The Supreme Court decided today that judges do not even have to determine if a child "incorrigible" before imposing a life without parole sentence on that child.
Before looking at what is wrong with that opinion, it may help to see what other countries allow this.
None.
Before looking at what is wrong with that opinion, it may help to see what other countries allow this.
None.
The core problem with the opinion is that the question it's asking should not even be asked.
The question: do judges need to make a formal finding of "incorrigibility" before sentencing a child to die in prison.
But that question... defies asking.
The question: do judges need to make a formal finding of "incorrigibility" before sentencing a child to die in prison.
But that question... defies asking.
The Court ITSELF admits we can't really answer it. That we simply lack the ability to predict whether a child is beyond hope at the time of sentencing that child.
The solution, then, is... to make it EASIER for judges to do... what we know... they can't do well?
Mind-boggling.
The solution, then, is... to make it EASIER for judges to do... what we know... they can't do well?
Mind-boggling.
Now, the reality of things.
While some ppl are more prone to violence than others, violence is phase: we age into and age out of it.
It's true all over the world. These graphs are from Boston, Chicago, Canada, and Holland. Can you tell the difference? (Nope.)
While some ppl are more prone to violence than others, violence is phase: we age into and age out of it.
It's true all over the world. These graphs are from Boston, Chicago, Canada, and Holland. Can you tell the difference? (Nope.)
Are there some kids who will be more violent over their lives than others, even as they follow that bell-shaped curve? Of course.
Are some going to be seriously violent? Probably.
But few. And we are bad at predicting them. So how many lives do we destroy to "be safe"?
Are some going to be seriously violent? Probably.
But few. And we are bad at predicting them. So how many lives do we destroy to "be safe"?
The Court's take is beyond Alice in Wonderland logic.
Because we are terrible at predicting whose lives to completely throw away, in part because so few kids exhibit persistent violence, the Constitution requires FEW safeguards, and we can just let judges do what they want.
Because we are terrible at predicting whose lives to completely throw away, in part because so few kids exhibit persistent violence, the Constitution requires FEW safeguards, and we can just let judges do what they want.
I mean, none of this is surprising, given the fearmongering start to this opinion.
TWO INSTANCES PER DAY!
That means... 0.0003% of Americans were murdered by kids under the age of 18, and that stat includes all types of murder and manslaughter.
TWO INSTANCES PER DAY!
That means... 0.0003% of Americans were murdered by kids under the age of 18, and that stat includes all types of murder and manslaughter.
And, of course, that Kavanaugh didn't just agree to this opinion but had the GALL TO WRITE IT is... amazing. Stunning.
I can't help but think this is a giant middle finger to his detractors.
Will his defenders criticize this, for the same reasons they defended him??
I can't help but think this is a giant middle finger to his detractors.
Will his defenders criticize this, for the same reasons they defended him??
The long-run impact of this case may be slight: states are changing on their own, and DAs are increasingly refusing to charge.
But this is still a deep injustice, and deserves all our condemnation.
But this is still a deep injustice, and deserves all our condemnation.
https://twitter.com/davidminpdx/status/1385240161164824578?s=20
I don’t have a SoundCloud, but I was able to describe in more depth in @PostEverything the moral and scientific bankruptcy not just of the majority in Jones, but the very debate in it:
washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
