Introduction
Violent crimes are treated, especially harshly within the criminal justice system because the nature of the crime is severe and suggests that the offender is a danger to society. In cases involving murder the victims or family members of the victim also want the person who took a life to be given an equal punishment in most cases this means the offender will spend their life behind bars or in some states they will be given the death penalty. There are many different situations that can lead up to this type of harsh sentencing like if the person has a violent criminal history or if this is not the first murder charge that he or she has received. No matter the elements of the case the majority of murder cases end up with the offender receiving a punishment that is equal to their crime. In murder cases the cost of taking a life is losing your own (Staff, 2016).
In some cases a murder is committed by a minor, meaning the person that is being charged or held accountable is under the age of 18. These cases can be particularly difficult for the justice system because the person who is trading their entire life is so young. Some people that are against sentencing children so harshly believe that the sentence is unfair because it does not give the child who committed the crime another opportunity in their lifetime to be a better person. The rules for sentencing children who commit crimes have changed drastically in recent years as advocates have argued that young people should have a chance at life again even in the most extreme cases. Sentencing guidelines have been altered so that even murders committed by children can no longer be awarded the death sentence. Another change that has been made is that if a child is not being convicted of a violent criminal act they cannot be sentenced to a life term. However advocates feel that this is not enough and that the criminal justice system also needs to make a change for even the harshest criminal acts that are committed by juveniles. Soon advocates will argue that a life sentence should never be given to a child (News, 2016).
Quantel Lotts
Quantel Lotts is one of the young people who committed a murder as a child and as a result has been sentenced to life in prison. Quantel was playing roughly with his older brother one day however, this rough housing soon turned into a serious situation which resulted in his brother’s death. Something that started off as playing around with dart guns, got out of hand when Quantel opted to grab a knife and use it on his older brother. Quantel was only fourteen at the time of this incident and his seventeen year old brother who he stabbed twice, was dead by the time he reached the emergency room. When Lott was arrested he was too young to do most of the things that people do like, drive and have a job, but jurors did not take into account that he was very much a child. All that mattered to the court system was that Lott was punished for the violence that took his older brother’s life. Lott was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and he says “they took away all hope for the future (Chen, 2016).” Many people may see this as justice since it can be said that Lott also took away a person’s hopes and dreams. When Lott chose to grab a knife and stab his brother it ended any possibility that his brother would have a future or life that he could look forward to. However, even Lotts mother has learned to overcome the tragedy and offer her forgiveness to her son for the choice that he made on that day. Now Lotts mother is trying to find a way to change the sentence that Lott was given as a child so that he can be free to make better decisions in the future. There are currently 73 juveniles in the United States that have received life sentences for crimes that they committed when they were between the ages of 13 and 14. The total amount of people who have been sentenced to life in prison for crimes that they committed before they were even a legal adult is 2,200. In many cases people who are sentenced to life in prison have the opportunity for parole, which is a second chance, but for these kids that is not an option (Chen, 2016).
Background
Lotts case does show that he never really had an opportunity at life. His family background and history can be thought of as nothing less than disturbing. Every older person or adult that he had to look up to were no type of role model for a young boy. His father, stepmother and even his mother were all on drugs. This was not something that the adults even attempted to hide. Lott was exposed to the crack they smoked regularly as they would smoke it right in front of him. Violence was something that Lott learned was a regular part of life and the way he should handle situations. It seems only natural that a play fight could turn into a tragedy when a small child has not been taught any other way. When Lott was punished it was through a beating that some would consider child abuse. The entire family was a part of what Lott would eventually do that would end up costing him the rest of his life. His family was violent on a regular basis, and he even witnesses his uncle being shot during an argument over drugs when he was very young. When the boys were younger fighting was something that their parents encouraged. The adults would place socks over the young boy’s fists and cheer them on making them fight one another. As a result of this extreme upbringing Lott suffered from undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues. He reports that he would not be able to remember losing his temper at times. He also reports the inability to control his emotions when he would burst out in tears or fits of anger. The day that Lott got into the fateful fight with his older brother it started off as two boys playing. His brother shot him with a dart gun and Lott then shot his brother with an arrow. After the playing was taken too far, what started off as rough housing turned into a physical fight between the two. Although Lott was convicted of stabbing his brother twice, which resulted in his brothers mortality, Lott says he has no memory of doing this. Although Lotts initial reaction was anger and suicide attempts, his time behind bars has changed him and he is no longer the boy that killed his brother out of anger and what he was taught. Lot is now a young man who lives every day learning something about how to be a better person than the boy who was sentenced to life in prison (Pilkington, 2012).
Incarceration versus Rehabilitation
In recent years the laws for incarcerating juveniles for life have changed dramatically. As of the 2005 sentencing guidelines have been revised to ensure that young people who commit crimes may not receive the type of sentence that would result in the death penalty even if the juvenile killed another person. The law still has no protection from a juvenile who is convicted of murder from being sentenced to life in prison. However, currently the idea that it is unconstitutional to sentence a person to life in prison as a juvenile because the punishment is too harsh for a young offender is something that is being presented to the Supreme Court. The lawyer in the case that is facing this new turn of events argues that young offenders like him and like Lott are not capable of being held to this accountability. This is because it is being argued that young people who commit even the most violent acts are not a lost cause. It is thought that these crimes are something that can be changed because a young person’s brain is not fully developed meaning that there is still hope that rehabilitation can make them a person who makes better choices in the future. Although this argument can be backed scientifically, murder is a serious crime and many believe that it does not matter whether the offender is a child or an adult, the punishment should always be a life sentence. The eights amendment protects people from being given a punishment that is considered “cruel and unusual (Annenberg, 2016)”. In cases involving juveniles receiving life sentences this argument seems to fit when you consider the fact that they are not even considered old enough to make decisions because there brain is not fully developed. However, some see the crime of murder as one that cannot be given a cruel or unusual sentence no matter the age (Annenberg, 2016).
