Ian Manuel, survivor of excessive child punishment, tells his story(eji.org)
eji.org
Ian Manuel, survivor of excessive child punishment, tells his story
https://eji.org/news/ian-manuel-survivor-of-excessive-child-punishment-tells-his-story/
119 comments
We can't keep pretending that our justice system is utilitarian. It's so very clearly not about helping those that commit crimes improve themselves. If it was, we wouldn't be punishing people with literal torture methods such as solitary, and we wouldn't care so much about being 'tough on crime'. We need to refocus our justice system on the criminalization process so that we reduce the importance of 'correctional' facilities. There is nothing utilitarian about the above story, let's not deceive ourselves.
> Put aside the moral and ethical cost here, just the shear financial cost or this punishment is unbelievable.
Yes, it is very odd. It seems like a lot of people have gone to a lot of effort to keep Ian Manuel in prison- but why? What is the motivation here? Profit? Revenge? Public safety? Who benefits when kids are incarcerated for decades?
Yes, it is very odd. It seems like a lot of people have gone to a lot of effort to keep Ian Manuel in prison- but why? What is the motivation here? Profit? Revenge? Public safety? Who benefits when kids are incarcerated for decades?
Racism. I guessed before I clicked through that Ian was black, and I was correct.
There will be one or two long serving white child prisoners, but it will be far rarer. The UK had exactly one case of children being given effectively life imprisonment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger , and that was for a horrific murder by 10-year-olds on their own initiative.
There will be one or two long serving white child prisoners, but it will be far rarer. The UK had exactly one case of children being given effectively life imprisonment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger , and that was for a horrific murder by 10-year-olds on their own initiative.
Worth noting "life" here was ~8 years (1993-2001) and both killers were released on parole (age 18).
The killers have repeatedly had their identity revealed and, one of them, after serving time for child pornography charges the police were seeking to move abroad; I'm not sure how all that works with the sex offenders registry, seems like the police are keeping hidden a known sex offender in order to protect them from potential consequences of a prior murder.
The killers have repeatedly had their identity revealed and, one of them, after serving time for child pornography charges the police were seeking to move abroad; I'm not sure how all that works with the sex offenders registry, seems like the police are keeping hidden a known sex offender in order to protect them from potential consequences of a prior murder.
>The UK had exactly one case of children being given effectively life imprisonment
UK life imprisonment is not the same as American life imprisonment, as in the latter you will in most cases be dying in prison.
UK life imprisonment is not the same as American life imprisonment, as in the latter you will in most cases be dying in prison.
You are probably right about the racism, but it occurs to me that most people probably view the situation somewhat incorrectly. Most people probably believe that whoever treated Ian unfairly are racists in that the punishers believe the worst about black people, and therefore want to punish him more severely. I would guess that the situation is slightly more nuanced – the people punishing Ian harshly probably don’t think about Ian being black at all, except that they believe that other people will view Ian (and other black people) with less sympathy, and therefore it is safe to deliver a harsh punishment; they will appear (they believe) as being tough on crime, with no appreciable drawback. Of course, this backfires when more people than they thought do have sympathy with Ian, but this might not make they themselves racist. They might merely lack a conscience, and also believe that the public is predominantly somewhat racist. (The action is the same as a racist would have done, but people can do the same thing for different reasons.)
I.e. racism might not be as widespread as commonly believed, and, furthermore, perpetuating this belief will probably only make unscrupulous people behave more in line with what they think racists would want. It is, in theory, a self-perpetuating cycle.
I.e. racism might not be as widespread as commonly believed, and, furthermore, perpetuating this belief will probably only make unscrupulous people behave more in line with what they think racists would want. It is, in theory, a self-perpetuating cycle.
I live in a 99,9% white country where punishments are not as excessive as in the U.S., and yet prosecutors will fight tooth and nail against setting people free, especially if the cause attracted a lot of media attention.
Don't discount the role of ego and face saving. People wielding a lot of power hate being challenged publicly.
Don't discount the role of ego and face saving. People wielding a lot of power hate being challenged publicly.
Effectively life?
> They were sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure until a Parole Board decision in June 2001 recommended their release on a lifelong licence aged 18.[5] In 2010, Venables was sent to prison for breaching the terms of his licence, and was released on parole again in 2013.
> They were sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure until a Parole Board decision in June 2001 recommended their release on a lifelong licence aged 18.[5] In 2010, Venables was sent to prison for breaching the terms of his licence, and was released on parole again in 2013.
Just recently there was a case on the front page of HN where a white boy was groomed into the drug trade by the FBI since he was 14, and served more than 32 years in prison, "the longest sentence of any nonviolent minor in Michigan history" [1].
Moving away from anecdote, black males receive on average 19% longer sentences for similar crimes compared to white males [2]. 0% would be better, but 19% does not strike me as over-the-top racist as we are told the system is. For comparison:
Black female offenders and Other Race female offenders also received shorter sentences than White male offenders during the Post-Report period, at 29.7 percent and 35.4 percent shorter respectively - page 9 of the report.
That's considerably more than the black-white male disparity. But is this piece of data going to convince you the justice system's anti-male bias is a bigger problem than its anti-black bias? Is it going to affect you at all? The next time someone brings up how viciously racist the system is, will you correct them and say it's only 19% racist, compared to ~30% misandrist?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28020253
[2] https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...
Moving away from anecdote, black males receive on average 19% longer sentences for similar crimes compared to white males [2]. 0% would be better, but 19% does not strike me as over-the-top racist as we are told the system is. For comparison:
Black female offenders and Other Race female offenders also received shorter sentences than White male offenders during the Post-Report period, at 29.7 percent and 35.4 percent shorter respectively - page 9 of the report.
That's considerably more than the black-white male disparity. But is this piece of data going to convince you the justice system's anti-male bias is a bigger problem than its anti-black bias? Is it going to affect you at all? The next time someone brings up how viciously racist the system is, will you correct them and say it's only 19% racist, compared to ~30% misandrist?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28020253
[2] https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...
All sentiments aside, some kids and teenagers are extremely dangerous. It could be that such a punishment came out of the desire to protect others (e.g., own kids).
Society does not have an answer to the more extrem cases of deviants, sadly.
But that consideration aside, putting a 13 year old into solitary confinement for years is a crime against humanity. The barbarian nation that does this should get a good old-fashioned regime change.
Society does not have an answer to the more extrem cases of deviants, sadly.
But that consideration aside, putting a 13 year old into solitary confinement for years is a crime against humanity. The barbarian nation that does this should get a good old-fashioned regime change.
