The Supreme Court will hear two cases from Florida next term dealing with minors sentenced to life in prison for committing crimes other than murder.
In Graham v. Florida, a judge sentenced then-17-year-old Terrance Graham to life without parole in 2004 after he took part in an armed home invasion while he was on probation for committing a separate violent crime.
Evidence was presented during his trial concerning the robbery, but the trial judge sent Graham to prison for violating the terms of his probation after an earlier conviction for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery when he was 16.
Meanwhile, in Sullivan v. Florida, then-13-year-old Joe Harris Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison without parole after being convicted for the rape of an elderly woman.
In 1989, Sullivan and two older teens burglarized the home of Lena Bruner, who was not home at the time. Someone returned to her house later that day and beat and raped her.
The two older teenagers admitted to the earlier burglary but said Sullivan committed the rape. He was convicted in a one-day trial in which Bruner testified that she’d been blindfolded during the assault but that she could recognize her attacker’s voice.
At trial, Sullivan had to repeat certain phrases used by the attacker while Bruner was asked whether she recognized his voice.
Police collected biological evidence at the crime scene but it was destroyed before it could be subjected to DNA testing, according to the brief filed by Sullivan’s attorney, Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative.
The Florida district court of appeal affirmed the conviction without opinion and the Supreme Court of Florida denied review without opinion.
Attorneys for both men contend that since their clients’ crimes didn’t involve murder, a life sentence without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Stevenson noted in his brief that his client was one of only two 13-year-old children sentenced to life without parole for a non-homicide crime in the United States and only one of eight with that sentence for any crime in prison.
"This court has recognized that the Eighth Amendment requires the states to treat juveniles differently than adults, at least in the context of the death penalty," attorney John Mills wrote in his brief to the court on Graham's behalf. "This is so because, given the difference between juveniles and adults, juveniles have a greater claim to be forgiven for their criminal misbehavior."
In the 2005 case, Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile offenders, citing a "national consensus" against the practice, along with medical and other evidence that teenagers are too immature to be held accountable for their crimes to the same extent as adults.
In urging the court not to hear the case, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum argued that in the past the justices have “recognized that a state is permitted to make ‘a societal decision that when a person who has previously committed a felony commits yet another felony, he should be subjected to the admittedly serious penalty of incarceration for life, subject only to the state's judgment as to whether to grant him parole.’”
On May 4, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases, which will be argued separately during the fall term that begins on Oct. 5.
Question presented:
Graham:
Issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile’s commission of non-homicide.
Sullivan:
Issue: Does imposition of a life without parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children?
40 comments:
About Graham:
As a seventeen year old, he is more than capable of making his own decisions. He didn't have to rob anything the first time, and he certainly didn't have to the second time.
Had he only robbed a place once, then I think the situation would be much different, but then robbing a second place and raping and beating someone later proves that the kid simply isn't in his right mind, and if he is, he shouldn't be allowed to live among law-abiding citizens. His age means nothing. He still committed the crime, and not just once. TWICE.
Concerning Sullivan:
What kind of person rapes an old lady? What kind of person blindfolds an old lady and rapes her? This kid is obviously not in his right mind. If he's going to do something as insane as that, he certainly shouldn't be allowed into society. Thirteen or not, he's not safe.
Concerning the question about cruel and unusual punishment:
It would be cruel and unusual to stick them with the needle, yes. They should be incarcerated. Maybe not in an adult prison- that would be cruel. A juvenile prison would be the best place to put them in. It is not cruel and unusual to put them in a place that would protect the rest of society.
It's sort of like a question the philosophy professor at a program I went to in Oxford asked one day. She said something about if you could eliminate (in this case, incarcerate) one person in order to save, say, Florida from a huge nuclear bomb, would you do it? That question seems pretty easy to me.
Its really impossible to determine what a fair punishment for something as drastic as rape is, but when you consider the precedent of a previous felony conviction, and still a minor, I can see why a jury would be terrified. I didn't see the kid my own eyes or hear him testify with my own ears, but I can safely gather that he is a danger to the general public. Whether life in prison without parole is cruel and unusual is debatable (hence this blog, right?), but I can say that the punishment is definitely justifiable from a "concerned mother on the jury" perspective.
