Monday, January 25, 2016

Julia Plummer pd. 1 "The Supreme Court Says Again: Juveniles Are Different"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/the-supreme-court-says-again-juveniles-are-different.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0


Year after year, it has been a given that people under the age of 18 should not be sentenced to life in prison for a crime, because of their future potential, and they should have the right to be on parole. In 2005, the case of Roper v. Simmons determined that juveniles were ineligible for the death sentence, due to their easily molded minds that could be turned in a more positive direction in the future, with professional help. Since then, it has been deemed unconstitutional to sentence a young person under 18 years to a life in prison without parole. Similarly, people who were convicted of a crime that occurred while they were underage are now eligible for parole.

I believe that this ruling is a good thing, because giving people supervised second chances, to redeem themselves and turn their lives around is a positive thing. Instead of completely ruining someone's life, it's better to let them out on parole (providing they show appropriate behavior), and put them to work for their community. This not only decreases the population of young Americans in prison cells, but also gives back. 

1 comment:

  1. I'm glad that the Supreme Court believes in giving young people a second chance, and I hope that this system really helps these people to turn their lives around and create a good future for themselves. --Claudia Anthony

    ReplyDelete