7 ms·

Life sentence for a 15 year old who didn't provably kill someone seems excessively harsh. Heck, the teen that did provably kill someone throwing a rock over an

by umvi 6y ago

Life sentence for a 15 year old who didn't provably kill someone seems excessively harsh. Heck, the teen that did provably kill someone throwing a rock over an overpass didn't get life (he got 3-20)[0]. I have a slightly unpopular stance that death penalty is appropriate if there is overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer. I don't see any value in keeping them around in prison, especially if they will continue to have a negative influence on peers in prison for decades. But other than that, I think even life is inappropriate in most cases, and especially for teens who don't really understand the impact of their actions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Interstate_75_rock-throwing_deaths#Trial_and_convictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Interstate_75_rock-throwi...

bartread 6y ago
I don't actually object to the death penalty too much from a moral perspective, but I'm no fan of it because - occasionally - it does seem like we might get it wrong. And if you get it wrong there's no undoing it. If you falsely imprison somebody, even though you can't give them the time back, you can at least give them their freedom for the time they have left, and enough compensation to set them up for a decent life. Certainly imprisoning a juvenile for a whole life term does seem to me the very definition of cruel and unusual, and especially if they weren't directly responsible for any murders.
- hibern8 6y ago
  How do you justify the death penalty morally?
  - sneak 6y ago
    If you don't believe that people have a right to life, I suppose that being murdered by the state is just another notch on the spectrum of "acceptable punishment". It's an odd contradiction to me that people who support the death penalty are mostly not ok with the state using, for example, punitive rape as a punishment, but killing is somehow okay, if the crime is severe enough.
    - hibern8 6y ago
      I could not agree more. It is barbaric and sends an incongruent message to society. How are we to teach people the value of a life by taking one?
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        There is a broad spectrum of value that is up for debate. There are amazing human beings, but also vile human beings.
    - dEnigma 6y ago
      How are rape and the death sentence related? You could just as well say that it's weird how people can support taking someones's freedom and locking them away, but are not okay with raping them.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Because we as a society have generally reached a consensus that premediated killing of human beings is one of the worst crimes possible. The fact that it is regarded by some as an acceptable punitive measure carried out by the state, whereas other, lesser crimes against human beings are deemed "off limits" for such purposes, seems to me to expose an inherent contradiction. To avoid the contradiction, either both should be acceptable, or neither. Presently there seems to be a slight majority consensus on Earth that the correct answer is "neither", with the overall trend suggesting that the rest of the planet will get there in another couple hundred years.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    I'm not quite sure what I think about the death penalty. But it is not obvious to me that it is a worse punishment than life in prison. In fact I think that personally, given the choice I would choose death.
    - upinsmoke1980 6y ago
      > In fact I think that personally, given the choice I would choose death. I, too, am not sure that I'd prefer life in prison over death, but in practice it takes decades to execute a convicted prisoner in the US, and since you're considered a particularly dangerous prisoner (since you have nothing to lose) you're held in particularly isolated and unpleasant conditions during those decades. If I thought I was going to get the death penalty I might prefer to just blow my brains out quickly and easily before they have a chance to slap the handcuffs on. I can't be arsed to fact-check it, but I'm pretty sure I've read that death row inmates are more likely to die of natural causes while awaiting execution than they are to actually be executed - that's how long the legal process waits.
  - upinsmoke1980 6y ago
    I can't, and I also find it hard to justify life sentences for all but the most horrific of crimes (and for those who pose too much of a danger to be allowed back into society.) Norway doesn't even have a statutory penalty of "life without parole" except for military offences. The maximum prison sentence it's possible to receive in 30 years - although it's still possibly in practice to be imprisoned for longer, because your release after 30 years is conditional and the sentence may be extended. Even Anders Breivik, the terrorist who killed 77 people in 2011, didn't get a "life sentence" as that term would be understand in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway
  - giantg2 6y ago
    There can be some morally justifiable scenarios. For example, someone who is a political or religious leader who has used that position to kill people. If they still have followers, their very existence can continue to cause issues. Think Saddam, Hitler, or Bin Laden.
- Cyph0n 6y ago
  History has shown us time and again that the risks associated with improper use of the death penalty clearly outweigh the benefits (cost savings?). And even the reduced cost associated with the death penalty is arguable, as many of those sentenced remain on death row for quite a while.
  - upinsmoke1980 6y ago
    In practice, executing a prisoner in the US is far more expensive than imprisoning him (and it's usually a "him") for life. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
madamelic 6y ago
>Life sentence for a 15 year old who didn't provably kill someone seems excessively harsh. Excessively harsh for a _white kid_. Ligon getting life without parole in 1953 is not at all shocking. Ligon is just lucky that a white girl wasn't involved or he would've gotten the chair. Teenage black boys are still having their lives disposed of in 2021 because they dared to be dumb teenage boys while black.
- shortandsweet 6y ago
  Fellow peasant, I think you may be confused. It isn't so much because he's white but more of not poor. Please refrain from race baiting and focus on the true reason. I know it's difficult to understand because the rich have certainly done a great job at implanting such an idea to our collective society. This is 100% sincere and I'm tired of what I've been seeing in society. This is my effort to make a change and raise awareness.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhizome 6y ago
    >It isn't so much because he's white but more of not poor. It says a lot that you don't acknowledge any systemic connection between these. Sure, rich people with their idea-implants can be referenced collectively. Society making you tired, also a reasonable grouping. But implying that white people have been visiting injustice on black people, including having intentionally kept them poor? How dare you, sir.
  - warent 6y ago
    Many people here in HN are both rich and good individuals
  - learc83 6y ago
    Even when controlling for other factors like education (a proxy for income) and criminal history, Black male offenders receive a sentence 20% longer on average than White male offenders for the same crime. They're also convicted at a higher rate for the same indictments, and arrested at a higher rate in the first place. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...
smcl 6y ago
Another example - Kyle Rittenhouse - is out on bail and he travelled from another state with a gun then killed 2 people in Kenosha. He's not yet been tried (or found guilty, but ... come on) but I think we all know he's not going to serve anything like 68 years in prison.
- ciupicri 6y ago
  There's a difference between a bail and being declared not guilty. Anyway he was supposedly defending himself, while Ligon was robbing and assaulting people, so the cases are different.
- dionidium 6y ago
  These aren’t even remotely similar cases and mentioning the Rittenhouse case here is an unnecessary and unhelpful distraction.
  - smcl 6y ago
    Why? We are discussing that one kid got 68 years for not killing someone, and another kid is probably not going to get anything close to that for killing two. Now, I know there are more things involved in crime and sentencing than whether someone killed anyone but it should be crystal clear that these are very worthy of comparison. On the other hand you are right in one respect - they're not remotely similar in that one boy was white and the other black. I know we're not going to "solve" racism in the comments section of HN but I think it's important to confront the fact that race is an overwhelming factor in how these cases play out.
    - marvin 6y ago
      The question in the Rittenhouse case isn’t what sentence people get for murder. It’s whether he committed murder at all, or killed in self-defense after having the horrible (and probably ethically unsound) judgement to travel armed to an obviously violent event. It’s not an example of what’s being discussed. There’s more than enough cases that legitimately make the case for racial sentencing discrimination. Quoting this ridiculously politicized case will only harm the cause by providing ammunition to the other side. I mean, I personally think that 68 years in prison for almost anything is a horribly abusive practice. Acceptable for some few instances of violent crime. But since I also believe that killing in self-defense can sometimes be justified with no punishment, it’s not a very good point to use for discussing.