> Society does not have an answer to the more extrem cases of deviants, sadly.
This society does have an answer and it's the same lazy answer it gives to every problem that it can't empathize with, lock it up and keep it out of sight for as long as possible. It has never cared to seek another answer.
Frankly, things only change when enough people do research and be obnoxious and cantankerous about the answer. I doubt there is much funding for that research as it takes no effort to see how little this society cares about those that need the most compassion.
This society does have an answer and it's the same lazy answer it gives to every problem that it can't empathize with, lock it up and keep it out of sight for as long as possible. It has never cared to seek another answer.
Frankly, things only change when enough people do research and be obnoxious and cantankerous about the answer. I doubt there is much funding for that research as it takes no effort to see how little this society cares about those that need the most compassion.
Why should society be concerned with rehabilitating the most violent of offenders? To be a bit more specific, assume we are talking about a parent that has brutally beaten their child to death, or someone who has knelt on someone else's neck until death was inevitable. This person has killed someone, an action that is absolutely irreversible. Why should that person be allowed back in society? I don't want society spending time and money rehabilitating this person. In my opinion, this person has forfeited their right to live in society when they chose to take someone else's life.
To be clear, I'm not talking about non-violent crime or even most types of violent crimes - I'm referring to the most violent of offenders. There are 7 billion people in this world, I think society will carry on just fine if we remove the tiny fraction of people from society that commit the most heinous of violent crimes (i.e wanton murder).
So what's society get out of rehabilitating this person? Let's assume this person can add moderate value to society, such as being capable of working an average job decently well (thus bringing value to their employer, the customers they help, and greater society through taxes). Now weigh that value added against the fact that their victim will never re-enter society again. Is that value added worth it, and is it fair to their victim?
I am open to having my opinion changed on this topic so if you have a good argument for why we should be concerned with the most violent offenders, please do share and I will weigh what you say carefully. However, please make sure you are addressing the case of deliberate, unprovoked murder since my response is only addressing this form of crime.
To be clear, I'm not talking about non-violent crime or even most types of violent crimes - I'm referring to the most violent of offenders. There are 7 billion people in this world, I think society will carry on just fine if we remove the tiny fraction of people from society that commit the most heinous of violent crimes (i.e wanton murder).
So what's society get out of rehabilitating this person? Let's assume this person can add moderate value to society, such as being capable of working an average job decently well (thus bringing value to their employer, the customers they help, and greater society through taxes). Now weigh that value added against the fact that their victim will never re-enter society again. Is that value added worth it, and is it fair to their victim?
I am open to having my opinion changed on this topic so if you have a good argument for why we should be concerned with the most violent offenders, please do share and I will weigh what you say carefully. However, please make sure you are addressing the case of deliberate, unprovoked murder since my response is only addressing this form of crime.
Because in the long run rehabilitation, when possible, is the better outcome for everyone involved
Because society does not only have to protect its weakest from criminals, but also itself from its justice. If the society only ever punishes, it begins to hurt itself at some point.
> how little this society cares about those that need the most compassion.
Two college professors are walking along and chatting when they come across a man who has just been brutally beaten. He is bloody and groaning with pain. The professors look with horror upon the sight. Finally, one turns to his friend and exclaims, "We need to help the man who did this!"
Two college professors are walking along and chatting when they come across a man who has just been brutally beaten. He is bloody and groaning with pain. The professors look with horror upon the sight. Finally, one turns to his friend and exclaims, "We need to help the man who did this!"
The motivation in general is to appease the "tough on crime" voters. Cases like this are simply the inevitable consequence of laws and policies that flow from that.
Public safety. Commission of violent crimes is a strong signal of underlying violent tendencies. These are largely congenital, and there is no known social intervention to fix them. The rest of us benefit when such individuals are warehoused, preferably for the rest of their lives. Their moral claim to a second chance counts little against my right to not be brutally victimized.
> It seems like a lot of people have gone to a lot of effort to keep Ian Manuel in prison
What makes you say that? I find that in cases like this, people are generally incentivized to do the least possible, out of a combination of laziness and fear of liability. I haven't read the book, but from the article, I don't think anyone had an agenda to keep him locked up. It's just that nobody in the system cared to get him out.
What makes you say that? I find that in cases like this, people are generally incentivized to do the least possible, out of a combination of laziness and fear of liability. I haven't read the book, but from the article, I don't think anyone had an agenda to keep him locked up. It's just that nobody in the system cared to get him out.
The us correctional police justice complex is a system that has reached a complicated equilibrium. This isn't the whole story but the easiest way to understand is that it pays a lot of salaries, gives a lot of people access to big budgets, and gives a lot of people political power. This accounts for 100s of thousands of people every one of which potentially adds resistance to systemic change.
> No programs or classes, no visitors, phone calls, or human touch, deprived of books, magazines, TV, and radio, and barred from talking or even looking out of his cell door
And this for a 13-year-old, who was sentenced to life without parole. WTF.
And this for a 13-year-old, who was sentenced to life without parole. WTF.
This is what "tough on crime" gets you - a race to the bottom.
At that point, the state is as criminally brutish as those it seeks to morally disparage and demean, and has lost any right to even be listened to.
I wonder how this guy even stayed verbal.
Here in Germany children under 14 can't even be guilty of any crime whatsoever. US society truly seems barbaric sometimes.
Just another instance where American teenagers are more advanced.
The US has a violent minority population that persists in offending.
Germany is importing a similarly violent cohort. I'm sure your teens will catch-up.
The US has a violent minority population that persists in offending.
Germany is importing a similarly violent cohort. I'm sure your teens will catch-up.
The same 13-year old was doing armed robbery and only by chance his victim did not die.
Ok. And in what wild world of ethics does this even hint at being justified?
Torture is not punishment. Torture is torture.
Torture is not punishment. Torture is torture.
I would argue torture is punishment, but punishment is not justice. Strongly recommend "Discipline and Punish" by Michel Foucault as an introduction to how our society operates in regards to social control.
It sucks that they thought that was a good idea. A good hard look should be taken at the environment that led to that.
Also: why not teach them to be better, do you think 13 year olds are incapable of learning?
Also: why not teach them to be better, do you think 13 year olds are incapable of learning?
At 13 years old you cannot decide to have sex, vote, drive, drink and so on, exactly because you are unable to decide or take responsibility.
