here are in tech rather than psychiatry and not fit to make a call on whether someone is a psycopath, especially from a single article about them that doesn’t really focus on their mental state.
When you think about it, there was enough complex decisions taking place to point towards a developed (albeit devoid of conscience) mind in control.
A childs reasoning would more likely follow this kind of path: Child wants alcohol->storekeeper has alcohol->child capable of coercion by force (ie stabbing)—>child gets alcohol from storekeeper
However, instead he did this: Young man wants alcohol->storekeeper has alcohol—>alcohol costs money that young man does not have—>innocent passerby’s have money—> young man capable of coercion by force (ie stabbing)—>young man stabs innocent passerby’s for their money—>Evaluate whether amount stolen is enough for alcohol, if not, repeat previous steps, if so—->young man gets alcohol from storekeeper
Good decisions are not proof of brain development, however complex ones are. Given the evidence I would say he was rightly judged as an adult.
A childs reasoning would more likely follow this kind of path: Child wants alcohol->storekeeper has alcohol->child capable of coercion by force (ie stabbing)—>child gets alcohol from storekeeper
However, instead he did this: Young man wants alcohol->storekeeper has alcohol—>alcohol costs money that young man does not have—>innocent passerby’s have money—> young man capable of coercion by force (ie stabbing)—>young man stabs innocent passerby’s for their money—>Evaluate whether amount stolen is enough for alcohol, if not, repeat previous steps, if so—->young man gets alcohol from storekeeper
Good decisions are not proof of brain development, however complex ones are. Given the evidence I would say he was rightly judged as an adult.
IIRC, empathy isnt fully developed until the early twenties. Even if you are capable of having sophisticated trains of thoughts you might not realize the scope of consequences from your actions.
Life without parole seems like it should be reserved for those who are beyond saving. Not sure a 15 year old boy would classify as such. It all depends on your view of retribution vs rehabilitation though.
Life without parole seems like it should be reserved for those who are beyond saving. Not sure a 15 year old boy would classify as such. It all depends on your view of retribution vs rehabilitation though.
He went on a robbing and stabbing spree that ended up with six critical injuries and two deaths.
Maybe you don’t think he deserves his punishment. I certainly do. The type of person who would go on a stabbing spree for wine money is not the kind of person who has any place in society I want to live.
Maybe you don’t think he deserves his punishment. I certainly do. The type of person who would go on a stabbing spree for wine money is not the kind of person who has any place in society I want to live.
Furthermore, if this is the type of thing that someone has to "learn" not to do at 15, what other horrible things do they still need to learn not to do? It is not worth having these people live around others while they learn these lessons at the cost of innocents around them.
So, "Deserves" still applies here, just less.
Society is rarely for lower sentences.
I find that leftist wokes tend to live in their own bubble. They are painfully reminded of it when there is a survey about the death penalty. Luckily the justice system doesn't operate on the whims of the people like in that story of Jesus' trial.
I find that leftist wokes tend to live in their own bubble. They are painfully reminded of it when there is a survey about the death penalty. Luckily the justice system doesn't operate on the whims of the people like in that story of Jesus' trial.
Historically, "society" has been huge fans of corporal punishment, elaborate executions and torture. Not sure you wanna go down that road, buddy.
Not to mention slavery, lynchings, and the consequence-free murder of gender and sexual minorities. There are many things that are today considered barbaric that were once popular, and this is almost certainly a trend that will extend into the future.
lol, I work as a paramedic. How many fatal stabbings have you been to? Especially ones where it was your job to try to save the victims life? Unless your number is higher than mine, save your "woke leftist bubble" argument.
My position is that no 15 year old deserves a life sentence _without parole_. Are there 15 year olds who commit crimes that truly reflect their irredeemable nature? Perhaps. I expect they are in the minority though, and that's the whole point of a parole board (as flawed a system as that is).
My position is that no 15 year old deserves a life sentence _without parole_. Are there 15 year olds who commit crimes that truly reflect their irredeemable nature? Perhaps. I expect they are in the minority though, and that's the whole point of a parole board (as flawed a system as that is).
I don't think anyone deserves that long for something done at 15. Remember that the potential range of failure (how hard you can fuck up) for a 15 year old is kinda arbitrary as much of it is based on who your parents are.
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve punishment but that seems like a very long amount of time to sentence a minor.
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve punishment but that seems like a very long amount of time to sentence a minor.
It’s definitely pretty hard to determine how long someone should be punished for multiple murder. I expect the most capable would be the judge and jury, so it’s hard to improve on that decades later with minimal information.
So life for multiple murder by a 15 year old doesn’t strike up my curiosity for optimizing the sentencing. Unless there’s lots more info. This article didn’t provide any and since the journalist would likely research to make a good article, I expect there’s not any compelling narrative.