First off i would like to say that both of these kids are complete lunatics and should be put in cushioned rooms for a good century. In addition to that age in this case should not matter, especially considering the fact that both were tried as adults.
For Graham i believe that life in prison without parole would certainly fall under the category of duel and unusual punishment. Especially considering the offense is a non homicide. Even homicide cases usually have the possibility for parole sometimes. Had Graham been 25 the case would not have gone the same way in the first place.
For Sullivan, despite how much i'd love to smack him in the face with a brick, I don't believe that his case has any implications in regard to the culpability of minors, especially considering an adult would not receive the same sentence. I mean sure put the guy in a straight jacked, what he did was twisted, but had a 30 year old male done the exact same thing it would not have received 50 years let alone without parole.
Just look at OJ, he killed his wife, and then committed armed robbery and only got 30 years with the possibility of parole after 9 years.
Graham:
As a 17 year old he is only a year away from being considered a legal adult and can be charged in such manor and because of previous felonies i believe that his punishment fits the crime or the crimes in this case.
Sullivan:
Yes he is only 13 but he violated and old lady and put her in a situation that there is no possible punishment that can make the victim feel like she is okay are be able to move on like it never happened. Because of the details in the case such as the blind folding her during the rape allows me to believe that Sullivan knew what he was doing was wrong and there would be severe punishments if he were to get caught therefore i believe that putting him in jail for life with no parole is a fitting punishment for he committed a crime like an adult he should be treated as if he were one. In this type of case i believe you must act on actions and not age.
Graham:
Graham not only robbed a place twice but also raped and abused another person. He commited crimes of an adult he should be punished as an adult. He is only one year away from being a legal adult and has enough knowledge to know wrong from right. Graham convicted multiple crimes and there is nothing to say he won't commit another, so i believe that Graham should be sentenced to life in prison.
Sullivan:
Sullivan committed the crime of an adult and should be punished as an adult. He knew enough to plan his actions thoroughly. He used a blindfold which goes to show he that he knew his actions were wrong. Sullivan was mature enough to commit the crime he is mature enough to life a life in jail.
Honestly, I know 17 year olds that are more mature than some adults. Graham is without a doubt old enough to know what he is doing is wrong. It was also his second offense, and it was worse than the first. How do you know that he's not going to keep pushing the limit of what he can do, and get away with?
Sullivan... Personally, I think he deserves to go to prison. I life without chance of parole might be harsh though. Although he was not convicted of the first time, people have to have common sense.. He got caught for the same crime that they couldn't prove he did the first time. This boy, and yes he technically was a boy, obviously has something mentally wrong with him, and he is unsafe to be a member of our society.
I agree that Graham and Sullivan should be put in prison. I don't think that they should receive the death sentence, but do I disagree with what Abigail said about them not going to an adult prison. They committed adult crimes, and Sullivan is now 18...ADULT! Graham is 22. They are now old enough to be in an adult prison, and when you think about it, in a twisted sort of way, it might be cruel to the other young adults if they were placed in juvenile protection facility.
In my opinion, Graham deserves a very harsh sentence but not one of life without parole. Since the case was non-homicidal, I believe that life imprisonment can be considered cruel or unusual punishment. What is to say this kid doesn't turn his life around in prison 40 years down the road?
As for Sullivan, he should be put into a correctional facility and held there until he is of age to be put into an adult prison. Again, in my eyes life imprisonment is harsh and could be seen as cruel or unusual punishment. Someone of thirteen years of age does not have the mind capacity of an adult and should not be treated as such. Had Sullivan been of legal age life imprisonment would be a logical sentence.
Graham...
Considering the fact that this guy robbed two places twice, its pretty clear that he should get some kind of punishment. But life in prison is definitely a cruel punishment...for robbery that is. He is 17, therefore almost/is an adult and should know what he's doing. But consider the fact that he might have had some hardships in his life. I'm not saying he shouldn't get punished...in fact,he should because who's to say he wouldn't do anything like that again if he didn't?
