
A Prison Lifer Comes Home - johnny313
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/juvenile-lifer-comes-home-prison/596845/
======
rayiner
The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack
(at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who
ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for
murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified
against the man who directly killed the victim:
[https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo...](https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjE4NjcxMTY0NywiaWF0IjoxNTY5Njg5OTAzLCJleHAiOjE1Njk3NzYzMDN9.P6iYNFC9X467ToUvyEFIQcNcmzzPKi8kco-0XMKEpiM).
He refused to testify even though he provided a statement to the police at the
time of his arrest stating who had performed the stabbing.

My beef with articles like this one is not that I think a 17 year old should
get life in prison for a stabbing. I think nobody should. Our murder laws
produce sentences vastly longer than Europe, where 15-20 years is a typical
maximum sentence for murder, and longer sentences are reserved for people who
are active threats.

Rather, my problem is the attempt to draw lines between more or less egregious
conduct that don’t make any sense. Someone who along with three other young
men tries to rob and ends up killing a man is among the most dangerous and
culpable of criminals. Such premeditated group violence is the greatest threat
to social order. Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less
culpable.

~~~
craigsmansion
> Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable.

Yes it does. Boys do strange things, boys in groups do stranger things, like
not testifying against each other, especially if they feel society has
abandoned them and the world is against them.

Normal societies are set up to deal with that or prevent it.

Fix your bloody society.

~~~
pmiller2
Sorry, but a 17 year old knows what it means to rob and murder someone and
knows the difference between right and wrong. That’s the basic criterion for
culpability.

~~~
TomK32
No they don't. Every human being is an effing idiot when it comes to group
dynamics and you never know when a simple brawl or mugging turns into murder.

First of all, if we are talking law and regulations: You don't know all of
them and they are constantly shifting. And let's not get into the details of
local legislation whether you live in a union of 50 or like me 28 states.

Secondly morals, those are learned first through your family then friends,
school, maybe a religious community and later on experience as you master your
life on your own. Or rather you learn from your mistakes or the mistakes
others make.

The Supreme Court was right to disallow life prison for minors and your 18th
birthday shouldn't be the hard limit for that.

~~~
pmiller2
Are you really trying to claim a 17 year old doesn’t know murder and robbery
are illegal, much less wrong?

I’m not saying anyone should necessarily go to prison forever, but any 17 year
old of normal to somewhat below normal intelligence knows murder and robbery
are both wrong and illegal.

------
Stratoscope
> _His $830 a month included a few hundred in Supplemental Security, but he
> mostly relied on close to $600 in Social Security spousal benefits, thanks
> to Bernadette’s years in the workforce. He said he’s offered to refund her a
> portion of that, but she declined._

It's generous of him to offer to give her part of his spousal benefits, but
the word "refund" makes me wonder if there is some confusion over how spousal
benefits work. They aren't _taken_ from the other spouse; their benefit
remains unchanged.

A somewhat simplified explanation: if one spouse (or ex-spouse in some cases)
is receiving more than twice the Social Security benefit of the other, the one
with a smaller benefit gets theirs "topped off" to be half of the other's
benefit.

It this case Bernadette may be receiving $1660/month in benefits. Haywood's
benefit of several hundred dollars is increased to half of that, or $830.
Bernadette still gets her full $1660.

There are various requirements and conditions that may change this amount; I'm
assuming both spouses are of full retirement age.

Anyone receiving or about to receive Social Security benefits where one spouse
earned significantly more than the other would do well to look into this.

[https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying6.html](https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying6.html)

------
coldtea
> _Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile_

So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a
mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for
juveniles"?

What kind of medieval backwater has such laws?

And how is that working out for them? [1]

Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type
of crimes (especially for juveniles), in much more humane prisons, and achieve
much lower crime rates...

For comparison, the guy who methodically mass shoot and killed 77 people in
Norway, only got 21 years in prison (and in a vastly more humane prison, more
like a Motel 8 than the hell-holes in the US, at that). Perhaps that's another
extreme, and I'd be OK if he went in for life, but the Pennsylvania extreme is
medieval, inhumane, and depraved too. Too much Old-Testament inspired
morals...

