Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Prison Lifer Comes Home

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#61

Post by TomK32 »

pmiller2 wrote: post #22
craigsmansion wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable. Yes it does. Boys do strange things, boys in groups do stranger things, like not testifying against each other, especially if they feel society has abandoned them and the world is against them. Normal societies are set up to deal with that or prevent it. Fix your bloody society.

Sorry, but a 17 year old knows what it means to rob and murder someone and knows the difference between right and wrong. That’s the basic criterion for culpability.

No they don't. Every human being is an effing idiot when it comes to group dynamics and you never know when a simple brawl or mugging turns into murder.

First of all, if we are talking law and regulations: You don't know all of them and they are constantly shifting. And let's not get into the details of local legislation whether you live in a union of 50 or like me 28 states.

Secondly morals, those are learned first through your family then friends, school, maybe a religious community and later on experience as you master your life on your own. Or rather you learn from your mistakes or the mistakes others make.

The Supreme Court was right to disallow life prison for minors and your 18th birthday shouldn't be the hard limit for that.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#62

Post by 7952 »

rayiner wrote: post #44
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here Well, not all cultures on Earth, especially western ones, share the above revenge-motivated old-testament-style viewpoint on the law. Perhaps that's why they manage to have less crime, les…

> In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members). Which way does the causation run, for both? https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in... During the 20th century the US homicide rate fluctuated from 5-10 per 100,000. In Germany, France, Sweden…

Europe had quite a serious gun violence problem betweens 1939 and 1945. I wonder if that helped create a more reticant culture around firearms.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#63

Post by parthdesai »

rayiner wrote: post #2

The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…

You conveniently glance over a key paragraph as well.

> According to later testimony from one of those officers, Fennell sat with him, and no lawyer, for about an hour that morning before agreeing to make a statement about the night in question. Fennell later testified that the officer told him that if he made a statement, he would not get more than a year in jail. He felt pressured and scared. “Nobody there was my color, nobody my age—all cops,” he said later. “They took advantage of my ignorance, of my family’s ignorance of the legal system.”

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#64

Post by intenex »

rayiner wrote: post #2

The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…

The article directly addresses the idea that "Being 17...doesn't make you less culpable."

"Of just over 200 released, six have faced new charges, but only one has been convicted of a new crime, contempt. That’s less than a 3 percent recidivism rate. “When you’re looking at the percentages of the guys who’ve come back in court, and compare that to our overall, which is around 40 percent, you really know you’ve done a good job,” Johnson said.

That outcome supports a theory the U.S. Supreme Court first advanced in 2005, when it outlawed the death penalty for juveniles. The Court took stock of “evolving standards of decency,” as well as a growing body of neuroscience suggesting kids’ immaturity makes them less culpable than adults. It also emphasized that kids, more than adults, are amenable to change. The low recidivism rates likely also reflect the reality that criminal behavior declines dramatically as people age out of their teens and early 20s."

There are a million things incredibly unwise things I would have been far more likely to do at 17 than 27 now - I imagine this is a trend that will continue to likely progress for me individually, and I also imagine this isn't a phenomenon singular to myself.

The shockingly low recidivism rate seems to empirically support this notion as well, particularly when contrasted with the general recidivism rate. If these juvenile offenders were just as culpable as anyone else when they had committed their life sentence crimes, presumably their recidivism rate should be similar. 40 percent for the general population and 3 percent for this cohort so far suggests otherwise.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#65

Post by tuco86 »

eMSF wrote: post #42
DenisM wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming that having killed once he is more likely to kill again. Depending on the person this may not be true. A psychopath will likely kill again and so should be locked for good. OTOH someone who was not a psychopath and took this chance to rethink his life choices might be about as harmless as the next guy. Before you say "we can't tell one form the other" let me say this: we cannot tell if we never look.…

>took this chance to rethink his life choices Someone else in this equation didn't get to think their life choices, maybe for no fault of their own, because they're dead. So, how long should you be in for a murder? 30 years? 20? 10? 5? If punishment really got nothing to do with it at all, and the perpetrator is really, really ashamed from just the trial and conviction, why not let them go after that?

