home

Supreme Court Restricts LWOP For Juveniles

By Jeralyn, Section Juvenile Offenders
Posted on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:15:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court today ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for crimes other than murder.

The United States is the only country in the world that allows life sentences without parole for juveniles.

An estimated 111 defendants in the United States have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for crimes other than murder committed when they were under age 18. About 70 percent of them are imprisoned in Florida.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, available here: [More...]

"The Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide," Kennedy concluded in the 32-page opinion.

"A state need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term," he wrote.

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Civil Liberties Groups Urge Holder and Obama Not to Water Down Miranda >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Restricts LWOP For Juveniles | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Now, if they will (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    just move the age at which they become adults for criminal prosecution purposes to the top of the 95% confidence interval instead of the assumed average, we would be on the road to justice. Its the ones in the interval between the average and the and the top of the 95% confidence interval who are clogging the system and having their lives irrevocably trashed, when many of them would be responsible citizens given few more months to mature. It would seem that criminal responsibility should follow all the other rights of adulthood -- sort of a "trial run".

    Isn't the presumption 18 in all states? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    To avoid the presumption the prosecution has the burden of convincing juvenile court, under state law criteria, the accused should be tried as an adult.  

    Parent
    what I am saying is (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    something most people would not even see the point in. I am talking about the uniform "18" (with its slight variations from state to to state). It's early. It is conceptualized as a sort of average of when people are mature, which ignores the fact that 50% of the people fall above the average. At 18, kids are often still in school -- an environment where they are treated like children.

    Parent
    At 18 (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    They can vote, go to war, sign a contract, etc.  What age would you choose?

    Parent
    How 'bout 21... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    if you can't drink you're not an adult.

    Though I think 18 works...we just gotta lower the drinking age, or raise the age to legally kill for us, vote, and sign contracts to 21. IOW, lets make up our minds as to when you're officially no longer your parents responsibility and on your own in the legal sense.

    Parent

    Stupid (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    The only reason the age to sign up for the military is 18 is because the military knows that at 18 people are unwise and immature.

    It would make much more sense that the Universal age for fighting in any armed conflict is 60. Only problem with that is that the Military would put themselves out of business... lol

    Put it in the Geneva Convention.

    Parent

    Evidence indicates that PTSD (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    really sets in for those who don't have a mature frontal lobe too.  Everyone is at risk, but the youth are so incredibly at risk it isn't funny.  The more developed brains usually end up with something that can be diagnosed as an anxiety disorder but that can wane over time in a safer setting.  You would think that that would curtail them allowing anyone in under the age of 23, or at least not allowing anyone into combat until at least age 23....like that's going to happen :)

    Parent
    MT agree - the brain (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:08:13 PM EST
    continues to develop in males until age 25, and, I believe, the development beyond age 18 is in the frontal lobe - center for "executive functioning," -- judgment, decision-making, attention, etc.

    Parent
    I think that (none / 0) (#46)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    is very, very good idea! Let the old rich men have it out with canes and walkers instead of capitalizing on the energy and ignorance of the young!

    Parent
    I realize that kind (none / 0) (#12)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    of thinking is tradition, but there is no reason all the weight of adulthood has to come at once. Like I say, I think they should get the privileges first and the responsibilities later, something like this: Beer? 18. Vote? 18. War by choice? 18. War by draft? 24. Adult for prosecution? 24.

    This keeps with our tradition of giving the citizen the benefit of the doubt. That was one of our founders' good ideas. To bad we slowly morphed back to giving the government the benefit of the doubt.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    They got rid of 18 as the legal drinking age because of what you said - some 18 year olds are still in high school.  They were coming back to class drunk after lunch ( also because federal highway funds were then tied to raising the legal age to 21).

    I'll ask a question I've asked before that you didn't address - since teenagers do not have fully developed brains, what age would you apply to age of consent?  Ability to get birth control?  Age to get an abortion without parental consent?  Why is your age to be prosecuted as an adult so much higher?

    Parent

    raising the drinking age (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:44:14 PM EST
    did not stop anyone I know from getting drunk in H.S.