Heartbreaking. A US citizen is likely not fully aware of the caprice and barbarity of the criminal justice system until it touches their lives somehow, but once seen it cannot be unseen. I have a cousin in prison 10 years into a 20 year stretch, and my horror at her conviction led to my emigrating to more civilized lands.
Edit: she's "Elizabeth Crafton" in this article https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexcampbell/these-moth...
Edit: she's "Elizabeth Crafton" in this article https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexcampbell/these-moth...
Just from reading a couple articles about Elizabeth Crafton in that county her story sounds horrific. It seems like she knowingly exposed her children to a violent person who beat and tortured them. She observed injuries "appearing" on her daughter and knew her boyfriend was violent and never connected the dots?
I do think the criminal justice system in the US is deeply flawed and needs lots and lots of reform... But I'm not really seeing the problem with a conviction for a woman who would expose her children to this. Is there additional context you can add?
"The child was literally beaten from head to toe... She was bruised on the top of her head to the bottom of her feet.
The girl, who suffered some brain damage, had cigarette burns, a skull fracture and a broken wrist...
https://www.oklahoman.com/article/3521061/man-kills-self-aft...
https://www.enidnews.com/oklahoma/how-laws-meant-to-protect-...
I do think the criminal justice system in the US is deeply flawed and needs lots and lots of reform... But I'm not really seeing the problem with a conviction for a woman who would expose her children to this. Is there additional context you can add?
"The child was literally beaten from head to toe... She was bruised on the top of her head to the bottom of her feet.
The girl, who suffered some brain damage, had cigarette burns, a skull fracture and a broken wrist...
https://www.oklahoman.com/article/3521061/man-kills-self-aft...
https://www.enidnews.com/oklahoma/how-laws-meant-to-protect-...
I've never met Elizabeth, so I couldn't say for sure whether she knew or not, but it doesn't make sense given how much I know she loves her kids. It makes more sense to me that if she saw signs that she didn't want to believe it, rather than that she knew and approved.
Regardless, I can't see how in a just system she would get nearly twice the sentence of the man who actually did it, especially when even the prosecutor admits she didn't abuse the children and wasn't in the house when it occurred.
Look, I get it. We want to believe that if someone gets 20 years, it must be reasonable in some way. I'm probably biased, but I just can't see it, here.
Regardless, I can't see how in a just system she would get nearly twice the sentence of the man who actually did it, especially when even the prosecutor admits she didn't abuse the children and wasn't in the house when it occurred.
Look, I get it. We want to believe that if someone gets 20 years, it must be reasonable in some way. I'm probably biased, but I just can't see it, here.
If your point is that the boyfriend should have gotten a greater punishment, then I wholeheartedly agree. About the boyfriend we can at least say that he had the decency to kill himself. However, I understood you as saying that the Justice system was too harsh on Elizabeth and not that it was insufficiently harsh on her boyfriend.
I don't think I'm looking at it from the "Someone who gets 20 years must deserve it" perspective. In fact, I was predisposed to support her. You referenced her as being mistreated by the Justice System, which I already doubt, and linked to an article describing her the same way and without any detail. It's only when I read the horrific abuse that she allowed a person she knew to be a violent abuser to inflict on her fifteen month old daughter that I changed my mind. I wasn't on the jury and I don't know nearly all the details, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what I do know - a mother who lets her daughter be brutally tortured should be in prison.
As an aside, I also noticed that you write as if a single instance of abuse occurred. The news articles describe it as a pattern of abuse over time. Eventually Elizabeth decided to take the baby to the hospital. It's not like she was out one day, came home and saw her injured child, took her to the hospital, and was blamed for it. Instead, she ignored bruises and wounds on her baby, after leaving that baby in the company of a man who regularly beat her. Eventually she did take the child to the hospital, which is good, but it doesn't exonerate her.
I don't think I'm looking at it from the "Someone who gets 20 years must deserve it" perspective. In fact, I was predisposed to support her. You referenced her as being mistreated by the Justice System, which I already doubt, and linked to an article describing her the same way and without any detail. It's only when I read the horrific abuse that she allowed a person she knew to be a violent abuser to inflict on her fifteen month old daughter that I changed my mind. I wasn't on the jury and I don't know nearly all the details, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what I do know - a mother who lets her daughter be brutally tortured should be in prison.
As an aside, I also noticed that you write as if a single instance of abuse occurred. The news articles describe it as a pattern of abuse over time. Eventually Elizabeth decided to take the baby to the hospital. It's not like she was out one day, came home and saw her injured child, took her to the hospital, and was blamed for it. Instead, she ignored bruises and wounds on her baby, after leaving that baby in the company of a man who regularly beat her. Eventually she did take the child to the hospital, which is good, but it doesn't exonerate her.
Abuse of children is a horrific crime that shuts people's ability to think. Maybe that's why you're reading a lot into the article that's not actually there.
> The news articles describe it as a pattern of abuse over time.
Neither article does this. Or, if I'm wrong, I'm sure you can post a quote directly from from the article that avers this. Or maybe it's from another article? Could you post this please?
> It's only when I read the horrific abuse that she allowed...
The only quote about that is from the prosecutor, talking to the press:
"The child was literally beaten from head to toe," said Ben Loring, assistant district attorney. "She was bruised on the top of her head to the bottom of her feet. The girl, who suffered some brain damage, had cigarette burns, a skull fracture and a broken wrist."
Truly awful. But nothing there about a repeated pattern of allowing torture. Nothing there about Elizabeth knowing about it.
Even that same guy, Loring, mentioned in both articles, thinks Elizabeth has done her time.
> The news articles describe it as a pattern of abuse over time.
Neither article does this. Or, if I'm wrong, I'm sure you can post a quote directly from from the article that avers this. Or maybe it's from another article? Could you post this please?
> It's only when I read the horrific abuse that she allowed...
The only quote about that is from the prosecutor, talking to the press:
"The child was literally beaten from head to toe," said Ben Loring, assistant district attorney. "She was bruised on the top of her head to the bottom of her feet. The girl, who suffered some brain damage, had cigarette burns, a skull fracture and a broken wrist."
Truly awful. But nothing there about a repeated pattern of allowing torture. Nothing there about Elizabeth knowing about it.
Even that same guy, Loring, mentioned in both articles, thinks Elizabeth has done her time.
From the second article
----
She alleges that the violence against her went from choking to punching to death threats, and says it continued after they were both arrested on child abuse charges.
Still, she never imagined he would lay a hand on a child. He wanted her kids to call him “dad.” During their relationship, which lasted just under a year, though, she sometimes noticed her daughter had some bruises. One time, her daughter fell off the bed.
