Skip to content

Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

November 10, 2009

Joe Sullivan

Joe Harris Sullivan, sentenced to life for rape

In 2003, Terrance Jamar Graham and two friends broke into a Jacksonville, Florida restaurant and tried to rob the manager at gunpoint. When the manager refused to hand over the cash, Graham and his gang beat him with a steel bar. Graham was caught, pleaded guilty and got three years’ probation on the condition that he stay out of trouble. One year later, Graham and another pair of accomplices forced their way into an apartment and robbed two men. He was subsequently captured and convicted, but this time he was given life in prison with no chance of parole.

In another incident that also took place in Florida, Joe Harris Sullivan broke into the home of a 72-year-old woman to steal her money and jewelry. The woman was not home at the time of the robbery. Later that day, Sullivan returned to the home and brutally raped the woman. The victim was so battered that she required extensive corrective surgery. Sullivan was captured, tried and convicted of the crime; he too was given life in prison with no chance of parole.

These two crimes have become, according to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! program, the focus of a Supreme Court Debate. The issue is not one of guilt or innocence, but of whether the sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment, since, at the time the crimes were committed, Graham was 16 years old and Sullivan was 13.

Amy Goodman: …the Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a pair of cases to decide whether it is unconstitutionally harsh to sentence juveniles to life-without-parole. There are more than 1,700 people in the United States who will spend the rest of their life in prison for crimes committed as juveniles. Some were as young as thirteen when they committed the crime. No other nation has even a single person serving such a sentence.

Goodman’s last sentence requires some clarification. While the number of juvenile offenders serving life-without-parole sentences is small as compared to adults in the overall prison population receiving the same sentence, Goodman’s assertion that this situation does not exist in other countries is comparing apples and oranges. In other countries, minors committing similar offenses are more likely to be executed than sentenced to life. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan, for example, have all executed minors within the last ten years for non-capital offenses, according to records kept by Amnesty International.

In the U.S. debate, Florida and 19 other states have argued that such stiff penalties effectively deter juvenile offenses. Victims’ rights advocates, such as the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, believe the horror of a crime is not lessened by the youthfulness of a perpetrator.

Those arguing against the life sentences believe that states went overboard in devising punishments for minors as part of the tough-on-crime era that began in the 1980s. Marsha Levick, of the Juvenile Law Center, for example, sees the current debate as an opportunity:

…for us as a society, through our laws and how the Supreme Court interprets them, to acknowledge the obvious and profound differences between kids and adults.

Countering this argument, lawyers for those siding with Florida, including the National District Attorneys Association, emphasize that “already-hardened” youths (such as Sullivan and Graham) commit heinous assaults “with full knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions.”

The judge who sentenced Graham–who was already a multiple recidivist–was not at all reticent when it came to telling Graham exactly what the future held for him as a consequence of his actions:

Given your escalating pattern of criminal conduct, it is apparent … that you have decided that this is the way you are going to live your life, and that the only thing I can do now is to try to protect the community from your actions.

Are there some crimes that are so morally reprehensible and damaging to the victims (such as Sullivan’s violent assault on a 72 year old), that the life-in-prison-without-parole sentence should be imposed–even if the offender is under 18 years old?

It’s now up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Advertisements
49 Comments
  1. November 10, 2009 3:15 am

    I’ve worked with juveniles for over 20 years, and I can add that they believe, absolutely, that the law CANNOT prosecute them for grave offenses before 16. They, therefore, act as though they are “bullet-proof” – that any crime they commit is a “gimme”, and is not legally allowed to be prosecuted beyond a few months or years of “juvy”.

  2. November 10, 2009 3:29 am

    Try to view this issue through the eyes of a modern Liberal. While the crimes committed by these youths may be horrendous, we must reserve judgement until we know all the facts. We cannot be expected to render a decision of the fate of the accused until we have a complete history of their so-called victims. If they were white, for example, white-on-black racism may be at work here. Poverty-induced hopelessness and rage may be a factor. And we don’t know the state of the schools the accused attended. These are all factors that must be weighed prior to rendering judgement.