Sullivan:
Raping an elderly woman...at 13? Hmm...this is hard. I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with him. Although I don't think he should get LIFE in prison, he should get some kind of punishment. Because he's only 13, and like Ronnie said, he could change his life in a couple, 5, 10 years. But if this happened to one of my family members, you're dang sure I'd want him to go to prison!... for quite a while to pay for what he did...but maybe not for life...
Another reason he should get punished is because who knows if he would do that again because he got away with it the first couple of times? He's not safe for the society.
Graham-Yes, hes obviously not a good kid and he knew what he was doing. However, life without parole is very harsh and I think it falls under cruel and unusual punishment, even for an adult. Yes he should be punished. But he didn't kill anyone and whose to say he won't turn his life around?
Sullivan-He's messed up too. But again, he didn't kill anyone and he should have the right to parole.
Even homicide cases have parole. Look at Susan Atkins who was part of the Manson murders.
Graham and Sullivan obviously knew what they were doing. But as a minor you're not considered responsible enough to vote and make your own decisions. So how is it fair that you can be tried as an adult but not given basic rights such as voting?
Graham:
Being a 17 year old he should have adult mental capacity to do the right thing. Committing a robbery at the age of 16 then to do it again at 17 just shows that he is going to try it again and again until he is stopped. Life sentence for him seem to the right punishment but i think he should be allowed parole if his behavior is good after 50 years.
Sullivan:
Committing a burglary is bad enough but to go back and commit rape! that there is just crazy. Life imprisonment? ehh... that seems a little harsh, not because he is a 13 year old but because someone older would not have received the same sentence.
To be honest, I find both cases disturbing in more then one way.
For these young kids to have the tenacity to commit these crimes is terrifying.
Though I am bothered by the charges, I still feel that in society today, they terms of sentences is cruel. A child who is 13 and obviously incapable of controlling his decisions, should not have to serve for life. The chance of him being able to change while he matures is very high. In most cases he hasn't gone through the stage where personalities and morales change among teens. Sullivan should be sentenced to a minimum of 10 yrs in County and serve until he is of age to move in a correctional facility/
Graham...tisk tisk. Unfortunately he can be held responsible. At the age of 17 you know right from wrong. Yet still, I am not comfortable with a life sentence. He has the capacity to change and the time. I feel he should have the same sentence as Sullivan I decided. Life is harsh.
Men who have murdered others, done child pornography and other offenses have not received life. County for 15 yrs. Release with severe parole.
In my honest opinion, I believe that rape is an offense worth death. So in other words, I think the death penalty should be open to all ages including teens.
If you committed the crime, you likely knew what was going on.
Kids are stupid. The mental capabilities of children are so easily influenced by outside sources such as peer pressure, more so than adults. In both of these cases, if the suspects were actually adults, there is no way that they would be sentenced to life without parole. The point is, the age of these kids has actually caused their sentence to be more cruel and unusual. Of course, these kids are definitely... messed up in the head.. but that doesn't mean they should be stuck behind bars with a bunch of creepy murderers. That usually doesn't cure the sickness of criminals like these. They should be given a chance to try life again. Perhaps, a few years in a mental hospital, released at the discrepancy of the psychologist. If the kids do not get well and continue with their criminal mind set, jail might be the right place. But a thirteen year old can barely watch PG-13 movies; their minds are so young and easily altered. In the case of the 17 year old, I believe being tried as an adult is appropriate. However, the punishment is still cruel and usual. Because he is a multiple offender, jail time should be served. But not for life. That's a bit much. Plus, the judge decided on this punishment based on his violation of probation, a crime that should not be punishable with life in prison, no parole. If it was up to me, the retarded parents of these messed up kids would be in prison. Who, in their right mind, can be so busy that they don't realize that their child is beating and raping an old women? That's ridiculous. But I have very low expectation for this Brainless Parent Law anytime soon. Nevertheless, kids will be kids. It is the job of public educators and parents to teach juveniles the difference between right and wrong. When it comes to punishment, age should be a factor. If you are willing to put a 13 year old in jail for life, when are you going to stop? What is the limit? Are you planning on sending a 6 year old that gets ahold of a gun and shoots him mom in prison with a bunch of 40 year old men FOREVER? The point isn't that these kids are bad for society; It's that there is chance for change there. With therapy and perhaps someone that cares about them, these kids can survive this mind disease. Throwing someone like that in jail isn't fixing anything.