When she asked Good about it, “He always had a story for what happened like … He was holding her and you know, she slipped and fell or that she slipped and fell or the dog knocked her down. You know, he always had something,” she said. “And honestly, I believed it because nothing in my mind at that time ever fathomed that anybody would hurt a child.”
---
That pretty clearly establishes that abuse was a pattern, he was beating and choking her. That abuse of her daughter was a pattern, the daughter had multiple bruises that required multiple explanations. That also establishes that the pattern of abuse continued over time.
If the story was just that she went out, came home, discovered her beaten daughter and took her to the police - then I, and I hope everyone else, would agree that she didn't deserve to go to prison. That doesn't really seem to be what happened though. At least not as far as I can tell from reading news articles.
----
She alleges that the violence against her went from choking to punching to death threats, and says it continued after they were both arrested on child abuse charges.
Still, she never imagined he would lay a hand on a child. He wanted her kids to call him “dad.” During their relationship, which lasted just under a year, though, she sometimes noticed her daughter had some bruises. One time, her daughter fell off the bed.
When she asked Good about it, “He always had a story for what happened like … He was holding her and you know, she slipped and fell or that she slipped and fell or the dog knocked her down. You know, he always had something,” she said. “And honestly, I believed it because nothing in my mind at that time ever fathomed that anybody would hurt a child.”
---
That pretty clearly establishes that abuse was a pattern, he was beating and choking her. That abuse of her daughter was a pattern, the daughter had multiple bruises that required multiple explanations. That also establishes that the pattern of abuse continued over time.
If the story was just that she went out, came home, discovered her beaten daughter and took her to the police - then I, and I hope everyone else, would agree that she didn't deserve to go to prison. That doesn't really seem to be what happened though. At least not as far as I can tell from reading news articles.
I see.
I'm probably being more charitable to her than a stranger would, but it sounds like a woman in denial to me, not a person who intentionally allows her boyfriend to beat her daughter. To my mind, a case could be made for a harsh sentence if a mother deliberately allows her boyfriend to torture her children, but in the case of an abused woman in denial, I would hope a justice system would not be so harsh. Remove the children to safety, probation, mandatory therapy, sure; but a 20 year sentence in that case helps no one: not her, not her children, not society.
Your interpretation is the least charitable, in my opinion, but I won't try to talk you out of it. Given what you gathered from the article, I still don't understand supporting a 20 year sentence, but I definitely understand being horrified by the descriptions of the abuse. When I first heard about this, I also thought surely there must be something wrong with Elizabeth and the situation to have earned such a sentence, but I no longer believe this.
Anyway, thanks for replying in good faith and being honest about your interpretation! Sincerely appreciated.
I'm probably being more charitable to her than a stranger would, but it sounds like a woman in denial to me, not a person who intentionally allows her boyfriend to beat her daughter. To my mind, a case could be made for a harsh sentence if a mother deliberately allows her boyfriend to torture her children, but in the case of an abused woman in denial, I would hope a justice system would not be so harsh. Remove the children to safety, probation, mandatory therapy, sure; but a 20 year sentence in that case helps no one: not her, not her children, not society.
Your interpretation is the least charitable, in my opinion, but I won't try to talk you out of it. Given what you gathered from the article, I still don't understand supporting a 20 year sentence, but I definitely understand being horrified by the descriptions of the abuse. When I first heard about this, I also thought surely there must be something wrong with Elizabeth and the situation to have earned such a sentence, but I no longer believe this.
Anyway, thanks for replying in good faith and being honest about your interpretation! Sincerely appreciated.
Yea it's terrible but she got 20 years while the man who beat her child got 11.
> Heartbreaking..
Civilized society is just an illusion. Imagine. How many people with power and authority must have known about Ian Manuel, and did nothing about it. What is civlilized about that?
And finally the action had to come from a non-government body, even after the POTUS banned the thing?
Civilized society is just an illusion. Imagine. How many people with power and authority must have known about Ian Manuel, and did nothing about it. What is civlilized about that?
And finally the action had to come from a non-government body, even after the POTUS banned the thing?
> Civilized society is just an illusion.
It's a fragile, flickering flame, for sure. Many don't understand how fragile. I don't think it's an illusion, personally, but I can see that in more situations than not it's non-existent.
It's a fragile, flickering flame, for sure. Many don't understand how fragile. I don't think it's an illusion, personally, but I can see that in more situations than not it's non-existent.
Why is it even possible to “charge [someone] as an adult”. If you have the concept of “adult” and “child”, and a line in between them, how can the crime dictate someone’s mental maturity?
(Of course the answer is, I’m sure, is selective enforcement. So they can lock up black kids and let white kids off the hook.)
(Of course the answer is, I’m sure, is selective enforcement. So they can lock up black kids and let white kids off the hook.)
Because it's possible to game a system with rigid lines. Gangs could hire kids below the age cut off to do some of the work.
That sounds like a serious crime by the gang leaders, and less so by the hired kids.
So? Does an AK or pistol pointed in your face by a 14 year old somehow make it less deadly than if he were older?
https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/violence-in-rio...
Stories like this aren't too uncommon. The ability to charge kids as adults can potentially prevent people from trying to side step the rules.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/violence-in-rio...
Stories like this aren't too uncommon. The ability to charge kids as adults can potentially prevent people from trying to side step the rules.
It's not an effective detterent becsuse the kid holding the weapon doesn't understand the consequences.
Edit: if you give a child the keys to your car and they hit someone with it, who is at fault?
Edit: if you give a child the keys to your car and they hit someone with it, who is at fault?
Do you really think that a 14 year old is incapable of understanding that hurting someone is wrong? And that they don't understand that there will be consequences to their actions? Because I find it hard to believe.
>Edit: if you give a child the keys to your car and they hit someone with it, who is at fault?
Obviously both - you and the child.
>Edit: if you give a child the keys to your car and they hit someone with it, who is at fault?
Obviously both - you and the child.
rscoots(2)
> Because he was a very small boy, state prison officials decided to place Ian in solitary confinement, where he remained for the next 18 years.
What on earth? Solitary confinement starting as a child, potentially for life? What a weird way for this to hash out.
Strictly speaking, not being around others may be good, but solitary is an overadjustment.
What on earth? Solitary confinement starting as a child, potentially for life? What a weird way for this to hash out.
Strictly speaking, not being around others may be good, but solitary is an overadjustment.
solitary is torture.