    • oldwolves permalink
      November 10, 2009 4:33 am

      I’m confused Chris,

      In this argument you claim the moral high ground because of this felons probable unhealthy past. Yet in the world of modern liberals there is the often repeated mantra of moral relativism that precludes any guilt by the offenders. So how does one stand on the moral high ground in a place of no moral equivalency? There can be no low or high ground because it doesn’t exist! So no matter what factors involved you have no right to render judgment! I’m just …curious.

      • November 10, 2009 5:24 am

        I should have been more explicit. What I tried to articulate was the modern Liberal’s position on this issue, not my own. And the mL will simply refuse to take sides, one way or the other. There is always a Third Way to the mL. No one can be held completely accountable for his actions. There are simply too many factors to consider – racism, ineffective parenting, lousy schools, irrational religiosity – you name it. There is no “right” or “wrong” to a mL. There is only a sliding scale of justice that moves this way and that, depending on the current social customs and mores of the area.

        I repeat – These are not my thoughts or beliefs. I am trying to articulate the throught processes of the modern Liberal.

        • Brian permalink
          November 10, 2009 5:54 am

          Chris you are correct here. Still they fail to understand that even with all of these influences, it’s the person that makes the choice, not the influences. So in that, their logic is flawed at best and obviously incorrect to say the least.

      • betty boop permalink
        November 10, 2009 5:26 am

        Have no fear comrade, in the future, under Obama care, the 72 year old victim who required extensive reconstructive surgery would be allowed to die, and the compassionate state would allow the perpetrator to move on with his life. Sean Penn would probably finance a pretentious little film about him, and he’d graduate to a life of ease until he, himself, dies in some drug and alcohol induced mess in his expensive foreign sports car. This tragedy will then be blamed on his victims who treated him as their inferior and were probably bigots and racists to begin with. Justice served.

    • Brian permalink
      November 10, 2009 4:59 am

      Chris, what liberals fail to understand is that every person that commits a crime makes the conscious decision to do so. Each criminal is responsible for their own actions. It’s not a product of education, rearing, or environment, it’s the product of one’s own choice. We all know of folks coming from families that a good decent and law abiding, yet the folks are crap and are horrid. The same goes for some folks from really horrid backgrounds yet are the complete opposite of said background. This is due to them making the choice on whether or not to be a drain on society or to be an asset to society.

  3. November 10, 2009 4:29 am

    Florida has a pathetic crime record. Remember what happened to Somer Thompson?
    “Joe Harris Sullivan broke into the home of a 72-year-old woman to steal her money and jewelry. The woman was not home at the time of the robbery. Later that day, Sullivan returned to the home and brutally raped the woman. The victim was so battered that she required extensive corrective surgery. Sullivan was captured, tried and convicted of the crime; he too was given life in prison with no chance of parole.”
    Sullivan gets no pass from me. Age should not be a factor in cases this horrendous.
    He returned to the crime scene after committing a crime, then he committed another crime. Rape and battery. Think of that woman as being your mother. Still feeling sorry for him? Why the sympathy for this guy? He deserves to remain behind bars – for two life sentences.

  4. Jack Hampton permalink
    November 10, 2009 4:52 am

    If the pleaders appealing for the release of these monsters are successful then down the road in all probability you will be reading about another Cleveland mass murder scene. I do not care if they are twelve years old there violent propensity will surface again. Someone that can violently attack a defenseless woman of that age is missing something it is that tinge of feeling or guilt that says this is wrong and evil they are amoral and are exactly where they belong. Just too bad we cannot send them both home to live with Amy Goodman.