Graham: So, it's definitely been established that this dude isn't the brightest, & definitely deserves a severe sentence, but life without parole? Seems like a bit much. I'm all for him getting tried as an adult. If you're going to commit adult crimes, you should face adult consequences, but I don't think he should be punished for his entire life because of a stupid decision he made when he was 17. He should be thrown behind bars for SURE, but I don't think he deserves to be there forever.
Sullivan: Okay, we get it, he's insane in the membrane. But, just like everybody else has pointed out, some creeper in his 30's wouldn't have received the same sentence if he had committed the crime. I most definitely agree that Sullivan has earned himself a whole lot of jail time, but for the rest of his life? I don't agree with that. I think he's in need of a TON of psychiatric help; sitting in a jail cell every day for the rest of his life isn't going to help him much.
I just think they're both REAL dumb.
I personally think (despite age) if you commit a crime, you should have to pay the punishment. Both of the boys knew what they were doing when they committed the crimes. Thus, sentencing Sullivan to life in prison without parole is a not a "cruel or unusual" punishment because rape is a serious crime. Although, one could argue that Sullivan definitely had some type of defect, and was maybe even insane. However, that doesn't make what he did okay.
The people in both cases are seriously disturbed. In the case of Sullivan, life is an extremely harsh sentence for someone that can barely be considered a teenager. He's obviously not in his right mind but he's thirteen, there is still time to change. It is possible that in ten of fifteen years he could be different, maybe have his morals in the right place. Life just seems too harsh for someone who's life hasn't been going on all that long. He deserves punishment but not life, and definitely not life without parole.
Graham on the other hand is a different story. He may be underage but only by a year. He's 17, he's almost an adult and soon will be considered an adult in society. He is able to make his own decisions. The crime itself is unsettling in so many ways. Rape is so blatantly wrong that he deserves to go away for life. That wasn't even his only offense. Society doesn't need a person like him jeopardizing the safety of others. He's 17, he knew what he was doing, and now it's time to face the consequences for what he's done.
About the cruel and unusual punishment, being put away for life is not cruel if the crime was heinous enough. It's better then getting the death sentence, which would be cruel.
Feedback towards Graham: I believe every punishment shall become justified, and in this teen's case this means life without parol. The teenager,who is mentally stable, is aware of his actions and there for should be resposible for them. He apparently is not trying to change his old habits because as history serves correct,he not only buglarized once but, twice. His action of rape was just an act of attention. He clearly is old enough to know the moral value of right from wrong. By deliberatly beating and raping a woman, it shows that he is a threat among other citizens and should be held in confinment.
Sullivan: This case really was disturbing. First I want to state that through reading this case I have begun to feel a ounce of sympathy for the kid. Unlike the Seventeen year old this child clearly suffers from a lack of mental capacity. His action of rape at such a young age infers that he himself was/or maybe had been sexually abused. Seeing these types of cases really makes a person think. He is just a kid,and with life behind bars he will never get to experience what being a kid is all about, due to his pre exposure to adulthood. I strongly do agree that his action was severe and it would make me a hypocrite not to agree with his punishment behind bars. Its is cases like these that create the questions:What if it was a loved one, who was raped and beaten? or What if it was my son who created the crime? Either way justice triumphs all evil and the doers who create it. In a overall statement,I second the justification that was brought upon these two young men,based on the severity of their crimes.
Graham:
Obviously if he has commited two crimes he knows what he is doing. 17 is old enough to be considered a legal adult so I think he should be sent to prison with the adults. He deserves a harsh punishment if he didn't learn his lesson the first time and obviously will continue to do bad things.
Sullivan:
I don't like the fact that the government gets to decide when you are an adult and when you aren't. So he is a 13 year old KID who gets to be tried as an adult because the courts say so but can't do anything else adults do? Of course I am not saying that he doesn't need to be harshly punished. He obviously needs mental help if he wants to rape an elderly lady but maybe not life in a adult prison. Juvenile prison,yes. Mental help? Definetly a necessity.