I don’t know how it feels and hope I never have to feel the grief that a homicide of a loved one. I also don’t think that locking a 14 year old up for their entire natural life is appropriate either. My son is 13. He is not even close to being capable of understanding the long range consequences of his actions right now. I could see how letting him roam around the streets without adult supervision could put him in a very tough spot. IMO At this age kids need love and guidance and small doses of agency to allow them to make choices and learn how to navigate the world. I think that a lot of these kids that end up in this circumstance are likely from broken or otherwise dysfunctional homes. I’m not sure how to fix it, but life in prison doesn’t seem to be the right way.
To be clear, the article specified that he was jailed for a non-homicide offence.
Yes, it didn’t end up being a homicide — not for the lack of trying, though. He shot his victim in the head.
I've never understood why this is segmented by outcome instead of intention for these kinds of cases.
If you shoot someone in the head you should be tried for murder. It's what you intended to commit.
If you shoot someone in the head you should be tried for murder. It's what you intended to commit.
What if I intended to shoot you in the shoulder but missed and hit your head?
You assumed the risk of causing more harm than you wanted the very moment you pulled the trigger.
Did you pull the trigger by accident? You assumed the risk the moment you decided to cock the gun.
Did you cock the gun by accident? You assumed the risk the moment you decided to engage.
All that said, I don't believe in punitive justice. For me, justice should be reparative.
It's great if he has recovered and been pardoned by the victim.
I also don't think isolating someone as much is good either.
However, I can understand how you might want to isolate someone who does such wicked action. It's a shame nothing else was done during incarceration, though.
Thankfully death penalty wasn't applied. We can't trust the state to decide who lives or dies.
Not only are there too many victims of wrongful convictions, but the cost of a single miscarriage of justice is unbearable.
Did you pull the trigger by accident? You assumed the risk the moment you decided to cock the gun.
Did you cock the gun by accident? You assumed the risk the moment you decided to engage.
All that said, I don't believe in punitive justice. For me, justice should be reparative.
It's great if he has recovered and been pardoned by the victim.
I also don't think isolating someone as much is good either.
However, I can understand how you might want to isolate someone who does such wicked action. It's a shame nothing else was done during incarceration, though.
Thankfully death penalty wasn't applied. We can't trust the state to decide who lives or dies.
Not only are there too many victims of wrongful convictions, but the cost of a single miscarriage of justice is unbearable.
I'd like to note because you're mentioning them and assumptions could be made about my position by my earlier comment, IMO:
- trying a minor as an adult is ridiculous - isolation is torture - the death penalty is unethical and ineffective
- trying a minor as an adult is ridiculous - isolation is torture - the death penalty is unethical and ineffective
Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and accidental manslaughter (assuming the person died from the headshot, otherwise just aggravated assault with a deadly weapon)
That would be a risk you're taking in that case.
I agree it’s a risk. But I think saying it was the _intent_ to shoot them in the head (as per your first comment) is very difficult to argue. Someone could have intended to shoot them in the shoulder. I’m being devils advocate here. If you want to avoid arguing about intent, then you can just punish based on outcome. The argument could be turned. I could intend to shoot you in the head, but miss and hit your shoulder. The intent was to kill you, the outcome was you didn’t die. What now?
TO me this is the most amazing piece of the story:
> With few contacts on the outside, Ian reached out to the shooting victim, Debbie Berkovits, to ask for her forgiveness, which she gave. A remarkable relationship emerged in which Ms. Berkovits became a supporter for a reduced sentence for Ian. But courts were nonresponsive.
> With few contacts on the outside, Ian reached out to the shooting victim, Debbie Berkovits, to ask for her forgiveness, which she gave. A remarkable relationship emerged in which Ms. Berkovits became a supporter for a reduced sentence for Ian. But courts were nonresponsive.
Just to explain the POV of the state, i.e. "why dont they release him if the victim is fine with it":
One of the reasons for incarcerations is vengeance, and another one is protecting the community from further crime.
If the victim forgives the perpetrator, you could argue no vengeance is necessary anymore; however, this person could still be a danger to future victims.
A life sentence for a 13yo is harsh of course, I am just trying to explain why the courts not letting him go after the victim forgave him is not as surprising as one might think at first.
One of the reasons for incarcerations is vengeance, and another one is protecting the community from further crime.
If the victim forgives the perpetrator, you could argue no vengeance is necessary anymore; however, this person could still be a danger to future victims.
A life sentence for a 13yo is harsh of course, I am just trying to explain why the courts not letting him go after the victim forgave him is not as surprising as one might think at first.
Highly recommend the book Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson, which includes this story among others.
The sheer number of judges, bureaucrats, prison administrators, prison guards, medical staff, and dozens of other people who would have come across this boy and his plight over those decades would have been significant.
That none of them would, or could, do anything to ease his suffering even in some small way is disappointing. I hope I could do better in a similar position of authority.
That none of them would, or could, do anything to ease his suffering even in some small way is disappointing. I hope I could do better in a similar position of authority.
Life without parole is an inhumane form of punishment. It takes away the mere chance that someone, after having bettered him or herself and paid their debt to society can be included in society again, which in my opinion is the only justified basis on which to incarcerate someone in the first place.
The US and most countries' prison system seeks to punish and extract cheap labor out of prisoners, not rehabilitate them for reintroduction to society. It's big business[1].
Cases like this are not uncommon. People slip through the cracks, get stuck fighting the legal system, and eventually with enough luck and media attention the government can go "oops" and reverse a decision that often has ruined people's lives. There's no accountability and this keeps happening.
[1]: https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/12/09/the-american-pr...
Cases like this are not uncommon. People slip through the cracks, get stuck fighting the legal system, and eventually with enough luck and media attention the government can go "oops" and reverse a decision that often has ruined people's lives. There's no accountability and this keeps happening.
[1]: https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/12/09/the-american-pr...
Most countries as including all countries on earth, maybe. Most countries as in developed democracies, well most definitely not.
The US and most countries' prison system seeks to punish and extract cheap labor out of prisoners, not rehabilitate them for reintroduction to society. It's big business[1].
That’s just simply untrue. The value of labor of prisoners is so low that it wouldn’t cover the cost of imprisoning them, even if all of the prisoners actually worked full time (and the actual figures are well short of that).
Now, to be sure, a lot of people make money on prisons, mostly government employees (as great majority prisons are government run), but also some private businesses too. However, the causation goes the opposite way to what you seem to argue: majority of people in prisons are there, because they committed a serious crime, usually violent, not because the prison industrial complex has somehow snatched them from the street for cheap labor. Even the private prisons make most of their money on contracting with government, not on products of prisoner labor (which, again to reiterate, is worth very little).
