No, they have not. They've been convicted of crimes. Nothing about their intellectual ability or "capacity for cruelty or sadism" can be inferred from that.
Cruelty/Sadism and intellectual prowess aren't mutually exclusive. From my high school days...I remember some really smart people who were atrocious bullies, and I mean extreme bullies.
Famously, Göring scored 138 and another prominent Nazi, Arthur Seyß-Inquart, 141 on their IQ tests when incarcerated in Nuremberg. Both were sentenced to death later.
That said, their case shows the principle that high-IQ psychopathic people tend not to end up among common criminals. They find other, legal or "legal" (as in "it was legal in Nazi Germany") ways to satisfy their urges.
Their economic output has nothing to do with why they should be locked up until they die. If Elon Musk commits murder he should be locked up for the remainder of his natural life as should these lowlifes.
There should be a reasonable age for criminal responsibility. Compare the different approaches of the British [1] who tried 10 year olds as adults and the Norwegians [2] who took a different approach. Which is more civilised? Which is more likely rehabilitate the offender?
You couldn't have picked a worse case for trying juveniles as adults. I think any country that wouldn't try these animals as adults couldn't be called civilized. Torturing and mutilating a 2 year old at the age of 10 is not recoverable human behavior.
And of course...
> Venables was sent to prison in 2010 for breaching the terms of his licence, was released on parole again in 2013, and in November 2017 was again sent to prison for possessing child sexual abuse images on his computer.
I beg to differ. As revolting as their actions were, it is hard to consider 10 year olds as adults and treat them as such in the eyes of the law. The recidivism you raise could actually support my argument rather than strengthen yours. Had they been treated differently (I.e. more as children) perhaps they might have been rehabilitated and ended up more “normal”.
Don’t misunderstand my position. What they did was vile beyond comprehension, but were 10 year olds fully responsible for their own behaviour at this age?
It's not really relevant whether they're fully responsible. Is a dog responsible when it bites a person? No, but it's unfit for civilization, and must be put down.
while I agree that all dogs should be put down, the issue is much more complex than this. What even is civilization? there are plenty of civilizations where killing the weak is praised and encouraged.
> You couldn't have picked a worse case for trying juveniles as adults. I think any country that wouldn't try these animals as adults couldn't be called civilized. Torturing and mutilating a 2 year old at the age of 10 is not recoverable human behavior.
That does not mean you have to try them as adults. You have to try them as 10 years old who have done that. Factually, they are not adults.
Wow, advocating for a lighter hand in the murder of James Bulger is certainly new. Personally, I would have preferred life without parole in that case.
why must be people be "rehabilitated"? killing, including killing for play, is perfectly normal among all carnivorous mammals, and we are carnivorous mammals, like it or not.
it's not murderers or rapists who are in the wrong, but "civilization" which forces people to behave unnaturally
I disagree with this. Animals will only act how they act until it becomes inconvenient (I.e death ). It’s not that their way of acting is right but just so that their environment allows for it without outright threat of extinction. If the environment became one in which being carnivorous was disadvantageous (let’s say some freak virus that only transfers through the consumption of meat) then even though they’re following their natural instincts , the world is no longer a place for them.
Similarly, civilization is as natural as a meat-only transferring virus. It’s a environmental change. In this environment. Murders and rapists are usually disadvantaged. Its never a matter of who has a right or non-right to exist by what’s “natural” but what is advantageous given your environment.
The median time served for murder in the US is 13.4 years.
But, not all things are equal. For some reason, both the lengths of these sentences, and the frequency of receiving life without parole (or life without parole as a child offender) vary widely... Across racial lines.
Let's look at the data. Between 2012-2016, black male offenders in the federal court system received sentences 19.1% longer on average than similarily-situated white male offenders:
However, this analysis doesn't control for income level or socioeconomic status. There are major differences in economic propsperity between black and white populations, and as a consequence major diffences in the quality of their legal counsel. This is hinted at in the 2012 Booker Report:
>During these periods, Black male offenders were more than 20 percent less likely to receive a non-government sponsored below range sentence than White male offenders were. These differences may contribute to the difference in sentence length between Black and White male offenders.
The quality of your counsel has a big impact on whether you can get "non-government sponsored below range sentence", as this law firm suggests:
>The foregoing trend makes reinforces the importance of using a sentencing specialist able to help humanize your client, preferably someone familiar with the federal system’s many nuances.
Much like the gender pay gap, the closer you look at the racial sentencing gap the smaller it gets, and the more it looks related to wealth rather than race. The racial wealth gap is its own separate issue, but it seems to me like solving that problem could do much to fix the disparity in sentencing.
What's with the voting options for this post? There are no up/downvote arrows, but I didn't vote for it. If I had, there'd be an "unvote/undown" option, but it's not there, either. Never seen that on HN before.
I've had the arrows disappear on the site before; it was fixed by a force-reload. Also, I think you lose the ability to remove a vote after some number of hours.
38 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 90.0 ms ] threadso archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20220724192109/https://www.brpro...
Article carefully avoids mentioning why these individuals had received lifetime sentences. I assume their murder victims didn't get "second chances".
How do you know that?
That said, their case shows the principle that high-IQ psychopathic people tend not to end up among common criminals. They find other, legal or "legal" (as in "it was legal in Nazi Germany") ways to satisfy their urges.
Anyway, what about Hans Reiser? A convicted murderer, but one who could build an entire file system.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger [2] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-t...
And of course...
> Venables was sent to prison in 2010 for breaching the terms of his licence, was released on parole again in 2013, and in November 2017 was again sent to prison for possessing child sexual abuse images on his computer.
Don’t misunderstand my position. What they did was vile beyond comprehension, but were 10 year olds fully responsible for their own behaviour at this age?
That does not mean you have to try them as adults. You have to try them as 10 years old who have done that. Factually, they are not adults.
Similarly, civilization is as natural as a meat-only transferring virus. It’s a environmental change. In this environment. Murders and rapists are usually disadvantaged. Its never a matter of who has a right or non-right to exist by what’s “natural” but what is advantageous given your environment.
But, not all things are equal. For some reason, both the lengths of these sentences, and the frequency of receiving life without parole (or life without parole as a child offender) vary widely... Across racial lines.
Weird, huh?
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...
However, this analysis doesn't control for income level or socioeconomic status. There are major differences in economic propsperity between black and white populations, and as a consequence major diffences in the quality of their legal counsel. This is hinted at in the 2012 Booker Report:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressio...
>During these periods, Black male offenders were more than 20 percent less likely to receive a non-government sponsored below range sentence than White male offenders were. These differences may contribute to the difference in sentence length between Black and White male offenders.
The quality of your counsel has a big impact on whether you can get "non-government sponsored below range sentence", as this law firm suggests:
https://alanellis.com/sentencing-tips/
>The foregoing trend makes reinforces the importance of using a sentencing specialist able to help humanize your client, preferably someone familiar with the federal system’s many nuances.
Much like the gender pay gap, the closer you look at the racial sentencing gap the smaller it gets, and the more it looks related to wealth rather than race. The racial wealth gap is its own separate issue, but it seems to me like solving that problem could do much to fix the disparity in sentencing.
for what it's worth, I have the option to upvote as usual
It's odd, this thread is still doing it and it's the only one.