The spinning of developmental science to support going soft on young offenders continues. Mike Ward has this story in the Austin Statesman on a report at the National Conference of State Legislatures citing studies by the notoriously left-leaning MacArthur Foundation.
The science simply does not support the proposed rules of law for which it is usually cited: blanket rules exempting young offenders from particular punishments, with chronological age alone trumping all other considerations. As summarized in CJLF's brief in Graham v. Florida, the science actually identifies two different groups of young offenders, a larger group likely to desist from crime as they mature and a smaller, hard-core group likely to remain criminals for the rest of their lives.
If we really want to go where science points us in juvenile justice policy, we should focus on identifying that hard core group and locking them away for the maximum their offenses warrant, for our own protection as well as basic justice.
The science simply does not support the proposed rules of law for which it is usually cited: blanket rules exempting young offenders from particular punishments, with chronological age alone trumping all other considerations. As summarized in CJLF's brief in Graham v. Florida, the science actually identifies two different groups of young offenders, a larger group likely to desist from crime as they mature and a smaller, hard-core group likely to remain criminals for the rest of their lives.
If we really want to go where science points us in juvenile justice policy, we should focus on identifying that hard core group and locking them away for the maximum their offenses warrant, for our own protection as well as basic justice.
Leave a comment