That’s just simply untrue. The value of labor of prisoners is so low that it wouldn’t cover the cost of imprisoning them, even if all of the prisoners actually worked full time (and the actual figures are well short of that).
Now, to be sure, a lot of people make money on prisons, mostly government employees (as great majority prisons are government run), but also some private businesses too. However, the causation goes the opposite way to what you seem to argue: majority of people in prisons are there, because they committed a serious crime, usually violent, not because the prison industrial complex has somehow snatched them from the street for cheap labor. Even the private prisons make most of their money on contracting with government, not on products of prisoner labor (which, again to reiterate, is worth very little).
What's untrue? The main goal being punishment instead of rehabilitation is pretty widely known to be true. Solitary confinement is torture. The death penalty is still legal and carried out in several states. Even if there are rehabilitation programs in place, the off-the-record treatment of prisoners and prison violence don't make for an environment conducive to rehabilitation.
I wasn't implying there's some big conspiracy where the State _wants_ more prisoners because it's profitable. According to this[1] the average cost of incarceration is around $35k/y, much higher than the $6-14k that can be generated from each inmate, according to the article I linked above. Still, the incarceration cost is covered by taxpayers, and there is a lot of private and side business that also benefits. The bail bond system alone reeks of corruption, where the wealthy can walk away while those unable to pay get to wait for trial in jail. And let's not forget the racial and ethnic discriminations, "war on drugs" and similar farces...
It's a complex topic and we can argue about the details, but there's not much worth defending about the current US prison system. Disclaimer: I'm speaking as an outsider with layman familiarity, but please include links to backup any counter arguments.
[1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09...
I wasn't implying there's some big conspiracy where the State _wants_ more prisoners because it's profitable. According to this[1] the average cost of incarceration is around $35k/y, much higher than the $6-14k that can be generated from each inmate, according to the article I linked above. Still, the incarceration cost is covered by taxpayers, and there is a lot of private and side business that also benefits. The bail bond system alone reeks of corruption, where the wealthy can walk away while those unable to pay get to wait for trial in jail. And let's not forget the racial and ethnic discriminations, "war on drugs" and similar farces...
It's a complex topic and we can argue about the details, but there's not much worth defending about the current US prison system. Disclaimer: I'm speaking as an outsider with layman familiarity, but please include links to backup any counter arguments.
[1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09...
I think you are assuming the company charging for labor is paying for lodging, food, and other expenses, and that doesn't break even.
But that isn't how it is: the prisons charge companies or the government for labor and charge the taxpayers a day rate for the service of incarceration - additional prisoners mean additional profit.
Like most graft in the US, the issue is that private companies get to make a profit on public expenses. This is "more efficient" than having the government do it at cost (see also: medicine).
The practice in this case disincentivizes rehabilitation, means people lobby for things like 3 strikes, or trivial parole violations, mandatory minimums etc. The incentive structure creates systemic reinforcement. You go in to the system and it doesn't particularly want you to come out.
But that isn't how it is: the prisons charge companies or the government for labor and charge the taxpayers a day rate for the service of incarceration - additional prisoners mean additional profit.
Like most graft in the US, the issue is that private companies get to make a profit on public expenses. This is "more efficient" than having the government do it at cost (see also: medicine).
The practice in this case disincentivizes rehabilitation, means people lobby for things like 3 strikes, or trivial parole violations, mandatory minimums etc. The incentive structure creates systemic reinforcement. You go in to the system and it doesn't particularly want you to come out.
No, I think it is pretty clear from my comment that I do believe that companies are making money on prisons. It can be deduced for example from the part where I say:
> Now, to be sure, a lot of people make money on prisons, (...) but also some private businesses too.
In fact, it would be beyond strange to expect a private company to provide a useful service to the people indefinitely at a loss; that’s not how business works.
> Like most graft in the US, the issue is that private companies get to make a profit on public expenses. This is "more efficient" than having the government do it at cost (see also: medicine).
The problem is that “at cost” is not some sort of objective, physical notion. Most things that government does are “at cost”, but this means little to the taxpayers who foot the bill, if they end up paying more for government services provided “at cost”, than for private services, the providers of which end up making good profits. The entire point of private prisons is that they are cheaper to taxpayers than the government ran ones. In all, I see no problem whatsoever with private companies get to make a profit on public expense, if taxpayers benefit compared to the alternative.
> The practice in this case disincentivizes rehabilitation, means people lobby for things like 3 strikes, or trivial parole violations, mandatory minimums etc. The incentive structure creates systemic reinforcement. You go in to the system and it doesn't particularly want you to come out.
3 strikes, mandatory minimums etc are not a product of private prison lobbyists sneakily instituting them, while the public is kept in the dark. The actual history of those policies is that they were instituted with wide public support, during a time of large increase in crime compared to previous periods, when many of the offenders were found to have offended many times before, and got away with slap on the wrist. For example, first state to introduce 3 strikes law was Washington state, not exactly known for private prisons, or population hell bent on punishment. It was introduced by public ballot measure, which passed 75% to 25%. The voter pamphlet argued that under current law, a violent robber, who has two earlier violent felony convictions, is recommended only 5 years in prison, not even considering early release for good behavior. Not exactly what you would call a trick pulled on the public by sinister private prison lobby,
> Now, to be sure, a lot of people make money on prisons, (...) but also some private businesses too.
In fact, it would be beyond strange to expect a private company to provide a useful service to the people indefinitely at a loss; that’s not how business works.
> Like most graft in the US, the issue is that private companies get to make a profit on public expenses. This is "more efficient" than having the government do it at cost (see also: medicine).
The problem is that “at cost” is not some sort of objective, physical notion. Most things that government does are “at cost”, but this means little to the taxpayers who foot the bill, if they end up paying more for government services provided “at cost”, than for private services, the providers of which end up making good profits. The entire point of private prisons is that they are cheaper to taxpayers than the government ran ones. In all, I see no problem whatsoever with private companies get to make a profit on public expense, if taxpayers benefit compared to the alternative.
> The practice in this case disincentivizes rehabilitation, means people lobby for things like 3 strikes, or trivial parole violations, mandatory minimums etc. The incentive structure creates systemic reinforcement. You go in to the system and it doesn't particularly want you to come out.
