John R. Houk
© May 19, 2010
It is time for a rock and a hard place of what is right and of what is wrong.
At the age of 17 Terrance Graham was given a life sentence for breaking parole. Graham was involved in some armed robberies at age 16 in which there were no deaths. He was sentenced to one year for this. He broke parole when he was caught fleeing the scene from a non-lethal home invasion. In the adult world this would be strike two. I am guessing the seventeen year old Graham was a cocky kid at 17 for the Florida Judge threw the book at him.
Terrance Graham was 16 when he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery of a restaurant in which one of his accomplices hit the restaurant manager over the head with a steel pipe. Graham served one year in jail, then was released on probation. Six months later he was arrested fleeing the scene of an armed home invasion robbery.
The judge revoked his probation, but rejected the four-year prison sentence recommended by the Department of Corrections and instead sentenced Graham, by then 17, to life in prison without parole. "If I can't do anything to help you," said the judge, "then I have to . . . protect the community from your actions." (NPR 11/9/09)
Graham was informed by the Judge he felt Graham was beyond help and so chose to give the kid a life sentence even though the recommended prison sentence was four years. In the brief articles I’ve read about Graham there is no indication of his actual demeanor during sentencing. Was the 17 year old contrite about his crimes? Did Graham cop an attitude that he was above the law and that he could do whatever he d**ned well pleased because he would just get out and no one could stop him?
The Left is all about the kid was a child in the eyes of the law and you would be imposing cruel and unusual punishment (EIGHTH Amendment) upon someone who does not have the maturity to comprehend the life time consequences of a crime. The Right is all about the Constitution and protection for the community at large rather than stroking a repeat offender already at the age of 17.
So what is right and what is wrong?
On a purely subjective level I have to tell you I can’t see giving a minor under the age of 18 a life sentence without any possibility of parole for a non-lethal crime. I think that tips the scale toward cruel and unusual punishment in relation to the crime committed. On the other hand if a minor committed a heinous murder I do believe considerations for either a life sentence without parole or a death sentence should be considered. Again the circumstances involved for a minor committing the crime should be weighed. Like was it a murder of spontaneous passion or a well calculated premeditated murder. Was the minor afflicted with childhood trauma in which mental health counseling did not reach the minor who turned to murder for whatever level of mental disorder – purely crazy, tired of molestation or beatings, simply a case of a delusional sociopath incapable of feeling emotion and so on. I don’t know that a death sentence should be carried out for a nut case kid who went on a heinous murder rampage. I think a life sentence with the possibility of parole based on clinical findings of counseling should be involved. Again, there should NOT be a life sentence without the possibility of parole. There should never be a life sentence without parole for a non-lethal crime for a juvenile.
Now what about the practice of States utilizing “Three Strikes” in felony convictions for a life sentence? What if the first two strikes occurred when a person was a minor?
Without knowing the law I would have to say the level of offense and the age the kid when the felony occurred should be weighed in Three Strikes cases. For the most part I highly favor the Three Strikes punishment. There is no reason for society to put up with a career criminal who commits felony after felony. Putting up with that makes society crazier than some actual nut cases.
So back to Terrance Graham: should he have been sentenced to life without parole at 17? NO!
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision indeed ruled that a life sentence without parole was an EIGHTH Amendment violation under the cruel and unusual punishment clause for a minor juvenile. I am a Conservative and I agree with that decision. This is in the right.
The part of the decision I find disturbing is the Supreme Court’s usage of extra-Constitutional Law that was considered as precedent in its ruling in favor of Graham. SCOTUS cited International Law that the U.S. has not bought into via a Senate approved Treaty. In effect SCOTUS – the Branch that exists to protect the Constitution – used case law outside of the United States based on the huge amount of Nation signatories relating to rights for children. This is scary because the rights for children agenda is a Leftist United Nations agenda designed to usurp parental guidance for their children. Again I have to reiterate that America is not a signatory of this U.N. initiative to disrupt parental prerogatives in training a child.
The Judicial Branch of American government in its supreme finality has thus created case law that can be cited in the future by Leftists who can further dilute the U.S. Constitution into a meaningless relic of yesteryear that will be esteemed and honored but not followed according to the Founding Fathers’ original intent.
This is wrong.
JRH 5/19/10
No comments:
Post a Comment