ves 6y ago
Regarding the sentencing differential: Joe Ligon, the subject of the article, is black, while Kyle Anger, the “mastermind” behind the fatal rock-throwing incident you linked, is white.
- upinsmoke1980 6y ago
  Who would have guessed?
  - throwaway38180 6y ago
    "This never would have happened if you were white" Said my lawyer when I had to deal with stacked charges leading to years of incarceration for the mildest of subjective crimes. Why? So they could have me plead guilty. Never happened. Fuck the system.
    - upinsmoke1980 6y ago
      I learned from the documentary 13th (which I HIGHLY recommend) that something like 97% of people incarcerated in the US have never had a trial, because they're persuaded, manipulated or otherwise cajoled into making plea bargains. 97%!
      - iguy 6y ago
        What this means is that the US has replaced its common-law adversarial criminal justice system, with something completely different. Almost completely, and with very little debate. No referendum, no constitutional amendments. The old one sticks around for occasional ceremonial use. It would be interesting to understand better why. My theory is that part of it is to do with rising standards of criminal trials. IIRC the average murderer went from arrest to dead in something like a month, 1950s. Most had no appeals. Certainly no expert witnesses to explain the DNA evidence to the jury. Today the default seems to be decades of appeals, thousands of hours of lawyer-time. That doesn't scale.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer what, like someone saying "I'm glad they're dead"? I mean if the rule was that only unrepentant killers were executed everyone would do their best to appear repentant - unless of course they were crazy or suicidal or something, in which case executing someone like that would not seem that gre3at.
shadycuz 6y ago
Or you can serve 8 months for killing two people https://www.dispatch.com/article/20121220/NEWS/312209689 https://www.dispatch.com/article/20121220/NEWS/312209689 My childhood friend got hooked on drugs, broke into some empty houses when no one was home and stole some electronics. He got 15 years. It was his first offense.
- gabereiser 6y ago
  Let’s also not forget that you can also kill two people and have a political party bail you out so you can continue to terrorize locals.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  The judge or jury will always have a great deal of discretion in manslaughter or reckless/negligent homicide cases. They are often frustratingly sad in a way that more straightforward murder cases are not.
- upinsmoke1980 6y ago
  Do you have another link? From here in the UK, your link just redirects to http://eu.dispatch.com http://eu.dispatch.com.
  - shadycuz 6y ago
    Google Seth stonerock circleville ohio
  - ciupicri 6y ago
    https://archive.is/y31i6 https://archive.is/y31i6
lisper 6y ago
> death penalty is appropriate if there is overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer The problem with that is that it is impossible to tell the difference between an unrepentant killer and a falsely convicted innocent who will not admit to something they didn't do.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  I would also hazard a guess that the average 'unrepentant killer' is someone who killed their abuser.
morpheuskafka 6y ago
> I have a slightly unpopular stance that death penalty is appropriate if there is overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer. I don't see any value in keeping them around in prison, especially if they will continue to have a negative influence on peers in prison for decades. This isn't an unreasonable thought, but (a) I would prefer to have a bright-line international rule that that killing prisoners is always unacceptable to make it easier to condemn countries that use it to violate human rights and (b) in the American system, the death penalty inevitably leads to more time and expensive of appeals, more publicity for the convict, and more expensive than life sentences. And I agree that life sentences are really just death by another, longer means. I would also reserve them for the most extreme cases, where you are really convinced that someone will never be able to live in society again without causing serious harm. There are definitely some cases out there that meet that, but many nevertheless tragic cases that don't. Even them I'm not sure that there is any need for "life without" as the whole purpose of a parole board is to make these decisions--if the individual continues to behave poorly in prison and does not accept responsibility, he will not get parole.
giantg2 6y ago
My opinion is probably unpopular too. With the cost of execution these days, I'd like to see life with hard labor used more as a replacement. You know, earn your keep.
throwaway38180 6y ago
Humans are cruel when left unchecked. Did you really need to look at the article to know he was black?