    • Anthony permalink
      November 10, 2009 4:32 pm

      Funny you would say that.
      I had pretty violent tendencies as a youth; not starting trouble but more than willing to finish it. Mouthy, ready to fight at the drop of a hat–not a nice kid at all.
      Yet, even though I have studied several martial arts styles and know many ways to hurt, disable or maim, I have not been in a fight in 25 years. The last time someone tried to fight me, I blocked his punches, grappled him to the ground, put him in an arm bar and asked him if he was done.
      I grew out of my violent tendencies (unless you count Grand Theft Auto). Are you really saying these youth are unable to be redeemed? If so, where is the failure? Genetics, education, judicial, corrective? You sure want to place blame somewhere, so let’s see where, please.

  5. Jack Hampton permalink
    November 10, 2009 5:35 am

    The court ruling will be very interesting to say the least.

  6. In the Know permalink
    November 10, 2009 5:54 am

    Leftist revolutionaries have always relied on the degradation of society to aid in their “transition” efforts. People of weak constitution will seek comfort and protection in their government by giving up liberties to feel more secure. All along not realizing that, in the end, they put their trust in the very people they were seeking protection from. How many current Congressmen have criminal records (some felonies)? Yet, we blindly vote for one after another without actually researching who they are. This is what we get; a justice system that is so overbloated and filled with loopholes, criminals can operate at will. For what benefit? Lawyers fees perhaps?

  7. Michaelle Maloney permalink
    November 10, 2009 6:01 am

    They should be executed-its common sense. There is a right and a wrong-moral relativism is like saying that gravity is relative-its a fable.

    • Southern Farmer permalink
      November 10, 2009 7:25 am

      Personally, I don’t beleive that anyone sould be given life without parole. In these instances we should revert to the days of our forefathers and after conviction execute them by the following sunrise.

      • Lee Scott permalink
        November 10, 2009 9:15 am

        Isn’t that the same as life without parole?

    • Leftist Revolutionary permalink
      November 10, 2009 7:42 am

      Gravity is relative, moron.

      • In the Know permalink
        November 10, 2009 8:40 am

        WRONG!

        Gravity is defined as: m1m2
        Fg= G ____
        2
        r

        The product of the equation is dependent upon the values of the variables. The FORCE of gravitation is variable. Gravity is not. It will always exist as long as matter exists. And, the The Law of conservation of mass/matter ensures that matter will always exist. Therefore, you are incorrect. moron.

        • In the Know permalink
          November 10, 2009 8:43 am

          Wow!…my equation posted in sandskrit. You get the point though.

        • oldwolves permalink
          November 10, 2009 10:19 am

          LOL What leftist revolutionary meant was that he’s a moron as related to gravity, you see? Gravity brings things down, correct? Leftist revolutionary has brought down the total average I.Q. of this forum with his input!

        • Leftist Revolutionary permalink
          November 10, 2009 2:20 pm

          Wake up moron, Einstein discredited that equation you cited almost a century ago.

          Wake up; there is no such thing as a universal gravitational constant anymore; it’s only used because it’s easy to understand, and helps impart some intuition into elementary physics students.

          I venture being a conservative entails that your interpretation of science is as resistant to progress as your dystopian ideology.

          • Walt permalink
            November 10, 2009 2:55 pm

            Okay, those lovely young guys can room with you when they are released.

            • In the Know permalink
              November 11, 2009 1:11 pm

              I used an elementary equation to demonstrate my point. Your oversimplified ad hominen called for an oversimplified retort. I stand by my comment. Gravity is existent given the existence of matter. You contend gravity is variable, you are wrong. It either exists or it doesn’t. The FORCE of gravitation is variable (which…is what I said). Perhaps you should spend a little more time on reading comprehension instead of snarky ad hominem abusive responses.

  8. Michaelle Maloney permalink
    November 10, 2009 6:04 am

    There is no excuse-they have the ability to chose the bad side-so they get punished-its that simple.

  9. Michaelle Maloney permalink
    November 10, 2009 6:06 am

    The only thing I regret about this-is that these victims didn’t have guns to defend themselves fast enough.

  10. John Davidson permalink
    November 10, 2009 7:00 am

    Our justice system does not work.

    In most cases of horrific crimes, the perpetrators have had a long history of criminal behavior. The serial killer in Cleveland; the child abduction case in California; and now, revelations surrounding the Texas massacre; to name just a few. All had telltale signs that the authorities ignored.