3 strikes, mandatory minimums etc are not a product of private prison lobbyists sneakily instituting them, while the public is kept in the dark. The actual history of those policies is that they were instituted with wide public support, during a time of large increase in crime compared to previous periods, when many of the offenders were found to have offended many times before, and got away with slap on the wrist. For example, first state to introduce 3 strikes law was Washington state, not exactly known for private prisons, or population hell bent on punishment. It was introduced by public ballot measure, which passed 75% to 25%. The voter pamphlet argued that under current law, a violent robber, who has two earlier violent felony convictions, is recommended only 5 years in prison, not even considering early release for good behavior. Not exactly what you would call a trick pulled on the public by sinister private prison lobby,
>During the botched robbery attempt, a woman suffered a nonfatal gunshot wound. Ian turned himself in to the police and was charged as an adult with armed robbery and attempted murder.
I'm confused, did he shoot her or not?
I'm confused, did he shoot her or not?
>That’s when 13-year-old Ian pulled the trigger and shot her right in the face. The outcome could have been fatal. “It blew out all the bottom teeth and the gums on the lower left side of my mouth,” she said.
https://www.goalcast.com/2020/08/04/woman-frees-man-who-shot...
https://www.goalcast.com/2020/08/04/woman-frees-man-who-shot...
> Ian Manuel was arrested and charged with a nonhomicide offense
Which actions did Mr. Manuel do that resulted in his arrest?
Which actions did Mr. Manuel do that resulted in his arrest?
He shot a woman in the face:
That’s when 13-year-old Ian pulled the trigger and shot her right in the face. The outcome could have been fatal. “It blew out all the bottom teeth and the gums on the lower left side of my mouth,” she said.
That’s when 13-year-old Ian pulled the trigger and shot her right in the face. The outcome could have been fatal. “It blew out all the bottom teeth and the gums on the lower left side of my mouth,” she said.
It’s just a few paragraphs down in the article:
“ 13-year-old Ian was directed by older juveniles to commit a robbery.
During the botched robbery attempt, a woman suffered a nonfatal gunshot wound. Ian turned himself in to the police and was charged as an adult with armed robbery and attempted murder.”
“ 13-year-old Ian was directed by older juveniles to commit a robbery.
During the botched robbery attempt, a woman suffered a nonfatal gunshot wound. Ian turned himself in to the police and was charged as an adult with armed robbery and attempted murder.”
> During the botched robbery attempt, a woman suffered a nonfatal gunshot wound.
Strategic use of passive voice is a classic tool of narrative making. Instead of assuming people have agency in their actions, it is suggested that a gun he just happened to have in their hand just happened to discharge a projectile in the direction of the person who just happened to be robbed around the same time. It is all just something that happens to people.
Strategic use of passive voice is a classic tool of narrative making. Instead of assuming people have agency in their actions, it is suggested that a gun he just happened to have in their hand just happened to discharge a projectile in the direction of the person who just happened to be robbed around the same time. It is all just something that happens to people.
I haven't found anywhere that identifies him as the shooter. I get the impression that there's not enough evidence to say who it was that shot the woman.
Mr. Manuel shot a woman. I approve of his punishment.
While 13 years old and resulting from a robbery he was intimidated into. Life without possibility at parole is hardly proportional to that, not to mention the extended period of inhuman solitary confinement.
I don't see why a 13 year old could be punished to life without parole. Surely he's going to change in 20 or 30 years?
Certainly an inauspicious beginning. He may become more violent and a more accomplished marksman.
Do you need a hug? I glanced through your comments (1) and there is so much negativity and poop throwing around. You seem to discourage people to even try learning new things?!?!? This is Hacker News, WTF?
Are you well? Please take care pal, it seems you are having a tough time.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=roschdal
Are you well? Please take care pal, it seems you are having a tough time.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=roschdal
[deleted]
Also on the most recent episode of criminal: https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-170-ian-manuel-7-30-21
[deleted]
The US "justice system" is a farce, and a worth reason to leave the United States. I have a brother that was a troublesome teen, and the police basically never let him alone. Situations cascaded simply due to immature behavior on both sides, but the police are institutionally not supposed to be immature children, but THEY ARE! After decades of harassment, he left and now lives very happily in Germany.
"troublesome teen" is a wide-ranging gamut.
Was he putting other people in danger? What actions was he doing that caused the police to get involved?
Great that he's happy now but would he have continued down a more dangerous path if left to his own devices?
Was he putting other people in danger? What actions was he doing that caused the police to get involved?
Great that he's happy now but would he have continued down a more dangerous path if left to his own devices?
Basically speeding and being mouthy in bars, sometimes leading to parking lot fights. But that was early, young, and they basically used that to harass him continually.
This reminds me of times when people put on trial and sentenced animals for crimes against humans.
> The U.S. is the only advanced nation that uses prolonged isolation as a routine tool of prison management.
What is the definition of "advanced nation"?
What is the definition of "advanced nation"?
In my experience, statements like the one you quoted are generally just made up on the spot, and the author adds phrases like "advanced nation" so he can weasel his way out if someone bothers to do a minimum of research and finds a counter example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement#United_Ki...
Oh look, the UK has 40 people in solitary confinement. I guess the UK doesn't qualify as an advanced nation then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement#United_Ki...
Oh look, the UK has 40 people in solitary confinement. I guess the UK doesn't qualify as an advanced nation then?
40 people for the whole country? That doesn't sound "routine." The article mentions that there are 80,000 in any given day for the US.
I disagree quite strongly with this. Yes, 40 is a smaller number than 80,000, but those are 40 _people_ whose lives and sanity have been thrown away. Apparently the bar is low enough that this punishment can be applied to at least 40 individuals.
Also, you compare to the US. Much of the world, advanced or not, has the bar set at zero.
I don't think anyone should be in solitary confinement so I don't think you disagree with me. I'm merely stating that the article wasn't wrong.
What would you consider makes a nation “advanced”?
Being rich, I guess.
I can think of several things, but perhaps more important here is that I didn't make the link between a nation being advanced and it locking people up in solitary confinement. Check my original post to see the argument I was making against using phrases like 'advanced nations' (it's just a cop out to hide the authors complete lack of research).
I read your earlier post which is why I asked you to comment further, saying what you do think. I was looking to go deeper into the question of why futzing the question is even necessary.
The reason I raised this issue is that solitary confinement in this circumstance, for a kid who clearly has shown some remorse and insight, and is a product of bad circumstances, doesn't seem very advanced.
To me, an advanced nation is one that minimises the suffering of all its people, maximises their potential for happiness, and is well regarded by the other nations it engages with.