by umvi 6y ago

bartread 6y ago

I don't actually object to the death penalty too much from a moral perspective, but I'm no fan of it because - occasionally - it does seem like we might get it wrong. And if you get it wrong there's no undoing it. If you falsely imprison somebody, even though you can't give them the time back, you can at least give them their freedom for the time they have left, and enough compensation to set them up for a decent life. Certainly imprisoning a juvenile for a whole life term does seem to me the very definition of cruel and unusual, and especially if they weren't directly responsible for any murders.

hibern8 6y ago
How do you justify the death penalty morally?
- sneak 6y ago
  If you don't believe that people have a right to life, I suppose that being murdered by the state is just another notch on the spectrum of "acceptable punishment". It's an odd contradiction to me that people who support the death penalty are mostly not ok with the state using, for example, punitive rape as a punishment, but killing is somehow okay, if the crime is severe enough.
  - hibern8 6y ago
    I could not agree more. It is barbaric and sends an incongruent message to society. How are we to teach people the value of a life by taking one?
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      There is a broad spectrum of value that is up for debate. There are amazing human beings, but also vile human beings.
  - dEnigma 6y ago
    How are rape and the death sentence related? You could just as well say that it's weird how people can support taking someones's freedom and locking them away, but are not okay with raping them.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Because we as a society have generally reached a consensus that premediated killing of human beings is one of the worst crimes possible. The fact that it is regarded by some as an acceptable punitive measure carried out by the state, whereas other, lesser crimes against human beings are deemed "off limits" for such purposes, seems to me to expose an inherent contradiction. To avoid the contradiction, either both should be acceptable, or neither. Presently there seems to be a slight majority consensus on Earth that the correct answer is "neither", with the overall trend suggesting that the rest of the planet will get there in another couple hundred years.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  I'm not quite sure what I think about the death penalty. But it is not obvious to me that it is a worse punishment than life in prison. In fact I think that personally, given the choice I would choose death.
  - upinsmoke1980 6y ago
    > In fact I think that personally, given the choice I would choose death. I, too, am not sure that I'd prefer life in prison over death, but in practice it takes decades to execute a convicted prisoner in the US, and since you're considered a particularly dangerous prisoner (since you have nothing to lose) you're held in particularly isolated and unpleasant conditions during those decades. If I thought I was going to get the death penalty I might prefer to just blow my brains out quickly and easily before they have a chance to slap the handcuffs on. I can't be arsed to fact-check it, but I'm pretty sure I've read that death row inmates are more likely to die of natural causes while awaiting execution than they are to actually be executed - that's how long the legal process waits.
- upinsmoke1980 6y ago
  I can't, and I also find it hard to justify life sentences for all but the most horrific of crimes (and for those who pose too much of a danger to be allowed back into society.) Norway doesn't even have a statutory penalty of "life without parole" except for military offences. The maximum prison sentence it's possible to receive in 30 years - although it's still possibly in practice to be imprisoned for longer, because your release after 30 years is conditional and the sentence may be extended. Even Anders Breivik, the terrorist who killed 77 people in 2011, didn't get a "life sentence" as that term would be understand in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway
- giantg2 6y ago
  There can be some morally justifiable scenarios. For example, someone who is a political or religious leader who has used that position to kill people. If they still have followers, their very existence can continue to cause issues. Think Saddam, Hitler, or Bin Laden.
Cyph0n 6y ago
History has shown us time and again that the risks associated with improper use of the death penalty clearly outweigh the benefits (cost savings?). And even the reduced cost associated with the death penalty is arguable, as many of those sentenced remain on death row for quite a while.
- upinsmoke1980 6y ago
  In practice, executing a prisoner in the US is far more expensive than imprisoning him (and it's usually a "him") for life. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

madamelic 6y ago

>Life sentence for a 15 year old who didn't provably kill someone seems excessively harsh. Excessively harsh for a _white kid_. Ligon getting life without parole in 1953 is not at all shocking. Ligon is just lucky that a white girl wasn't involved or he would've gotten the chair. Teenage black boys are still having their lives disposed of in 2021 because they dared to be dumb teenage boys while black.

shortandsweet 6y ago
Fellow peasant, I think you may be confused. It isn't so much because he's white but more of not poor. Please refrain from race baiting and focus on the true reason. I know it's difficult to understand because the rich have certainly done a great job at implanting such an idea to our collective society. This is 100% sincere and I'm tired of what I've been seeing in society. This is my effort to make a change and raise awareness.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rhizome 6y ago
  >It isn't so much because he's white but more of not poor. It says a lot that you don't acknowledge any systemic connection between these. Sure, rich people with their idea-implants can be referenced collectively. Society making you tired, also a reasonable grouping. But implying that white people have been visiting injustice on black people, including having intentionally kept them poor? How dare you, sir.
- warent 6y ago
  Many people here in HN are both rich and good individuals
- learc83 6y ago
  Even when controlling for other factors like education (a proxy for income) and criminal history, Black male offenders receive a sentence 20% longer on average than White male offenders for the same crime. They're also convicted at a higher rate for the same indictments, and arrested at a higher rate in the first place. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...

smcl 6y ago

Another example - Kyle Rittenhouse - is out on bail and he travelled from another state with a gun then killed 2 people in Kenosha. He's not yet been tried (or found guilty, but ... come on) but I think we all know he's not going to serve anything like 68 years in prison.

ciupicri 6y ago
There's a difference between a bail and being declared not guilty. Anyway he was supposedly defending himself, while Ligon was robbing and assaulting people, so the cases are different.
dionidium 6y ago
These aren’t even remotely similar cases and mentioning the Rittenhouse case here is an unnecessary and unhelpful distraction.
- smcl 6y ago
  Why? We are discussing that one kid got 68 years for not killing someone, and another kid is probably not going to get anything close to that for killing two. Now, I know there are more things involved in crime and sentencing than whether someone killed anyone but it should be crystal clear that these are very worthy of comparison. On the other hand you are right in one respect - they're not remotely similar in that one boy was white and the other black. I know we're not going to "solve" racism in the comments section of HN but I think it's important to confront the fact that race is an overwhelming factor in how these cases play out.
  - marvin 6y ago
    The question in the Rittenhouse case isn’t what sentence people get for murder. It’s whether he committed murder at all, or killed in self-defense after having the horrible (and probably ethically unsound) judgement to travel armed to an obviously violent event. It’s not an example of what’s being discussed. There’s more than enough cases that legitimately make the case for racial sentencing discrimination. Quoting this ridiculously politicized case will only harm the cause by providing ammunition to the other side. I mean, I personally think that 68 years in prison for almost anything is a horribly abusive practice. Acceptable for some few instances of violent crime. But since I also believe that killing in self-defense can sometimes be justified with no punishment, it’s not a very good point to use for discussing.