    What is even more enlightening about this problem, private citizens have often stepped up to reverse this trend, not our government. John Walsh is the most prominate of these people.

    We have more organizations protecting the rights of criminals than those that protect innocent victims. Most of them liberal ‘do gooders’ seeking attention and vote, nothing more.

    While all this activity continues to prevail, our politicians seem to think they have all the answers to our problems, but fail to even deal with the safety issues in this country. They know they exist and do protect themselves rather expensively, but do they really care about the rest of us. If you read daily reports in every local newspaper, it is full of crimes against the real society most of us live in,

  11. Gary permalink
    November 10, 2009 7:17 am

    We have groups of people such as the warped UCLU who would and have defended some of the worst immaginable evil criminals against societies prosecution. The two Thugs who raped and murdered 9 year old Charley Curl were dfended by the ACLU…. they even reaped the dead body days later, and they defended them. Until we as a people rise up against such evil organizations, demand true justice for the victims, and have the guts to let such evil be executed, we will continue to grovel nad spend millions of dollars to support these evil beasts in prisons across our nations. The idea of executing some 12 or 16 year old sounds awful, but what they have done is also so awful that justice demands what is right…… assuming people even know waht is right any more! Political Correctness will destroy this nation!

  12. November 10, 2009 8:33 am

    I’d suggest that Amy Goodman move far out into a desert, away from the rest of us, take that piss-poor protoplasm she champions with her, and build a Utopia where those of like mind (criminals and bleeding hearts) can live together. Leave the rest of us alone. And, don’t even try to return these people to our communities.

  13. Larry D. Crumbley permalink
    November 10, 2009 9:51 am

    Hello,
    Less see what is happening here? Get these punks do the crimes they are in prison for? the answer is yes, so what should be done with them? They are not able to be STRAIGHTENED out. They seem to be un-remorseful for what they did. They are so messed up that they cannot get help to understand what they did is disgusting, and vile. They need to stay in prison for the rest of there life’s. They cannot get not other type of help any where else.

    Thank you,
    Larry D. Crumbley

  14. Richard Ketchum permalink
    November 10, 2009 10:19 am

    The kids should have been punished harshly after their first violent crimes, the fact that they weren’t means that the liberals have more blood on their hands. Yes keep them in the pen.

  15. Tom permalink
    November 10, 2009 10:30 am

    These two guys need to make a real life movie with Dirty Harry and have the events happen in a real life situation. That should make our day.

  16. Denis permalink
    November 10, 2009 10:46 am

    I don’t think school, race, or parental rearing has anything to do with the crime committed. I wish we were more like Iran, China and Pakistan in our criminal sentenceing. I think they also carry out some of these in public. I have no problem with that either. A 13 year old that commits such a horendous crime has no place in the public life. He is already an animal now all we need to do is find him a cage. And I consider this justified.

  17. November 10, 2009 1:43 pm

    Save us from those who destroy the very thing they are trying to protect!

    To me the argument against executing or giving life without parole to minors has always been based in the simple Christian values of mercy, grace and redemption.

    Poster after poster in this thread has hugged to their breast a concept of “disposable” individuals. People who, without Constitutional approval, “should” be balled up like trash and thrown into a secure oubliette to be forgotten. All in the name of protecting our “civil” society from the “irredeemable.”

    I do not deny that there are pathological individuals that cannot be reformed or redeemed by any means known to man at this time. I do deny that even a majority of those so condemned fit that description however!

    Just as the Leftist needs to be reminded that society MUST be protected even from those who are not solely responsible for their crimes, the “law and Order” worshipers need to realize that there is no justice in abusing a minority in order to preserve the tranquility of the majority.

    It says something about that in the Constitution. Go look it up. Then go look up all the mainstream Christian tenets relating to guilt, punishment and reform.

    The very idea of declaring a 13 year old permanently unable to be “Human” and sentencing that child to LIFE in a literal hell cannot POSSIBLY be reconciled with anything calling itself a Judeo-Christian value!