[1] Rhetorical question, I've checked the Pennsylvania homicide rate:
[https://patch.com/pennsylvania/abington/crime-falls-u-s-
here...](https://patch.com/pennsylvania/abington/crime-falls-u-s-here-s-what-
happened-pennsylvania)

~~~
awillen
The Norway example is misleading for people who are primarily familiar with US
sentencing. Twenty one years is the maximum sentence one can be given
initially, but it can be extended five years at a time at the end of the
sentence. There are no limits on the number of five year extensions, so a
twenty one year sentence can effectively be a life sentence.

It's basically equivalent to a US sentence of life in prison with the
possibility of parole after 21 years, though the default is that you're
released after 21 years, as opposed to the US default of you continuing to
stay in prison unless you can convince a parole board to release you.

~~~
coldtea
Yes, but it will also be far more common to be actually released at the
default (or close). Heck, "real" life sentences in the US are handed out as
peanuts...

Also no death penalty.

Plus much much nicer prison terms (very human hotel-like prisons, permission
to study, no solitary crap as punishment, very low recidivism rates, prisoners
can take leaves -like "vacations" and come back, etc).

~~~
maxerickson
Do you think your example is going to get released after 21 years?

Because that's what they were pointing out, that your example was an extreme
and likely not to receive the _common_ treatment.

~~~
miracle2k
If the system in Norway releases based on someone being a continued threat to
society, which is the case if I understand it correctly, the government will
probably have to make an argument to that effect, and it strikes me as very
possible they might lose that argument at some point.

~~~
Filligree
I hope he'll change, but even if he doesn't, he's sure to be released once
he's too old and physically broken down to be a threat.

That's effectively life, though.

------
hogFeast
I don't understand how these people are supposed to re-integrate.

You commit a crime...cool, we are going to send you to a boarding school for
criminals, where you are subjected to a ton of violent behaviour, that is
heavily structured and limiting on your freedom...and in twenty years (or
whatever), you are going to come out and be expected to be like everyone
else...okay...

It would be interesting to ask how the behaviour of those who work in these
institutions is effected by this environment...if this is the case then it is
clearly non-rational to believe that people in that environment 24/7 are going
to be fine after they come out.

(I don't have a solution to this either...just a chimp throwing peanuts from
the gallery).

------
PhantomGremlin
Okay, as they used to say on slashdot when I frequented it (and maybe they
still say it), "I know I'll be downvoted for this ...". But I'll say it
anyway:

Mr Fennell was a good candidate for parole. I'm not opposed to parole for him.
He didn't need to be in jail any longer.

But ...

Why oh why can 5 un-elected people be allowed to decide that his incarceration
was "cruel and unusual punishment". As one of the dissenters on the court
noted, mandatory life sentences "could not plausibly be described" as unusual
when a majority of states endorse them.

Giving the Supreme Court the power to do this is IMO very bad. People simply
love love love it when the result is something they agree with, but what about
all the other decisions?

I really don't like this court decision.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Alabama)

------
superflit
I think they should do as the laws in Brazil.

In Brazil, It is not allowed to give sentences for more than 30 years, and if
the prisoner has good behavior, he is out in 1/6 of his sentence.

And still, if he is not caught in 24h, was his first murder and has a job he
may wait for the final judgment outside prison (after _all_ appeals).

Brazil is big, multi-diverse and is very nice.

The Brazilian penal code is the most human and modern criminal code. And it
brought great success as
[1]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil))

Nowadays we have a "repressive", "gun-loving" president that wants the revert
our success. [2]([https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-
fin...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-finally-fell-
and-by-a-lot/))

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil)

[2] - [https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-
fin...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-finally-fell-
and-by-a-lot/)

~~~
epx
You are being ironic, right?

~~~
superflit
Sure I was!!

But we always have some "activists" that take some "edge" case and try to
stretch it to all cases.

We have to focus on the real victims not on people that ganged and killed
someone cold blood.

