Why the sentence imposed on Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley is significant

[zippy2006]

You're the one who made the comparison, not me. See post #52.

You divided the countries into two groups. Group 1 was Iran. Group 2 was Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, South Sudan, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. You likened the U.S. to group 1 rather than group 2. Why do you think the U.S. is like group 1 rather than group 2?

The law is just that life without parole cannot be a mandatory minimum for minors. That does not mean that imposing a sentence of life without parole requires a more severe crime or a higher standard of evidence for a minor than for an adult.

Sure it does. What else would it mean? If an adult is given a life sentence on the basis of a mandatory minimum, and the minor is given a non-mandatory life sentence, then how is it that the trial of the minor does not require more than the trial of the adult? It is always more difficult, legally, to carry out what is non-mandatory than it is to carry out what is mandatory. For example, the defense attorney of the adult has much more limited options.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You divided the countries into two groups.

That was not my intent. None of those countries are models of a criminal justice system that we should wish to emulate - therefore saying that we're better than them is not a good argument, even if it's true. It would be very concerning if we weren't better than any of them.

Sure it does. What else would it mean? If an adult is given a life sentence on the basis of a mandatory minimum, and the minor is given a non-mandatory life sentence, then how is it that the trial of the minor does not require more than the trial of the adult? It is always more difficult, legally, to carry out what is non-mandatory than it is to carry out what is mandatory. For example, the defense attorney of the adult has much more limited options.

Ok, I'll concede the point there - as of 2022, it seems that Michigan does require the DA to argue against the presumption that the crime was committed as a result of "youthful intransigence" when calling for a sentence of life without parole: Michigan Supreme Court Restricts Excessive Sentences for Youth

 

[Bradskii]

Like I said in my first post, there seem to be a lot of problems with the ruling. Nevertheless, the arguments being brought against it in this thread don't seem very good. Now, perhaps 15 is too young for this sentence. That is plausible. But I don't think we can say that the line must be strictly 18 in a black and white manner.

I agree. Up to the point when it becomes nonsensical to have different rulings and different sentencing options depending on when your birthday is. The argument for having a specific age is that people are deemed to be capable of understanding their results of their actions at that age. But that's a position that can be dismantled very easily. Depending on a multitude of circumstances, any given person can be anywhere on a spectrum from completely incapable of understanding the implications of an act to knowing full well what they would be.

So why do we need an age? Just base the sentence (or even the conviction) on the persons ability to understand that. It will be more likely that a 20 year old will have a better understanding than a 15 year old, but we shouldn't base that assumption simply on their age. Maybe give them a psychological evaluation (which I guess would happen in any case) and you could have something like a standard score where 95% means the guy really knew what he was doing and 40% means he has difficulty in coming to terms with the outcome. Something like an ACE score perhaps.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is that the goal?

It should be...unless you're at the employ of one of the many for-profit prison systems in the US.

Ok. I'm sure you'd admit a vast sweeping overhaul of our prison system would be required for that.

Of course it would... and it should happen.

Matters of practicality are circumstance specific.

What's practical about locking up a kid for the next 60+ years (in an environment that'll only make him worse) if there's a chance for rehabilitation?

 

[dogs4thewin]

With regards to this, life without parole is the most severe penalty that can be applied under Michigan law - they abolished the death penalty in 1963. Any differences in the level of accountability assigned at that point are purely academic, and essentially meaningless.

no, because in some states juveniles cannot get life without parole; moreover the supreme court has ruled that even in states with the death penalty if a person was under 18 at the time of the crime they may not be put to death. This was a case from 05 for a while before that the minimum age for the death penalty was 16 so under either of those standards this boy could not have gotten the death penalty even if he lived in a death penalty state.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

no, because in some states juveniles cannot get life without parole; moreover the supreme court has ruled that even in states with the death penalty if a person was under 18 at the time of the crime they may not be put to death. This was a case from 05 for a while before that the minimum age for the death penalty was 16 so under either of those standards this boy could not have gotten the death penalty even if he lived in a death penalty state.

Laws in different states are irrelevant - he was tried and sentenced in Michigan, where LWOP is the maximum sentence for both adults and juveniles. However, I refer you to post #62 - he was held to a higher standard of accountability due to the requirement for the prosecutor to prove, not only that he had committed the crime, but also that it was not the product of "youthful intransigence".