    Argument can be made for the most disadvantaged adult that they knew what they were doing. That cannot be said of ANY 13 year old! How can hearts be complacent when a child who is mentally twisted is not confined to an institution to see if he can be healed but instead he is caged like an animal to suffer cumulatively for decades?

    Show me where standing against life without parole or execution for minors automatically means standing for slapping murderers on the wrist and I will shut up.

    Otherwise anyone who wants to think of themselves as “decent” needs to understand that “innocent until proven guilty” has no room in it for punishment of future crimes “likely” to be committed. And certainly not a punishment that starts at 13 and ends with death.

    • Anthony permalink
      November 10, 2009 4:50 pm

      Very eloquently said! I can’t add another word.

  18. peachey permalink
    November 10, 2009 2:02 pm

    The Progressive movement in this country has been successful in destroying the family, creating life-long welfare recipients with institutionalized poverty and welfare, deconstructing moral values and religion, creating learning enviroments founded in deceit and lies, rewritten and revised history to fit within the perverted framework of the equity and social justice models of the Progressive godhood, removed self-esteem, self-respect and accountability and have created the perfect, desired utopia. What a glorious accomplishment!!! Now that children have enbraced evil commit horrible crimes, they whine and complain that justice for the victims is too harsh. The Frankensteins created within our society are here and must be dealt with. Does our society have the will and wisdom to do what is necessary to protect us. This is not a fence sitting position.

    • November 10, 2009 2:24 pm

      I am confused, you seem to be sayiing that the children commiting the crimes are victims of the Leftist model ( I do not disput that) but you also seem to feel that society is the bigger victim and defend injustice as a “solution.”

      For justice to be deemed too harsh it has to be “just” in the first place! If you deny the criminal shared victimhood at your side you deny your own theory that blames all the crimes on the “progressives.”

      If a person’s actions demand that the person be removed from society what noble goal is served by treating that person with anything less than Christian compassion? Hmm? Give me a reason other than vicarious enjoyment of their “punishment” by “good” folks if you please. Then sit and ponder what Jesus or Hillel would feel about your reason.

      • Brian permalink
        November 10, 2009 4:06 pm

        A 13 Y/O is well within the confines of judgment to know what is right and wrong. Further more the person CHOSE to commit these horrid crimes against society. Therefore life in prison is a just sentence. Compassion goes to the person, but the said person must also face the consequences of their actions. It is their responsibility to serve out their sentence as punishment. They (the youths in this story) both had a chance to redeem themselves, but once again chose not to be a productive law abiding part of a civilized society. We live in a democratic republic which means we live by the law. They chose not to live by the law, and chose an anarchist form of life instead. This is in direct contradiction to our lifestyle in the U.S. They deserve what they got.

      • November 10, 2009 4:17 pm

        The criterion ought to be justice not compassion. The perpetrators deserve justice, the victims need our compassion.

        • Brian permalink
          November 10, 2009 4:56 pm

          You can be compassionate and just at the same time. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

        • November 11, 2009 11:10 am

          Hmm, and here I thought Jesus AND Rabbinical Jewish teachings BOTH say to have compassion for ALL mankind. Silly me for taking them seriously!

          You must be referring to the Muslim code: punishement first, mercy later.

          • In the Know permalink
            November 11, 2009 12:59 pm

            Guy, Sometimes compassion involves hurting someone for their own good. Is it compassionate to isolate a heroin addict for two weeks in detox? No, it’s torture, seriously. Detox for an intravenous drug user is far more painful than waterboarding, yet it happens everyday and no one protests it. Why? Because it is the only way to save them. Someone who does not possess the moral compass to prevent themselves from murdering or raping another person is not only a danger to society but also themselves. I agree though, rehabilitation should be attempted. Nothing like some good ol’ manual labor, strict lifestyle structure (similar to the military of old) and a firm promise that you get one mulligan. Next time, commit an aggrevated felony (premeditated murder, rape) and everyone gets to watch as your heart is stopped while strapped to old sparky.