    Regarding birth control and abortions - I think the answer there is simple, it's about preventing them from having to deal with an even more "adult" situation - that of being a parent.  So I would say younger is better on that regard because it's even worse to be a parent the younger you are.

    Regarding the age of consent, again, we are saying they don't have fully developed brains, not that they don't have fully developed libidos.  We have to be realistic about teenage lifestyles.  That's why you give them the tools to be as safe as possible about it.  But that doesn't mean we pretend they are gonna be saints because we tell them they're too young.

    Parent

    You can't argue (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    That, on one hand,  because they don't have fully developed brains, they don't have the judgment to know right from wrong when it comes to committing a crime, and on the other hand argue that a 14 year old has the maturity to make decisions about sex and abortion. You have to have a parent's permission to get  your ears pierced.

    And while your friends may have been drinking in high school, the fact that the age was raised DID substantially reduce the number of kids going out at lunch, buying beer, andcoming back to school drunk, or worse, getting killed. Check NHTSAif you don't believe me.

    My question to james remains the same - why a higher standard for committing crimes than other adult activities?

    Parent

    that's not what I said at all (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    what I said was, that as a younger person, they don't have the maturity to make decisions about being a PARENT, and so we should protect them from that.  And that while they may or may not make mature decisions about sex, they're bodies are screaming at them and they will respond to that.  You can't control every action that a teenager does, so you try to protect them as much as possible from the negative consequences of those decisions (i.e. getting pregnant).

    Parent
    I understand that (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    Everytime this topic comes up, people around here see this as a black and white issue - "teenagers should not be reared as adults because they are incapable of making adult, informed decisions because of the makeup of their brains.". I'm merely pointing out that many around here don't seem to think that same standard applies when it comes to other things.

    Parent
    And I'm pointing out (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:28:52 PM EST
    It's actually applying the same standards.  The difference being what you consider the "adult" decision.  In your case you bring up access to abortion and birth control as the "adult" situation.  Where from the other point of view being a parent is the "adult" situation and therefore access to those things is actually protecting them from that.

    Parent
    By your logic, then (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    We should hold the parent of a teenage criminal responsible then because they didn't protect the kid from using bad judgment?

    Parent
    ummm (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    what?

    Parent
    By Your Logic (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    Post pubescent girls should have to wear a shock collar and video cam so that their parents could watch and control every aspect of their life until they magically become mature because of bean counting.

    Parent
    I would choose at least 20 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    18 is just too young all the way around in my book.

    Parent
    I explained that -- (none / 0) (#38)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    I think the privileges should come before the responsibility. There should be a learning period. And I'm biased. I simply favor the individual over the state. I'll admit to that prejudice. The entire conservative movement has made incredible gains against the constitution using the sentiment that crime victims have a right to see perpetrators damaged as much as the law permits. That is, the cost of someone "getting away" with a crime is seen as worse than the cost of innocent conviction and destruction of individual rights and privacy. The risk of wrongful conviction is seen to be on equal par with the risk of a victim not getting a pound of flesh, or someone not being "safe". I just don't agree. I never got on that train, although nowadays one would think it is the only logical conclusion. There was a time when it was not, and, believe it or not, things were not even as bad as they are now. The reason I think the age for prosecution should be higher is because people should have a chance in life. I liked Hunter S. Thompson's ideas about how one comes to think like a Hell's angel, and that is part of it. I don't think one's career possibilities at 45 should be trashed by a felony conviction at 18, but that is how it is in most places. Save the "final decisions" and the "throw away the key" and the "forget about it" for those who have had a chance to learn about the world, and have had ample chance to overcome any bad environment or disability they started with.

    Parent
    Sentencing has (none / 0) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:16:21 PM EST
    various goals, one of which is punishment, and one of which is rehabilitation. It's possible to consider that when someone "underage" with a yet-developing brain commits a crime, there is possibility for rehabilitation, so the underage person should be tried as a juvenile with prospect of lighter sentence so that the goal of rehabilitation has chance to be realized.

    Parent
    goals of sentencing (none / 0) (#50)
    by diogenes on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:28:18 PM EST
    Besides punishment and rehabilitation, a third goal of sentencing is "containment" and a fourth is "deterrence".  Life sentences do achieve these aims.