In both cases, both kids know the difference between right and wrong. They know their virtues and if they choose to be stupid, then they deserve the punishment. Rape itself, is one of the worst things that somebody can do to a person because of the fact that they are taking away the freedom of another person and forcing them to do something they don't want to do. A thirteen year old boy raping an old woman, that's just not right at all. There has to be something wrong with him in the first place. A seventeen year old accused of robbery, not once, but twice and then commiting rape, he deffinatly knows what he was doing. I agree that both boys should go to jail, with no parol. The only thing that I don't agree with is sticking them in an adult prison. Admit that they are gonig to get raped themselves because they are..well boys, and nobody deserves that. Raping those woman, they might as well have killed them, because I promise you that they certainly aren't the same. But those boys won't be either, especially when they go to prison. Congrats kids for being so stupid!
Assuming that these boys are mentally stable, I think that a sentence of life without parole is fair. Concerning the 17-year-old, it is obvious that he will not respect parole since he has violated his parole once already. How can you know whether to trust him again?
The 13-year-old is obviously a threat to the community and also has a fair punishment.
Age should not matter in either of these cases because they are a threat to the public and should not be trusted to be out in the community.
Graham, as a seventeen year old, is a young adult. His actions the second time compounded the first, but I can't agree that he deserves life in prison without parole. People older than Graham have committed MURDER before, and received parole later in their sentence. I do think he belongs in prison though, with adults, not juveniles.
Sullivan was thirteen when he committed his crime. Ok, so what he did was morally detestable enough to make us all want to kill him ourselves, but the law has to be followed. He should be in a Juvenile prison until he is of adult age, then moved to an adult prison. And, as with Graham, he should have the possibility of parole in the future. With a few guidelines...
Both Graham and Sullivan NEED mental evalutation and counseling. Shouldn't we at least try to make decent human beings out of these kids? If there's a chance that either Graham or Sullivan can become sane and want to stop others from repeating what they have done, then the U.S. should use every resource available to make it happen.
While I do agree that the eight grader should be punished severly for his crime, I do not believe he should be sentenced to life in prison. The seventeen year old knew better and is close to adulthood and knows better. He should be tried as a adult and sentenced to prison. The eight grader is at an age where he knows right from wrong. He should be locked up but not with adults. He is far to young for that. When he reaches adulthood it would be more appropriate but he is just a child and should be put in a prison with people his age. Nothing excuses the boy from what he did. He is 100% guilty and life imprisonment is what he deserves. There is obviously and age gap between Graham and Sullivan. Graham is about five years older than sullivan and is more mature. They both deserve life in prison but to send a 12 year old to adult prison is a bit extreme.
Graham is practically an adult already and this isn't even his first offence. He's bound to commit a crime again, so why not prevent it before anything worse happens. He has already had his second chance; he ruined it. If the jury finds his crime heinous enough to send him to prison for life, it is not an abomination of his Eighth Amendment right because he is practically an adult and has committed multiple offences.
In the case of Sullivan, his offense was not that of a thirteen year old; his offense was more like that of an adult. If he commits an adult crime, he should be tried as an adult and should face the consequences of his actions. The consequences an adult might face, however, would probably not be life in prison. In this case, life without parole is cruel and unusual.
Graham:
For someone that only committed armed home invasion and broke probation, life without parole is excessive and ridiculous. Sure, maybe a short prison sentence would have been acceptable but nowhere close to life without parole. There are plenty of people out there that commit crimes worse than that and get off easy (like OJ as Chris pointed out). Graham didn't kill anyone and who is to say he won't have learned his lesson in a few years.
Sullivan:
For Sullivan to be given life on the little evidence that was given is not right. Also, Sullivan is 13, he should not receive life at that age. I'm certainly not condoning what he did but I believe that if he's not able to vote and decide on things like an adult he should not be punished as an adult. If he doesn't have the responsibilities of an adult then he should not have the punishments of an adult.