So life for multiple murder by a 15 year old doesn’t strike up my curiosity for optimizing the sentencing. Unless there’s lots more info. This article didn’t provide any and since the journalist would likely research to make a good article, I expect there’s not any compelling narrative.
Arguably (though not certainly) a better punishment than death, which would have been a frequent consequence in most of human history for taking the lives of others (plural). Life imprisonment is simply an alternative to the state killing you.
You can die (so we don’t have to worry about your exposure to society) or you can stay in this institution (so we don’t have to worry about you). What do you prefer? ..aaand arguably you can revisit the decision on your own accord later if you choose the latter.
“Time head all wounds” refers to the lessening sense of gravity of experiences over time. This is a function of memory and the healing power of forgetfulness. Life sentences are therefore liable to re-evaluation and pity by their nature, whereas if death was meted out as the sentence, that too would be forgotten in time. I find that interesting, and perhaps it says that we should not trust such emotions in either direction (for or against a punishment) when figuring out how to manage people who systemically murder others.
You can die (so we don’t have to worry about your exposure to society) or you can stay in this institution (so we don’t have to worry about you). What do you prefer? ..aaand arguably you can revisit the decision on your own accord later if you choose the latter.
“Time head all wounds” refers to the lessening sense of gravity of experiences over time. This is a function of memory and the healing power of forgetfulness. Life sentences are therefore liable to re-evaluation and pity by their nature, whereas if death was meted out as the sentence, that too would be forgotten in time. I find that interesting, and perhaps it says that we should not trust such emotions in either direction (for or against a punishment) when figuring out how to manage people who systemically murder others.
Recent and related:
The nation’s oldest juvenile lifer, Joe Ligon, left prison after 68 years - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26113062 - Feb 2021 (81 comments)
The nation’s oldest juvenile lifer, Joe Ligon, left prison after 68 years - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26113062 - Feb 2021 (81 comments)
He didn’t even know how to read or write. I can’t imagine how little guidance he got from his parents growing up. No wonder he ended up with the wrong crowd
It's worth noting that the black illiteracy rate at the time he was growing up was around 10% [1]. Desegregation didn't happen until he had had already been in prison for close to a decade.
There's a substantial chance his parents may not have known themselves. Not because of any fault of theirs, but because they may literally have not had the opportunity to. In fact, there's a high chance that he had relatives who literally were not allowed to learn - not only was Jim Crow still in living memory, there were people alive at that time who had been born into slavery.
People forget how relatively recently the fight for (obvious) civil rights was.
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp
There's a substantial chance his parents may not have known themselves. Not because of any fault of theirs, but because they may literally have not had the opportunity to. In fact, there's a high chance that he had relatives who literally were not allowed to learn - not only was Jim Crow still in living memory, there were people alive at that time who had been born into slavery.
People forget how relatively recently the fight for (obvious) civil rights was.
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp
> It's worth noting that the black illiteracy rate at the time he was growing up was around 10%
Nationally. Alabama’s general illiteracy rate around that time was close to double the national average (4.2% to the national 2.4% in 1960, for example [0]), so if the black:general ratio was similar to the national average (and I'd suspect it more likely was higher in the Deep South), you’d expect black illiteracy in Alabama to be near 20%.
> not only was Jim Crow still in living memory
“Living memory” suggests it was in the past, but there were people alive who had experienced it. Jim Crow was still a thing in Alabama for more than a decade after the time of his crime. And not just as some kind of neglected relic; not only were Jim Crow laws vigorously enforced, but new ones at both state and local levels were being adopted in Alabama into the 1960s.
Now Jim Crow is “in living memory”, then it was an ongoing crime against humanity.
[0] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1963/demo/p23-00...
Nationally. Alabama’s general illiteracy rate around that time was close to double the national average (4.2% to the national 2.4% in 1960, for example [0]), so if the black:general ratio was similar to the national average (and I'd suspect it more likely was higher in the Deep South), you’d expect black illiteracy in Alabama to be near 20%.
> not only was Jim Crow still in living memory
“Living memory” suggests it was in the past, but there were people alive who had experienced it. Jim Crow was still a thing in Alabama for more than a decade after the time of his crime. And not just as some kind of neglected relic; not only were Jim Crow laws vigorously enforced, but new ones at both state and local levels were being adopted in Alabama into the 1960s.
Now Jim Crow is “in living memory”, then it was an ongoing crime against humanity.
[0] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1963/demo/p23-00...
damn,that is a long sentence.
always be as nice as possible, never get mad.
always be as nice as possible, never get mad.
"I stayed as humble as I possibly could - what prison has taught me along with many other things is mind your business, always try to do what's right, stay away from trouble when it's humanly possible to do."
If only everybody learned such things early in life, outside of prison.
If only everybody learned such things early in life, outside of prison.