A compassionate nation would take a kid like this and give him a second chance. An advanced nation would give him the coaching and the resources he'd need to succeed at it. How? It wouldn't happen in a vacuum. It wouldn't happen in solitary confinement. He'd need mentoring and coaching and some opportunities that only come through the social connections he didn't start with.
If being advanced was only a matter of being rich, people might say nah, that would cost too much.
But how much does it cost to leave things the way they are, with kids being locked up in solitary confinement, and ordinary citizens buying guns to protect themselves because they live in fear?
You can do the math. Well, I suppose society has done the math, and that's why it is like it is, and "advanced nations" have nuclear weapons, space programs, and sophisticated financial derivatives.
But what if the assumptions underlying the valuations of each of those things are broken? What if a more sophisticated social intelligence could rejig the value table in favour of a prison system that rehabilitates prisoners more than it rewards shareholders? Who would win from that?
Quite possibly everybody. The nation in 20 years might be more advanced than it is today. Can you imagine that?
The reason I raised this issue is that solitary confinement in this circumstance, for a kid who clearly has shown some remorse and insight, and is a product of bad circumstances, doesn't seem very advanced.
To me, an advanced nation is one that minimises the suffering of all its people, maximises their potential for happiness, and is well regarded by the other nations it engages with.
A compassionate nation would take a kid like this and give him a second chance. An advanced nation would give him the coaching and the resources he'd need to succeed at it. How? It wouldn't happen in a vacuum. It wouldn't happen in solitary confinement. He'd need mentoring and coaching and some opportunities that only come through the social connections he didn't start with.
If being advanced was only a matter of being rich, people might say nah, that would cost too much.
But how much does it cost to leave things the way they are, with kids being locked up in solitary confinement, and ordinary citizens buying guns to protect themselves because they live in fear?
You can do the math. Well, I suppose society has done the math, and that's why it is like it is, and "advanced nations" have nuclear weapons, space programs, and sophisticated financial derivatives.
But what if the assumptions underlying the valuations of each of those things are broken? What if a more sophisticated social intelligence could rejig the value table in favour of a prison system that rehabilitates prisoners more than it rewards shareholders? Who would win from that?
Quite possibly everybody. The nation in 20 years might be more advanced than it is today. Can you imagine that?
>The reason I raised this issue is that solitary confinement in this circumstance, for a kid who clearly has shown some remorse and insight, and is a product of bad circumstances, doesn't seem very advanced.
True: it's _barbaric_, the complete opposite of advanced. However, this also highlights that a nation can be advanced in some areas, yet backward in others - and in fact I would argue this is necessarily the case for all countries, all the time, because the standard of being advanced in all areas all the time is an impossibly high bar.
Is the US an advanced nation? It's hard to argue against that: it has put people on the moon, invented the microchip, etc. And apart from technological advancement it has championed social ideas that are (or were) very different from much of the rest of the world, yet are arguably for the best: a government without a king, uncompromising free speech, etc.
But it's also a hard, harsh, uncaring country, inhabited by people that seem to have forgotten the word 'compromise', where a minor medical problem can cripple you for life (medically and financially), where a minor misdemeanor can mean life in prison. Its prison system is indeed a great example of that. I can only hope that it isn't 'advanced' in these areas; that the rest of the world will not eventually grow into the same state.
Ultimately, the two of us are having a completely different discussion. I'm simply pointing out that the author of the article is simply lying for dramatic effect when he says no other advanced nations use solitary confinement as a punishment; that he uses the word 'advanced' to hide behind in case someone looks on wikipedia for five seconds and finds out he is wrong. I don't really care about the word 'advanced', or what it means: he could have said "no other countries that have the color blue in their flag use solitary confinement as a punishment", as (to me) it would have had the exact same meaning.
You, OTOH, see an opportunity to advance the general state of affairs in the US. I agree that ending some of its more barbaric practices would be a good idea, but I'm not in a position to help, seeing as how I'm a citizen of another country, located on another continent. I don't have a congressman that I can write to, nor the ability to cast any vote in a relevant election. So I can only root for you, and hope you succeed in reforming the US prison system.
True: it's _barbaric_, the complete opposite of advanced. However, this also highlights that a nation can be advanced in some areas, yet backward in others - and in fact I would argue this is necessarily the case for all countries, all the time, because the standard of being advanced in all areas all the time is an impossibly high bar.
Is the US an advanced nation? It's hard to argue against that: it has put people on the moon, invented the microchip, etc. And apart from technological advancement it has championed social ideas that are (or were) very different from much of the rest of the world, yet are arguably for the best: a government without a king, uncompromising free speech, etc.
But it's also a hard, harsh, uncaring country, inhabited by people that seem to have forgotten the word 'compromise', where a minor medical problem can cripple you for life (medically and financially), where a minor misdemeanor can mean life in prison. Its prison system is indeed a great example of that. I can only hope that it isn't 'advanced' in these areas; that the rest of the world will not eventually grow into the same state.
Ultimately, the two of us are having a completely different discussion. I'm simply pointing out that the author of the article is simply lying for dramatic effect when he says no other advanced nations use solitary confinement as a punishment; that he uses the word 'advanced' to hide behind in case someone looks on wikipedia for five seconds and finds out he is wrong. I don't really care about the word 'advanced', or what it means: he could have said "no other countries that have the color blue in their flag use solitary confinement as a punishment", as (to me) it would have had the exact same meaning.
You, OTOH, see an opportunity to advance the general state of affairs in the US. I agree that ending some of its more barbaric practices would be a good idea, but I'm not in a position to help, seeing as how I'm a citizen of another country, located on another continent. I don't have a congressman that I can write to, nor the ability to cast any vote in a relevant election. So I can only root for you, and hope you succeed in reforming the US prison system.
They probably mean "developed democracy", though even then it's probably not quite correct; Japan does it to some extent.
I am always shocked how cruel some people can be, and so many of them. Even in this thread, there are people who _approve_ these atrocities. There isn’t much hope for the world.
We are basically different people every 5-10 years and at that age even every 2 or 3.
A 13 year old committing this kind of crime is more an indictment of the country/county/city failing that it is a reflection of the person. Should there be a punishment? Certainly. Should there be rehabilitation and education as well (more so even)? Yes.
Put aside the moral and ethical cost here, just the shear financial cost or this punishment is unbelievable. The judge mustn’t have viewed this boy as a person, the only way you can doll out these kinds of punishment is to see the person as some kind of animal. I dread to think how many other cases they issued similar horrendous sentences on.