I believe that in Graham's case for the crime he committed the punishment of life in prison with no parole shouldn't be considered a cruel and unusual punishment because he is a 17 year old who had committed a crime, was punished, and given a second chance when he committed another crime. In Sullivan's case I believe his age does make a difference just because he committed an adult crime doesn't mean he should be given an adult punishment, because children of the age of 13 only have so much maturity and sense of direction where as an adult has experienced more and has had time to change. So it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment to sentence him to life in prison. A more suitable punishment would be prison for 30-40 years so that he can change.
Graham.
As a boy of 17 he has enough knowledge to determine right from wrong. He has experienced enough to understand what he did was very wrong. He obviously has issues that he doesn't know how to deal with, so he lashes out with crazy stunts like robbery. Though we cannot get into his mind and find the reasons, he still commited the crimes, so he does deserve the punishment.
Sullivan.
This poor kid is only 13. There has to be something wrong with this kid. To be so young and commit a horrid crime is sad to me. I do think that life in prison is not the right decision made by the courts. Scientifically, the brain has not fully developed so it might not hit him instantly that what he is doing is wrong. He is so young and to now dictate his life forever in prison, he will continue to grow into a bitter man and not fully understand his wrong-doing.
If Graham didn't learn his lesson the first time around, then why should the jury believe that he will learn his lesson the second time around? And when he committed the crime, he had the right mind to know that he shouldn't be doing that and that it would be a worse punishment because he was on probation and he had already been in prison once.
And for Sullivan, i think the punishment for life in prison for him is right because he raped a woman at such a young age, what says that he won't do it again. And he's only 13, if he is let off, he could do it a lot more times.
And what about their parents? There must have been bad parenting involved in this if the kids turned out to be so bad at such a young age. I think that should be investigated and if it turns out that the parents were at fault for the children's bad behavior, then they should be help responsible also.
First off, both these kids have some issues that are obvious to all that hear about what crimes they commited. I believe that the boys that did this need to be given VERY serious punishments. Now as far as the life in prison for the 13 year old,that may be cruel and unusual,again not saying that what he did was not a big deal. I would have to agree with ronnnie when he says that the boy could turn his life around when he actually hits adult hood, its happened before..these boys need to be put in an institution because there is something not right there but maybe not life in prison.
Obviously, the reason these two cases are getting so much attention is because they both involve minors committing major crimes. But when sentencing them, I think people should remember just that, they were/are kids.
Graham: If a 40 year old man committed the same crime Graham did, it is very unlikely that he would be sentenced to life without parole. I think putting him in jail for life, and not giving him any chance to change/redeem himself, is going too far.
Sullivan: I also think sentencing him to jail without parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Saying he was only 13, doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime and shouldn't pay, it means he was a kid and should be treated as such. He should be put in jail, but not for life and not without parole. If he was put in jail for the rest of his life, he would be in jail for almost 3/4ths of his life for a crime he committed while in middle school. That seems cruel.
Graham:
Ok so we all know that people make stupid mistakes when they're teenagers, but after committing 3 separate, but serious crimes, the question of that teen being allowed to roam freely in society needs to be taken into account. Being 17, Graham is under the magical age of 18 which would classify him as an adult, but seriously? I'm 17 and i feel fully capable of making adult decisions about not robbing places and raping people. If I were to commit the crimes that Graham did I would hope that someone would lock me up. Yes he is young and bound to make mistakes, but he's had three chances and he still was a danger to society. So we have to ask what is more important, Graham's fourth chance or society's safety? I think that society is defiantly more important, and i would feel safer knowing that Graham is forever behind bars and not a threat to anyone anymore.
Sullivan:
First this kid's mental state must be taken in to account. I've always thought that 13 year olds, at least in my experience, were usually the ones that ran around the neighborhood shooting NERF guns at each other, and poking dead birds with sticks, not going around and blindfolding elderly ladies to rape them. It would seem to me that such aggression and violence occurring at such a young age would only progressively get worse as Sullivan gets older. I think that life in prison is definitely a perfectly viable sentence. Cruel and unusual? is it really if the crime it's self was cruel and unusual? For a 13 year old to blindfold an elderly lady is unusual, and to rape her is cruel, and I'm a firm believer that the punishment should match the crime.