  19. Elaine B permalink
    November 11, 2009 10:18 am

    The real question, which is always ignored by those on the left, is what kind of society produces these children?

    And of course, the left wants to have it both ways. They argue that a 13 year old girl is mature enough to have an abortion without her parent(s) or guardian aware of the pregnancy while also being able to make life-altering decisions about having sexual intercourse after Planned Parenthood lectures about how sexual promiscuity and sodomy are healthy and normal.

    • November 11, 2009 11:16 am

      No, the real question is what do we DO with the HUMAN results of that society.

      Why do you join with the others in constructing straw man after straw man in order to avoid vonfronting the simple trtuth of what I say? Why do you put this as a reply to what I said given that it HAS NOTHING TO DO with my statement, nor is it any kind of rational argument against that statement.

      ANY black and white code that condemns a CHILD to life in a literal hell with NO EFFORT MADE TO TRY TO REDEEM THEM is non-Christian, Anti-Jewish and just plain self-centered evil. Deal with it.

  20. oldwolves permalink
    November 11, 2009 10:33 am

    The solution is simple. Responsibility. For those who feel that these kids are redeemable and believe they should be given a second chance I have the perfect solution. It will never happen but I enjoy my fantasies too much not to share.

    In effect… If those who believe in redemption would please sign up for the responsibility pledge…

    I hereby accept full responsibility for this child. I am willing to take him into my home, and have him share his or her life with my family. If he were to commit another crime, I will serve just as much time as he. I am willing to put my families welfare on the line ,just as I would have been willing to let him back into society to affect your families welfare if he were set free. I will pay all damages done by this child in my charge. I am willing to put myself in danger so this child can have a second chance.

    If The signer of this pledge is a judge or a defense attorney I also promise to stop practicing law, because if my judgment was so bad in this child’s case,than I should be driving a taxi instead. Or collecting garbage.

    If I don’t sign this pledge then I promise to shut the F%$# up and not demand that society pay for my compassionate pleas. I promise to keep to myself that I don’t mind someone else paying the price of my compassion as long as I or my family is safe.

    Hows that? Any signers?… Thought not.

    • November 11, 2009 11:51 am

      Oldwolves writes:

      “How’s that? Any signers?… Thought not.”

      Of course not, only a fool buys into strawman agreements.

      “The solution is simple.”

      Right from the beginning, we are not talking about reality. Simple solutions for a problem this complicated? Seems to me that history shows that the “simple” solutions are usually the worst, especially when they pretend to be final solutions.

      “Responsibility. For those who feel that these kids are redeemable and believe they should be given a second chance I have the perfect solution. It will never happen but I enjoy my fantasies too much not to share.”

      The heartless lack of charity and self (centered) righteousness that drips from those words leaves me stunned. First OW reduces ALL minors involved in violent crimes to “these kids” which could also just mean the two in the article. This blurs the target of OW’s callous thesis.

      “I hereby accept full responsibility for this child. I am willing to take him into my home, and have him share his or her life with my family. If he were to commit another crime, I will serve just as much time as he. I am willing to put my families welfare on the line ,just as I would have been willing to let him back into society to affect your families welfare if he were set free. I will pay all damages done by this child in my charge. I am willing to put myself in danger so this child can have a second chance.”

      Now OW invents a new parameter; releasing the amorphous “these kids” on the public without first trying to heal them. OW is now on ground that feels more comfortable and moves to the attack.

      I would like to say though that when we are talking of reality, as opposed to OW’s strawman world, it might work to have a rule where any parole board that votes to release a violent criminal that has re-offended once already be charged as accomplices in any future violence by that person. Call it three strikes for parole boards.

      “If The signer of this pledge is a judge or a defense attorney I also promise to stop practicing law, because if my judgment was so bad in this child’s case, than I should be driving a taxi instead. Or collecting garbage. ”

      Now OW this is getting silly isn’t it? Defense attorneys are not ALLOWED to bring the sort of prejudice you advocate into their cases. Of course, on the other side there are far too many prosecuting attorneys who don’t really care about guilt or innocence either. They only worry about whether they can get a jury to convict.