    Parent
    I was merely suggesting (none / 0) (#52)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:26:51 AM EST
    that eliminating harshest punishments non-adults by not trying them as adults serves the sentencing goal of rehabilitation as well as punishment.  Sure there are multiple goals, but the issue is which do we want to pursue in particular cases. No deterrence purpose is served when someone is truly rehabilitated, and the goal of containment is achieved by any incarceration.  This issue is the length of containment.  

    Parent
    Can't sign a contract in Alabama (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    until 19 or get married without parental consent until 19.

    Parent
    Part of the problem (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    In this particluar case

    Petitioner Graham was 16 when he committed armed burglary and another crime. Under a plea agreement, the Florida trial court sentenced Graham to probation and withheld adjudication of guilt. Subsequently, the trial court found that Graham had violated the terms of his probation by committing additional crimes. The trial court adjudicated Graham guilty of the earlier charges, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to life in prison for the burglary.

    Because Florida has abolished its parole system, the life sentence left Graham no possibility of release except executive clemency. He challenged his sentence under the Eighth Amendment 's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, but the State First District Court of Appeal affirmed.

    From the North Country Gazette

    Looks like FL is going to have to reinstate its parole system.

    Parent

    This person ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by nyrias on Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    committed ARMED BURGLARY at 16. My son, who is at 13, knows that ARMED BURGLARY is a huge no-no. We are not talking about smoking weed here.

    And subsequently, the Florid court sentenced him to PROBATION ... another chance.

    And what happened, he did it again by committing additional crimes.

    I have no problem if this guy rot in jail for life. He got a second chance already.

    It is not like he mistakenly smoked some pot and got busted for life.

    Parent

    If you check most state (none / 0) (#53)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:36:00 AM EST
    statutes, I doubt you'll find many that impose a life sentence for armed burglary.  

    Did you happen to see the Oprah show where she showed an 18-year old Iraq Vet who had a wife and child and could not get a job and was penniless for months after he returned from a tour of duty?  He committed armed robbery, and appeared on the show from his jail cell; also on the show was the woman whose store he held up; she talked him into putting down his gun, he admitted his guilt, etc.  Who among us can say what we would do if we could not get work?  And what is wrong with this country that our Vets have no prospect of work to come home to?  This young man served his country, and then confronted a situation in which he felt he had his back up against a wall. I dare say he could easily be rehabilitated -- all this fellow needed was a job. I think it is always easier to want to lock someone up and throw away the key, but seeing shades of gray, and figuring out how to turn a situation around is much harder.  

    Parent

    If you check CA statues, (none / 0) (#58)
    by nyrias on Tue May 18, 2010 at 08:50:41 AM EST
    we have 3-strike laws that WILL impose a life sentence for MULTIPLE (i.e. 3) arm burglaries.

    Nope. I did not see Oprah show but just by YOUR description, there is a huge difference. This vet did it ONCE, stopped in the middle and admit guilt. Certainly I agree vets should be able to find work .. but that is NOT an excuse to commit arm robbery. He can always turn to food stamps and unemployment. I pay taxes for those safety nets, you know.

    The OTHER young man did it, got PROBATION and apparently did not see the error of his ways and went back to commit MORE crimes. I have no sympathy for repeated offenders. Perfect case for 3-strike laws.

    Parent

    Redemption (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    I find it interesting that in a country that professes to be such a "Christian" nation we have no belief in the redemption of man.

    If we're going to just throw people into the pit and never allow them out again, why not just go full throttle with capital punishment again and be done with it.

    The person you are at 16 is usually very different than the person you are at 40.

    Maybe it's time to start thinking about rehab in our prison system again rather than just a dumping ground.

    With so many states going broke it might be the cheaper and more productive alternative.

    It depends (none / 0) (#44)
    by nyjets on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    For some crimes, rehab is correct. Minor robberys, simple assaults, etc.
    However for some crimes like rape, violent robberies, murder, redemption is irrelevant.
    Furthermore, the notion that someone at 16 is somehow different at age 40 is incorrect. If you commit murder at 16, you are still a murder whether you are 16, 26, or 86.