> Someone else in this equation didn't get to think their life choices..

Is the length of the sentence meant to prevent crime or is it revenge?

People die all the time, it's a tragedy. But I would not want the laws of my society to be built on the idea of revenge.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#66

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #12
DenisM wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a [felony], the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder. Which is to say, he was guilty from the get-go.

Is this common in western countries, or one of those "only in the US and/or some third world country" things, like the "three-strikes" and the "death penalty" (even for juveniles) laws?

[deleted]

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#67

Post by BurningCycles »

intenex wrote: post #64
rayiner wrote: post #2

The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…

The article directly addresses the idea that "Being 17...doesn't make you less culpable." "Of just over 200 released, six have faced new charges, but only one has been convicted of a new crime, contempt. That’s less than a 3 percent recidivism rate. “When you’re looking at the percentages of the guys who’ve come back in court, and compare that to our overall, which is around 40 percent, you really know you’ve done a…

>There are a million things incredibly unwise things I would have been far more likely to do at 17 than 27 now

Yes, I too made very stupid choices in my younger days, which could have killed me many times over. I have not however, done things that could have hurt/killed others. That doesn't make me a saint, it just means I understand the value of human life and that I have no right to jeopardize the lives of others.

These 'kids' took it upon themselves to rob a person while armed, and stab him to death. This person, named Joseph Hayes, had his life forfeit for no doing of his own, his family and friends having him removed from their lives in a most brutal way.

I think the penalty should fit the crime, if you attack and kill someone unprovoked, I don't care if you are 17 years old, or if you were in a group. Your lack of regard for other human life means you should be locked away, both in order to keep people safe from you as well as a strong deterrent. Haywood Fennell is not a victim, the person he and a group of his friends decided to rob and kill is the victim.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#68

Post by RickJWagner »

craigsmansion wrote: post #15
rayiner wrote: post #2

The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…

> Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable. Yes it does. Boys do strange things, boys in groups do stranger things, like not testifying against each other, especially if they feel society has abandoned them and the world is against them. Normal societies are set up to deal with that or prevent it. Fix your bloody society.

What about the victim?

In recent news, gangs of youths have attacked people and killed some.

Sad to say, but locking these people up until they're old may be the best answer. (Maybe the death penalty would be better?) The wrong thing to do is to turn them loose back into society when they have a decent chance of hurting someone else.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#69

Post by tptacek »

coldtea wrote: post #58
x0x0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. Obviously there is a question of proximity, but under Fennell's (presumably charitable) telling of events, he assaulted a man then returned with a co-conspirator; when the victim attempted to defend himself, Fennell threw a bottle at him and watched as…

> I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. You don't? To me it sounds like the epitome of legal absurdity. So, if 3 teenagers decided to steal a car and have a joyride (sure, a stupid and criminal decision, but tons have done it with nobody being hurt), and while trying to do so, the owner com…

There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with. In California, the rule applies only to participants in the actual killing, unless the victim was a police officer. In Illinois, any killing that results from the commission of a violent ("forcible") crime is attributable to all the participants of the crime, on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone, and went ahead and did it anyways. New York has an expansive felony murder rule, but also an affirmative defense that covers the case you described: if you didn't shoot anyone and didn't know your accomplices were armed, you might not be liable.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#70

Post by bsanr2 »

ljm wrote: post #45
bsanr2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a biological fact that's recognized in our having a separate system for juvenile and adult defendants. We can't leave it behind, it would be cruel and unusual.

That’s more like kids being kids. Boys will be boys is a heavier loaded version and is often used by parents and adults to excuse bad behaviour (or bad parenting).

They're both colloquialisms that are somewhat inappropriate for the topic at hand.
Post reply on HN