      “If I don’t sign this pledge then I promise to shut the F%$# up and not demand that society pay for my compassionate pleas. I promise to keep to myself that I don’t mind someone else paying the price of my compassion as long as I or my family is safe.”

      Talk about having words put in your mouth. What has this to do with SENTENCING WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE OR REHABILITATION? Talk about cold!

      Let us not even discuss better ways to handle cases. Let us not THINK that there are people enmeshed in this system. Above all, forget that even the most heinous criminal deserves humane treatment after society’s protection has been seen to!
      If it makes OW think about nuance it is the same as slapping every murderer on the wrist and sending them to live in OW’s back shed. Any signer’s? Didn’t think so.

      I have one last question for all the bloodthirsty ones; Will YOU stand before God next to EVERY child that would be sentenced under your rules and bet your soul that each one truly was irredeemable? Or would you rather TRY to compassionate to those who can respond and humane to those who cannot? Which attitude do YOU think God would give more credit?

      Just a thought.

      More Thoughts from The Middle at http://HereticsCrusade.com

      • oldwolves permalink
        November 11, 2009 1:38 pm

        Will I stand by God…Yes I will You hypocrite!

        Yes I will stand in front of God and say “You created him…You created me… These are the results! What will God say to that? Since you know all about God (Funny, I thought was beyond human understanding, But I guess Guy here knows him personally) Tell me his plan oh GUY, mighty prophet! Talk about your straw man.

        We deal with what we have to work with. just because your interpretation of God is perfect let me ask you this Mr. one on one with the almighty…. Mere mortals such as I have to deal with all the victims of your little world. I have to pick up the dead bodies and I have to tell families of their kids tragic deaths from from those released out of compassion, While you sit back and preach and condemn those that have to make the hard choices.

        Will I stand by God…Yes I will you hypocrite… Is there good and evil? (I’ll give you a hint…It’s in the bible…Try reading it)

        Charity? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with it. Take your views to their logical end and there is no reason ever to jail someone. They all need a second chance. Or a third. Or a fourth….

        And what about defense attorneys? Are you telling me that they don’t know if their clients are guilty? (I may live in straw world but your address must be in Bizzaro world.)

        You better believe I’m cold. I’ve seen the results of all those compassionate mistakes.

        Will I stand before God? Every Damn day. And I see what happens when those who call themselves Gods voice get their way. They help destroy Gods creation.
        Let me tell you something about God ,Guy… He’s pissed. He don’t like people talking for him when they have no clue to what he’s about. Instead he gave us free will. His greatest gift. His greatest curse. Put them together and you have humanity. Not perfection. If he wanted perfection he would have asked your opinion.

  21. Brian permalink
    November 11, 2009 3:09 pm

    Guy,

    What is so hard to understand that these kids made the choices themselves. They are repeat offenders, which means that they intentionally made a bad choice again… that they were caught at. They had their chance at redeeming themselves but threw it out with the rubbish. Now they have to try and see if they can find their redemption in their Creator’s eyes while being forcibly locked away from the public. They knew when they were committing a a crime it was wrong, so now they have to face their due punishment.

    a question comes to mind, would you feel better if they had beaten to death one of their victims? Would this justify them being locked up for life? Would you feel different if it was YOUR family that was affected by their actions?

    Like Ted Nugent says, I like dead offenders more than repeat offenders.

  22. Will Marshall permalink
    November 12, 2009 1:09 pm

    Hmmmmm…first the libs attacked the death penalty as “cruel and unjust.” Then, some states decide to avoid further criticism and commute some of those under death sentence to life without parole. Then the groundwork to abolish life without parole is laid by first advocating for “youthful offenders.”

    Is there a pattern here?

Trackbacks

  1. All In One Information » Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? « NewsReal Blog
  2. uberVU - social comments

Comments are closed.