Graham: This boy knew what he was doing, considering the fact he was 17 at the time of the crime he should know the difference between right and wrong at this point. So in the case Graham v. Florida, Graham should get the sentence of life without parole.
Sullivan: In this case Sullivan being a young boy at the time his mind is still figuring out what's right and wrong. Yes, he did commit a horrendous crime but I think he didnt know the severity of the consequences he was going to face. I believe that Sullivan's sentence should be one of a less severity just because he really didn't know how his actions were going to pan out.
I believe that Graham deserves what it is he got. Making a mistake is different then making the same mistake twice. This young man should be punished for what he has done. Beating and raping a woman the second time does not excuse him from his actions. Sullivan's case in my mind is completely different, this young boy did somethign that i believe he had no idea was right or wrong. But at the same time i believe he had so idea of what was going on, "blindfolding" this elderly woman says a lot. Not wanting to get caught, knowing that if he did something bad might happen.
The 13 year old kid was wrong in what he did but putting him in prison without parole is wrong. I think that it is cruel an unusual punishment to put a 13 year old in an adult prison. he couldn't survive it. They would make his life horrible. He was wrong for what he did and when he does get to be 18 the send him to prison but until then put him in a juvenile prison. As for the 17 year old he is old enough to know what is right from wrong so send him to prison and let him deal with the consequence.
Over the span of four years, a person can change drastically.. especially when entering adulthood from adolesence. Maturity has the possibility to be gained, along with the level of common sense within a person's mindset.
At seveteen, Graham is of an age to be held liable for his gruesome actions; lock him up. It is a general belief that we are supposed to learn from our mistakes in order to prevent them from happening again.. not to repeat them. After having broken the law for a second time, Graham is obviously capable of making his own decisions and should therefore pay the price.
Sullivan on the other hand has some serious growing up to do..literally. At thirteen, the brain has been proven to not be fully developed, extremely malleable at this stage to the outside world. With all the flagrant crime in today's society, children are exposed to unbelievable amounts of violence. This boy has obviously been thoroughly damaged and influenced by the practice of rape and should be removed from the public..but for life? What this child needs more than anything is therapy. There is no question that he should be punished for his heinous actions, but is it possible that he still has an opportunity for change?
YOU DO THE CRIME YOU PAY THE TIME. however, your punishment should be equaled to the crime...in my opinion these two should not have been tried as adults. most children are influenced by their home life and their surroundings. so the first thing tht should be taken into consideration is tht. childrenand teens often act out for the attention which leads to the fact tht an average brain isnt fully developed Until the age of 25. look at the man who has to serve 15 yrs in jail for STEALING A HAMBURGER (he held up the fast food joint and took nothing but a burger)???!? the reason behind thse yrs was tht the judge wanted to "TEACH THE MAN A LESSSSONNNNNNNN".
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS AT TIMES INCONSISTENT. but wen meddling with the lives of children there has to be some consistency in the trials. u do need to pay for the consequences but theyy probablyy havent even hit puberty yyet.lol.
-Glamorous Amaris=) Turned 18 on fridayyyy wootwooot
Both of the individuals in question clearly have major psychological issues and have committed horrendous crimes. Because they were tried as adults for committing adult crimes, they're ages should not come into play in the verdicts. However, this being said, I personally do not agree with the sentences of life in prison without parole. In the case of Graham, I would definitely contend that the sentence falls under cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of his age. Though armed robbery, especially twice, is no small matter, I do not feel that it is enough of a crime to be locked up for the rest of one's life, especially because homicide was not committed. Sullivan, on the other hand, committed a crime that frightens me to the core. Although I said age should not be an issue in deciding the sentence, it scares me to even think that a thirteen year old could even come up with a crime so profane. It only makes sense that he serves a much longer sentence than Graham, since he committed armed robbery AND rape (of an old woman at that). But because the fact that an older man who committed the same crime would not most likely not get the same sentence, I do believe that life in prison is cruel and unusual. Though in his case, I wouldn't mind MOST of life in prison.. Personally, I would sleep much easier at night knowing both are locked up, away from society. But morally, I do feel that their age should not enhance the degree of their crimes and that they should both be granted second chances.