ves 6y ago

Regarding the sentencing differential: Joe Ligon, the subject of the article, is black, while Kyle Anger, the “mastermind” behind the fatal rock-throwing incident you linked, is white.

upinsmoke1980 6y ago
Who would have guessed?
- throwaway38180 6y ago
  "This never would have happened if you were white" Said my lawyer when I had to deal with stacked charges leading to years of incarceration for the mildest of subjective crimes. Why? So they could have me plead guilty. Never happened. Fuck the system.
  - upinsmoke1980 6y ago
    I learned from the documentary 13th (which I HIGHLY recommend) that something like 97% of people incarcerated in the US have never had a trial, because they're persuaded, manipulated or otherwise cajoled into making plea bargains. 97%!
    - iguy 6y ago
      What this means is that the US has replaced its common-law adversarial criminal justice system, with something completely different. Almost completely, and with very little debate. No referendum, no constitutional amendments. The old one sticks around for occasional ceremonial use. It would be interesting to understand better why. My theory is that part of it is to do with rising standards of criminal trials. IIRC the average murderer went from arrest to dead in something like a month, 1950s. Most had no appeals. Certainly no expert witnesses to explain the DNA evidence to the jury. Today the default seems to be decades of appeals, thousands of hours of lawyer-time. That doesn't scale.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer what, like someone saying "I'm glad they're dead"? I mean if the rule was that only unrepentant killers were executed everyone would do their best to appear repentant - unless of course they were crazy or suicidal or something, in which case executing someone like that would not seem that gre3at.

shadycuz 6y ago

Or you can serve 8 months for killing two people https://www.dispatch.com/article/20121220/NEWS/312209689 https://www.dispatch.com/article/20121220/NEWS/312209689 My childhood friend got hooked on drugs, broke into some empty houses when no one was home and stole some electronics. He got 15 years. It was his first offense.

gabereiser 6y ago
Let’s also not forget that you can also kill two people and have a political party bail you out so you can continue to terrorize locals.
1123581321 6y ago
The judge or jury will always have a great deal of discretion in manslaughter or reckless/negligent homicide cases. They are often frustratingly sad in a way that more straightforward murder cases are not.
upinsmoke1980 6y ago
Do you have another link? From here in the UK, your link just redirects to http://eu.dispatch.com http://eu.dispatch.com.
- shadycuz 6y ago
  Google Seth stonerock circleville ohio
- ciupicri 6y ago
  https://archive.is/y31i6 https://archive.is/y31i6

lisper 6y ago

> death penalty is appropriate if there is overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer The problem with that is that it is impossible to tell the difference between an unrepentant killer and a falsely convicted innocent who will not admit to something they didn't do.

sdenton4 6y ago
I would also hazard a guess that the average 'unrepentant killer' is someone who killed their abuser.

morpheuskafka 6y ago

> I have a slightly unpopular stance that death penalty is appropriate if there is overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer. I don't see any value in keeping them around in prison, especially if they will continue to have a negative influence on peers in prison for decades. This isn't an unreasonable thought, but (a) I would prefer to have a bright-line international rule that that killing prisoners is always unacceptable to make it easier to condemn countries that use it to violate human rights and (b) in the American system, the death penalty inevitably leads to more time and expensive of appeals, more publicity for the convict, and more expensive than life sentences. And I agree that life sentences are really just death by another, longer means. I would also reserve them for the most extreme cases, where you are really convinced that someone will never be able to live in society again without causing serious harm. There are definitely some cases out there that meet that, but many nevertheless tragic cases that don't. Even them I'm not sure that there is any need for "life without" as the whole purpose of a parole board is to make these decisions--if the individual continues to behave poorly in prison and does not accept responsibility, he will not get parole.

giantg2 6y ago

My opinion is probably unpopular too. With the cost of execution these days, I'd like to see life with hard labor used more as a replacement. You know, earn your keep.

throwaway38180 6y ago

Humans are cruel when left unchecked. Did you really need to look at the article to know he was black?