Adolescent Brain
Teenagers’ brains are compared to a car without brakes by experts. This is because experts say teenagers are subject to impulses that can be very difficult to control since they have little in their neurological arsenal to help them do so. When the death penalty for juveniles was recognized as something that was not constitutionally acceptable by law, this was the argument that ensured no more children, no matter the crime would pay with their life. The research that was examined during the decision making showed proof that young people are still experiencing brain growth that can last all the way into their early 20s. The parts of the brain that are still developing during this time are directly responsible for a young person’s ability to make the responsible decisions that adults do based on the consequences and effects of their actions. Since young people are most likely to be too immature to know how to act responsibly as a result of their underdeveloped brains, they often make decisions that are quick and not thought through enough to know what they did and how it will ultimately cause them and others a lot of pain. One psychologist explains teenage brains and impulsive decisions saying that “juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure," causing them to have less control over their environment.” He goes on to explain that children should still be punished when they commit a crime so that they can learn from their mistakes however, the justice system should consider their inability to make a good decision under pressure when enforcing these punishments. Research has shown that around the age of 16 up to the age of adulthood children are more likely to commit violent acts because it is during this time that they are under the most pressure and that the majority of these young people will grow past these inabilities and learn right from wrong as well as how to control violent impulses (RITTER, 2016).
Fair Sentencing for Violent Juveniles
In many cases the victims of violent criminals believe that offenders should receive an equal sentence for the crime that they committed. This is still true for victims who are looking at a juvenile that committed a violent crime like murder. Some people who are victims do not believe that sentencing a young person to spend the rest of their life in a prison is the answer. Even victims and family members of victims can see that young people should be given a second chance to try to become a better person if it is at all possible rather than living the rest of their days paying for a crime that they committed when they were still a child. When interviews were conducted to research this question one victim stated that there is not a harsh enough punishment for a person that has taken a life. However, this same victim turned around and stated that it is not acceptable to make a juvenile who commits this type of crime spend the rest of their life paying for it if they can be changed. The man says that the reason that adults should be held to a different accountability for the same crime is that young people are not mentally developed enough to understand the extremity of the crime that they committed. He makes a very good argument for this saying “We’ve got to recognize that they are not the same as adults in terms of mental capacity, and so the [criminal] penalties they face should be different. We recognize that they are different by not letting them drink, by not letting them vote. It doesn’t make sense to given them the same criminal penalties as adults.” This could not be said any better, it makes perfect sense that there are rules for children because we as a society recognize their inability to make their own good decisions. These rules and opinions which can be backed with proof by researchers should not be ignored just because the crime is so serious (Jenkins, 2016).
Conclusion
In the case of murder like the one that Lott was sentenced to life for it is important to consider that all of the victims are able to feel like the punishment Lott receives is a fair enough punishment to make everyone satisfied. Satisfaction not only comes from the victims and family members feeling justice has been served, it also comes from the feeling that the world is a safer place because the person who can cause such a danger is locked away. When it comes to juvenile sentencing this may seem like a fair sentence to some and others view it as something that is too extreme and even unconstitutional. This is because young people are not full able to be held accountable for their actions because they are children and their brain capacity shows that they do not understand their decisions or consequences. It also shows that children are compelled to make mistakes because their brains are overly compulsive which does not allow them a lot of time to make a good decision in an extreme situation. Lott had an extremely difficult childhood which did not give him much of an opportunity to learn what is right or wrong. He also was subject to fighting and violence. Some people may see this as a reason to lock him up and throw away the key. The fact that he was pretty much trained to be a criminal suggests that the world would be safer without him in it to pose a threat to others. However, research suggests that although Lott was a young person that was raised violently and ultimately committed the most heinous of crimes, he is also still young enough to be given a second chance because he can be rehabilitated. It seems unfair to do anything other than give Lott, perhaps his first chance at life considering the fact that the life he was given as a child was not much for any child to have been given. The judge in a case like Lotts should consider the circumstances that the child had been through and make an attempt to rehabilitate him. Life in prison should only be a sentence for a minor if it is accompanied by the chance for parole pending a successful rehabilitation.
References
Annenberg, L. (2016). Speak Outs - How far should juvenile sentencing restrictions go?. Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/how-far-should-juvenile-sentencing-restrictions-go
Chen, S. (2016). Teens locked up for life without a second chance - CNN.com. Cnn.com. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/08/teens.life.sentence/
Jenkins, J. (2016). Victims « Fair Sentencing for Youth. Fairsentencingforyouth.org. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/changed-lives/victims-perspectives/
News, U. (2016). 14 years old: Too young for life in prison?. NBC News. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/15/10670418-14-years-old-too-young-for-life-in-prison?lite
Pilkington, E. (2012). Jailed for life at age 14: US supreme court to consider juvenile sentences. the Guardian. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/mar/19/supreme-court-juvenile-life-sentences
RITTER, M. (2016). Experts link teen brains' immaturity, juvenile crime. ABC News. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3943187&page=1
Staff, F. (2016). First Degree Murder Penalties and Sentencing - FindLaw. Findlaw. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-penalties-and-sentencing.html