I support the Death Penalty, but only when it is needed and necessary. These kids obviously have something wrong with them, Graham deserves his punishment on the sole fact that he committed his crime not once, but twice. Life without parole is the least he deserves... Same with Sullivan, this 13 year old brutally raped an elderly woman! are you kidding me? Life without parole is not what i see as a fit punishment, but it does get him off the streets. I dont see what drove the lil' guy to rape an elderly woman, but he did and if it were up to me, I'd be prepping the needles for an execution. ;) It doesnt matter what the ages of the criminals are, they should all be treated equally. Not putting Graham and Sullivan away because of their age would be an extremely stupid decision, considering these two are so young and already this screwed up, there is no helping them they are so fargone. I don't care if a 9 year old committed murder, IT'S STILL MURDER and that means the child should be tried as an adult for committing an adult crime. No tolerance is my policy, if there is something wrong with you that makes you a threat to society, you should be gifted with a bullet in between the eyes.
()_()
(-.-)
(>_<)@
LOOKIE I MADE A BUNNY!
Have a great day
Graham:
Graham, being a seventeen year old, can and should be held accountable for his actions. Since he had already been convicted, then why should he not reap what he had sewn. He, most likely, understood that he was in violation of his parole and should therefore get what is deserved.
Sullivan:
The whole raping an old woman thing tells me that he is more highly developed than any other average thirteen year old. I am pretty sure that for him to be able to premeditate aggravated assault of a feeble elderly woman he must have a higher level of thought processing and lower moral values. I believe that in his case he should be able to receive life in prison without parole because if he can mentally grasp what had taken place then he should be able to withstand due punishment.
I believe that cruel and unusual punishment can change between different eras an regions. When someone becomes a threat to society they should be justly punished according to where and when they live. In the twenty first century, lethal injection seems a bit much; however, babysitting them while they grow up in jail doesn't quite fit the bill. We need to find a midpoint, that of course doesn't include torture.
Being a seventeen year old male, I honestly believe that I'm completely accountable for the decisions that I make. In my opinion, there is no drastic psychological change that occurs in a person between the ages of 17 and 18, so punishing a seventeen year old in the same matter that a person one year older would be is neither cruel or unusual- a bit presumptuous, at worst.
The case involving the thirteen year old is much more interesting, though. To enter an elderly woman's home with the intent to beat and rape her is savagely disgusting at any level. But the thought of a middle-school student committing such a crime is much more disturbing. I'm disappointed that insanity was never considered a factor in his case, but I strongly believe that justice should be served, but not in such a damning manner.
Graham:
Considering that he was a minor is one point of interest, but the extent of the crime is absolutely minor compared to a homicide. Jail or prison time would have been appropriate but only reasonable amount of time. Some murders can even look forward to parole after said years even after KILLING a person. The decision was ridiculous considering that the guy didn't kill anyone.
Sulivan:
I don't believe the guy is or ever was in his right mind but yet again, the crime was non-homicidal. Denying the possibility of ever having parole was a cruel decision; Murders and drug dealers that kill people indirectly continue to be given the right to rejoin the population. Bia perhaps?
Ok about the Graham dude, he's 17 years old so he knows right from wrong and no matter his upbringing or anything like that robbing and raping a woman isn't a situation that should be taken lightly. He needs to be doing some serious time I'm undecided whether life with out parole should be his punishment but he needs some form of punishment and it shouldn't be based on his age because as a 17 year old there is no excuse for his actions.
And Sullivan:
This is sickening to know a 13 year old is doing this kind of stuff. Blindfolding an old lady and raping her...seriously no matter what age you are there really isn't an excuse for this. Its hard to make a descion on whether this is fair for him to get life as a 13 year old but I know if I was related to the woman that had to endure this I would want this kid to get the full punishment whether it would be the needle or life with out parole.
So my final thought on whether this is fair and how it should be solved is they need to make a place for kids like this and they should watch how they progress because as a human mistakes are made and some people can learn from them. So I think the punishment is a bit cruel and harsh and should be handled differntly.
Post a Comment