    Parent
    you believe in whatever ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by nyrias on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:33:48 PM EST
    the Christians are telling you?

    On another note, may be we should think about separate violent criminals from the public as opposed to worry if they will ever fit in again.

    And no .. i don't believe in redemption for EVERY case. There are some just beyond redemption.

    Parent

    AP article (TL sidebar) states the opinion (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    does not require re-sentencing.  Does require parole hrgs.  

    I heard that they just ruled that (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    a "sexual predator" can be held indefinitely too today even after they have served their sentence.

    If you are going to (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    ignore the law and go with emotion and popular whim, why not go whole hog? Wouldn't the way to handle the society's preoccupation with caging sex offenders forever be to increase the penalties to the desired maximum rather than to just say that the law doesn't count in some cases? That, like all other deviations, simply opens the door for expanding the category -- eventually to traffic tickets. Same old logic. If works for predators, maybe it'll work for this...and then that. Hopefully, as a society, we are off that deluded trail of thinking, but the court can be expected to lag progress, especially since it has a well stocked and youthful cadre of conservative justices appointed at the height of our delusions.

    Parent
    release the info (none / 0) (#51)
    by diogenes on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:34:29 PM EST
    How about if the lawyers of one of these civilly committed sex offenders release all details of crimes including victim statements and trial testimony and all medical evaluations done while in prison.  
    At least in my state, the few people released from civil commitment into intense post-release supervision for sex crimes have records of multiple horrific offenses.  And these are the ones who were released.
    There is also a great shortage of housing for released sex offenders; perhaps some of the people who comment here can rent out space in their homes or neighborhoods to these people.

    Parent
    No one here is suggesting that (none / 0) (#55)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:50:40 AM EST
    sex offenders be released from all custody once their sentences are served.  I believe the legal standard is that forced confinement can be imposed as long as a person is a danger to him/her/self or others.  The prisoner whose sentence has been served has the right to due process to establish that he/she is no longer a danger.  


    Parent
    Good ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by nyrias on Tue May 18, 2010 at 08:52:58 AM EST
    and let's error on the side of caution.

    After all, few in society will miss these people anyway.

    Parent

    It Is a Horrible Law (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Tue May 18, 2010 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    Slippery slope... big time. emptywheel puts it in context for you.

    Marcy Wheeler does an interesting thought experiment substituting the word "terrorist" for "sexually dangerous person" in the Supreme Court arguments from the case decided today:

    via digby

    Parent

    slippery slope is such a cliche argument. (none / 0) (#61)
    by nyrias on Tue May 18, 2010 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    I don't buy it. It is intellectual dishonesty to assume if we lock up sexual predators, we will do it to others.

    Well, we locked up murders too .. by the same logic, it is a slippery slope and we should lock up no one??? Obviously the world is not like that. We are not locking up people jay-walking, are we, just because we lock up murderers?

    No one says we will substitute "terrorist" with "sexually dangerous person".

    If there is truly such a proposal, i will evaluate it then.

    Right now, if we are talking about sexual predators .. keep them locked up.

    And dont get me wrong, i am not talking about teenagers who have sex with their underage gfs. I am talking about violent sex offenders.

    Parent

    OK Mr Let Em Rot (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue May 18, 2010 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    Bloodlust much...  

    Parent
    well .. if the desire .. (none / 0) (#63)
    by nyrias on Tue May 18, 2010 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    to lock up repeating violent criminals so that they cannot commit any more offense is bloodlust ....

    so be it .. bloodlust here we come.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Tue May 18, 2010 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    You have expressed much more than wanting to keep dangerous people off the streets, here. Yes, bloodlust, vengeance, and general lynch mob sentiments to anyone you perceive as a threat.

    A sentiment I would expect from a medieval king, emperor, or Stalin type dictator. Compassion has never been part of your persona here at TL, in all of your incarnations.  

    Parent

    Compassion ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by nyrias on Tue May 18, 2010 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    to violent criminals? No thanks.

    If you want to coddle them, be my guest. Don't count me in.

    OOo .. invoking stalin ....

    Well, then everyone supporting the 3-strike laws is a stalin???

    You mean i live in a state (CA) of stalins?

    LOL ... you are clearly a criminal lover who don't care about what they have done and can't even see logic when "prison" is mentioned. I guess logical reasoning is beyond you.

    Lucky most people are not that silly.

    Parent

    Interesting that the case (none / 0) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 05:57:08 PM EST
    -- U.S. v. Comstock -- was decided on grounds of authority of Congress under necessary & proper clause -- if I read it correctly in 2 minutes. & I believe, the opinion indicated that no issue was raised about the question as to whether federal legislation violated equal protection rights, etc.  

    Parent
    Link: (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    In United States v. Comstock (08-1224), in an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court reverses and remands the lower court's decision.  The vote is 7-2, with Justice Thomas dissenting, joined by Justice Scalia.  Justice Kennedy concurs in the judgment only, joined by Justice Alito.

    Holding: The Court upholds the law passed by Congress to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill federal prisoner who is a sex offender with the commitment to continue beyond the date the inmate otherwise would be released.


    Scotusblog

    Parent
    Mentally ill and incarcerated in a prison (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    Why do we still have this problem?  Why do mentally ill people have to serve time in prison?  How can they even get adequate care for their illness in a prison setting?  Chaps my butt, and it is a horrible social crime!

    Parent
    Defendant who is "incompetent" (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    cannot be tried, must be housed in mental health facility until becomes able to understand the charges against him and able to assist with own defense.

    Person found not guilty by reason of insanity is not imprisoned.  

    Parent

    That's out of (none / 0) (#39)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    character! Thanks for the info.

    Parent
    I didn't realize this (none / 0) (#40)
    by JamesTX on Mon May 17, 2010 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    was the civil commitment idea. Civil commitments can be challenged.

    Parent
    Law upheld on (none / 0) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    basis that Congress has authority to legislation on such questions.  Opinion made clear no question was raised as to equal protection violation, etc.  Curious.  

    Parent
    I think the Constitutional standard (none / 0) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:37:34 AM EST
    -- if I remember correctly -- help me out here Jeralyn -- is that a sexual predator can be held after completing his/her sentence only if he/she is a danger to self or others.

    Parent
    The same is true for civil commitment (none / 0) (#56)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:53:06 AM EST
    no one can be subjected to involuntary civil commitment indefinitely, and must be released on a finding that the person is no longer a danger to self/others.

    Parent
    Sorry, my Con Law knowledge (none / 0) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 18, 2010 at 02:31:34 AM EST
    appears to be outdated?

    Parent
    Canada allows JLWOP (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    if the defendant is tried as an adult. France also allows JLWOP; they define "juvenile" as U-16, not U-18 like we do. And France is not the only country who defines an adult as a 16 y/o and up. In fact, some countries, like Albania, define adults as 14 y/o and up.

    btw, I think the MIB made the right decision.

    But, but but. According to recent (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    French commenter here, Polanski would have gotten a fairer shake under French law.

    Parent
    I missed the French commenter (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    but here's what wiki says about underage sex in France:
    Article 227-25, which reads: "The commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a child under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000."
    Assuming my math is correct, 5 years is more than 42 days.

    Parent
    I gathered the commentator (Lupin) (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    has concluded the U.S./California system of justice is incurably corrupt and the French system is not.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    He does correctly believe that in the case of Polanski that the US justice was thoroughly corrupt. Although he did not suggest that there is no corruption in France.  

    Parent
    I also gathered he thinks L.A. County (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    DA's office should have filed in France, not LA County, because Polanski was a French citizen at the time of the incident.

    Parent
    Just found the thread. Very interesting. (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:44:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Incorrect (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    As far as sentencing goes, although correct as far as corruption goes.

    Parent
    I'm reasonably certain (none / 0) (#27)
    by Watermark on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    That parole is after 15 years in Canada, regardless of age or crime (although the Conservatives are trying to repeal the faint hope clause, which would move it to 25 years).

    Parent
    According to wiki, in Canada, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    Minimum to serve before eligibility for requesting parole
    [my bolds] is 7-25 years. Not too dissimilar to the 15-25 years in the US.

    Parent
    They have no parole in FL (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:22:58 PM EST


    Supreme Court Restricts LWOP For Juveniles | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment