Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Words of a young offender
Bunks
Australia Veteran
I watched a documentary last night about young people incarcerated in the USA without parole.
There was a twenty one year old kid(?) who'd been an accessory to the cold blooded murder of a young girl when he was 15.
I thought it was interesting (from a Buddhist perspective) when he stated that he was just a messed up kid when he was 15 and he was very different to what he was now at 21. He said (and I quote), "I feel like I am paying for somebody else's mistake".
On the one hand I have no issue with him paying a price for what he did but I can also kind of understand where he's coming from. Physically and mentally he isn't the same person he was six years previous.
Just thought I'd share as I thought it was interesting.
0
Comments
What is your solution?
The self is ever-changing, as they say. There is no static "self", but an ever-evolving self that, someday, with right practice, may realize the True Self of Buddhahood.
The kid sounds like he's on his way.
As far as justice being done, or whether the sentence was appropriate, this is exactly why there are juvenile courts. Precisely because of what this kid is experiencing. A 15-year-old shouldn't be tried as an adult, but the public and sometimes politicians like to play the "tough on crime" card, and try child-murderers as adults. But if this guy was only an accessory, I'd say that's another reason not to try him as an adult and give him an adult sentence.
The brain at 15 (and even at 21) is still developing. Judgment and impulse-control are underdeveloped at 15. Furthermore, we don't know if he'd been pressured into participating, if he'd been drugged into it, etc. (Do you have more info?) And what does "without parole" mean, exactly? How many years is he in for? Hopefully not life.
This 21-year-old is telling us he's not the same "self" as he was 6 years ago. He hardly even recognizes him-self as the same person. That's so interesting from a Buddhist perspective! Food for thought.
.
I don't have one.....
The show was called "Teenage Killers: Life without Parole" so I can only assume he is in for life (literally!)
They didn't specifically say it but I got the impression he didn't pull the trigger but his mate did. They showed video tapes of themselves talking about how they were going to do it though so it was totally pre-meditated.
They broke into her house and then frightened her by banging doors and shouting then walked in on her and just shot her! It was sickening.....
I have no doubt that a 21 year old prison inmate is a different being than the 15 year old perpetrator who had yet to be called into account for his crimes.
I think that the understanding that would make me think that he has changed for the better would be him saying that he is not the same person he was but he is rightfully paying the penal cost for who he used to be.
And, that's the hard part.
On the one hand, I have sympathy for the young man because he made choices that ruined his life.
But then I think about the victim. And he took away her chances to even make choices in a life that doesn't even exist now.
How did they choose the victim?
There's been a sudden increase in random crimes, assaults against strangers just for the heck of it. Some of these appear to be mobs responding to an internet message, kind of like a flash mob. But I wonder what the motive is in attacking random people in public (and sometimes in private). The desire for a warped momentary thrill? Boredom? A need to feel a rush of power by kids who are marginalized and feeling like society's throw-aways?
She was a girl who the main perpetrator had a crush on but who had rejected him.
Karma can be a bitch...
Some people don't realize early enough the extent to which they are accountable for their own actions.
We see kids all the time perpetrating barbaric actions without blinking, but crying like babies and disclaiming all responsibility when caught red-handed.
We are the reapers of our choices, we are the heirs to the fruits of our actions.
I tell that to my son from an early age. Hopefully the notion will sink in.
Yes, I bet this boy has had time to sober up in prison!
But like @vinlyn said, the poor girl was deprived of her life and her choices.
And all because she rejected a stupid ass.
As the former victim of a stalker, I feel no pity for these nutcases who all by themselves decide that you are theirs without even asking for your opinion. I shudder at the thought that I could have been in this girl's place by no choice of mine.
And if this boy was accesory to the murder in any way, sorry darling, taking someone's life is not stealing candies in a shop.
Assume responsibility for your actions.
The broader issue is what I see as an obsession in America with crime and PUNISHMENT.
Murder is one thing. But even though I am extremely anti-drug, should a pot smoker ever have been punished for the rest of their lives? Is there even such a maxim as sort of used to be around -- when you've done your time you're a free man again?
Or even in milder situations, this compulsion Americans seem to have to get everyone fired. Ray Rice, for example. He broke the law. Book him. Try him. Penalize him. But fire him? What has his job got to do with what he did?
Punish. Punish. Punish. Punish. And throw away the key.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a crush. But there is a line somewhere eventually to stalking. Even stalking is a long way off from murdering of course.
No, nothing wrong with a crush, but it takes two to tango.
If the other person shows no interest, get over it and look elsewhere.
OP, can you provide any links to articles on this case? I feel like we need more information. And I can't help wondering if the perp got egged on by some of the angry misogynistic internet blogs young men have been posting the last few years. There's a lot of garbage on the internet that is not serving the cause of alleviating suffering in the world, I'll put it that way. :grumble: .
Hi @Dakini - I have actually provided a link to the show if you'd like to watch it in its entirety. It's pretty sad.
From memory the case in question was about half way through the show.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/teenage-killers-life-without-parole/ZX9768A001S00
I agree the U.S. penal system is too revenge-centric. Myself, I have gone back and forth on the death penalty for many years. But the point I wanted to make here is that, even in prison, this young person can live a peaceful life. He can speak out about his crime (as he apparently has done), read, write, meditate etc. He can accept his situation and lessen or even banish his suffering. We're all in a prison of some sort - isn't that why we are drawn to Buddhism?
I think prison programs that offer Buddhism are very cool!
.
Spot On!
The US justice system is totally revenge-based. There's no justice sought; just a perverse exercise in collective vengence. It's like people going to car races to watch the wrecks. Our lust for such state-sanctioned violence grows more powerful every year. Before too much longer we'll be executing "criminals" in arenas using gladiators.
I think most states have at least decriminalized pot. Many endorse medical marijuana use. I don't thinks it's a felony anywhere. Texas, BTW, used to sentence from 2 years to life for simple possession.
And never stop punishing. There are crimes, such as child molestation, where even after a sentence is satisfied, the ex-con is subjected to humiating conditions to live by for possibly the rest of his life. We enforce a debt that can never be paid, but still turn them loose into society anyway. I call it cruel and unusual punishment. They might as well just execute them - it would be mercy.
To speak to the OP, I think the young man should remain in prison for the time being - say another 10 years. Make sure he gets an education and when is is returned to society, see too it he engages in activities that might, in some small measure, repay society for it's mercy.
The Ray Rice thing, and punishing him. I have a different view of the value of punishing him. I agree wholeheartedly with you @vinlyn and others, that we go way too far with the punitive. It is a part of our 'sickness' on one hand -- yet this oh-so-public punishment is raising and CHANGING public awareness and opinion about domestic violence.
As a society, we don't LISTEN unless a complete scene is made, such as the punishment of Ray Rice. You and I may not need such a big ugly stick upside the head to listen but I'm afraid that the group does. We all know how 'smart' a group is, compared to the individual.
Making an example out of Ray Rice (and that other child-torturing idiot, whatshisname) is primitive, and it feeds a collective perversion that is no good -- AND, it sends a message that even the most coarse bully out there can grasp.
I don't agree that it was DONE the way it was (with Ray Rice), and if I were very important I may not have been supportive of firing him. However, I have confidence in the possible effectiveness of firing him.
We as a society are outraged by such behavior, we are disgusted by it. Just like we are outraged by murder, arson, burglary, assault.
Back up a few decades, and we had well respected public figures announcing that homosexuality was a shameful personal shortcoming, and a bit backward from that, segregation by race, and a bit further back, women were not allowed to vote or own property, hell if they tried to take ownership and responsibility for her own BODY'S reproductive tendencies.
It's like we don't LEARN or make satisfactory changes in a better direction without coarse public spectacles like are being made of Ray Rice et al.
Here's why I disagree, @Hamsaka.
If that's the new standard -- you break the law and you get fired -- then fine, apply it to everyone, not just the crime du jour.
You shoplift a beef jerky stick from the 7/11. You get fired.
You take a package of computer paper home from work. You get fired.
You get a speeding ticket. You get fired.
You shank your child. You get fired.
How's that going to work for our society?
Nope, with a few exceptions, your work is one part of your life that should have nothing to do with your interfamily relationships.
Having a bunch of men (and women) who are out of work and cannot support their families does nothing for the good of that family.
No, it does no good at all. It is, in the short and long run, a shitty idea.
I can see that even through my relief that Ray Rice has been punished and humiliated. I'm no Buddha. If there is such a thing as a boddhisatva who refuses to attain Cessation until all have, this issue of people going around bullying each other and dragging down so many trapped lives is going to be that case for me.
The damage that Rice and his kind do to the brand is the issue. In a few months no none will remember much about it. Especially football fans. For the moment, fans, and particularly female fans, are outraged. The spotlight will come off abusive players with time. For now the league has little choice but to fire Rice. It's just short term damage control.
Nobody likes to see women and children abused, but this is just business.
Football players might think twice before smacking their family, and the publicity can't hurt the efforts to reduce domestic violence. Firing an average joe for beating up his family would be pointless.
But Robot, it's almost like you are saying there is no principle involved.
If you're rich in famous there's one standard. If you aren't, there's a different standard. How is that fair?
And just for the record -- I hate football (GASP!). Never watched a single foo...oops wait...one Thanksgiving I got invited to the home of a foreign couple and was assured there wouldn't be any football on, so I went...and there we sat all afternoon in a cramped room watching football. So in my whole life I have watched one football game.
I think there are all kinds of principles involved. I also think that money talks and if the video never surfaced, the NFL would have been happy to forget principles and carry on as usual.
In many jobs, a criminal record will get you fired anyway.
As you said, vinlyn, if someone has paid their dues to society, they should keep their job. At least I think that's what you said.
In the case of Rice, firing him made financial sense at the time. The video was too damning, apparently.
I might fire a crewman for beating his wife. In fact I'm certain that I would, even if it cost me money. Not every business can afford to monitor every employee then pass judgement on them and replace them.
Have you guys heard of adrian peterson? Another case...http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/09/16/adrian-petersons-indefensible-abuse-of-a-4-year-old-likely-violates-texas-law/
What could a 4-year-old have done do deserve such a beating? 4 year-olds really aren't capable of doing anything that would deserve that, unless they're seriously disturbed, and killed or tortured an animal, or something. It sounds from the child's statements like this guy is just into beatings. He's a whipping-junkie. I wonder how he was raised, himself.
@Dakini I read in another article that Peterson's dad was really into whoopings also. They use that word instead of beatings. One incident was when he got into trouble as a school age child and got a belt whooping in front of 20 of his peers. As the article I linked says it is culturally accepted to give whoopings in the south and the article says specifically among black people there. But I don't think that the extent of injuries seen in the pictures with Peterson's case is common.
Yes, I read that it was a "thing" in the Af-American community there. But still. Any sensible person would realize that a child that small couldn't withstand that type of beating. There's a question of age-appropriateness here, not to mention the other issue I raised. There's no question that the beating was excessive for a 4-year-old. Or any kind of beating, other than maybe a bit of a spanking.
The child commented that Peterson had used belts before, and that there were many belts in his closet. I question what it is a 4-year-old could do that would warrant so many fierce beatings. How much trouble can you get into at 4, that would be of such a serious nature that beatings would be called for? I wonder at what age these whoopings began: 3? younger? Is it typical in that culture to beat a 4-year-old, and to do so for every little thing? Where are the mothers when this goes on, what do they have to say?
But as far as I can tell he hasn't had his day in court. Nothing, it seems, has been proven in a court of law, before a jury. The situation remains that Rice is innocent until proven guilty.
Yet, his name and reputation has been destroyed, he's lost his job and probably won't work again in the NFL, all becaue of this kangaroo court of public opinion.
Completely true @Chaz, it is absolutely a kangaroo court of opinion. And I continue to agree with @vinlyn as well.
But something IMPORTANT has happened, whatever the hell it is, however ridiculous. That's the thing I sense both of you (and others) are not acknowledging. I don't even believe you SHOULD acknowledge it or that there is something actually THERE for you because my experiences with my own version of getting beaten up in the elevator give me an exclusive perspective. It isn't special, it just is what it is, and the irony is, if you are lucky enough, you don't have this perspective
.
Ridiculous maybe as it sounds, the court of public opinion has done it's job. Ray Rice is not the point IN THIS PERSPECTIVE, just that his behavior is publically decried and he is punished for it.
And last of all Chaz, Ray Rice's reputation and job is gone because he punched his girlfriend in an elevator and we saw it. No day in court will be necessary.
Interpersonal violence or intimate violence desperately needs exposure, and that's what happened here. It was exposed and the energy will carry it and HuffPost will publish a series of articles and people will talk -- and a tiny bit of progress will be made in the overall public awareness of the intolerability of domestic violence.
That he lost everything in the meantime can't be 'right', I agree. But the court of public opinion will roll on and it must be considered a worthy force because it clearly IS one.
In this country it is necessary. Public opinion,under our laws cannot be used to convict, only a presentation of fact and evidence before court of law and the deliberation and judgement of those specifically tasked with that duty.
It's not up to the press or the public at large.
He alledgedly punched his girlfriend and it remaains so until a court decides, or he pleads guilty, niether of which has happened to the best of my knowledge.
If no day in court is needed for Ray Rice then someone can make up whatever lame crap they want about you, and you're doomed, even though you're innocent. It happens all the time and it's wrong.
The guy across the street was acused of child abuse by a foster child living with them. He was completely innocent. He went to jail, lost his job, damn-near lost his home, couldn't find work and and things didn't improve much after his innocence was established. Took a long time to find work and the police kept hassling him. And he was innocent. As in committed no crime. Yet the system screwed him and he didn't even get a kiss.
I knew a mental health tech who was accused by a thirteen year old mentally ill boy of molesting him. The child airily admitted he made the whole thing up, but by then the man had lost his job, was in for about 100K in legal costs, and worst of all, had the 'glamour' of a child molester to deal with in every social move of his life.
I 'hear' where you are coming from but in holding to your position so tightly you naturally neglect to mention there is video of Rice beating his girlfriend. Yes, it does matter in a much bigger picture than the one you are using to give context to your point.
Perhaps it shouldn't be up to the public or the press -- but it obviously WAS and is, as real life often refuses to cooperate with our legal system.
Of course I've seen the video, but unlike some, I choose to reserve judgement until the courts have had their day. So it doesn't really matter if I've seen the video or not. It doesn't affect my feelings on the matter, one way or the other. I still think a great wrong has been perpetrated against Mr. Rice and that is something being ignored as well. We cry in outrage at the image of someone on video punching a woman, but we say nothing about the man allegedly present in the film, being disparaged and slandered before the day in court with a fair trial, largely because we feel we are above the law.
What, some guy punches his girlfriend? That's yesterday's news. Do you have any idea how many cases, just the Rice one, happen every day in every city in this country. We never hear about that and the perptrators get their fair trial and are found guilty or innocent.
But here was have a famous, popular, celebrity and he gets crucified. What he's accused of doing is no different and no worse than the countless cases of abuse in our society, so why is Rice single out?
If anything is important here it's that our society is totally screwed up and nobody seems to give a damn. In fact we kinda dig it.
So, when they come to take you away, don't come cryin .....
Just sayin'.
Rice apologized to the NFL for cold-cocking his fiancé. There really is no allegedly about it. He admitted doing it.
Still not a court.
Note to self: When beating up my girlfriend, make sure there is no cc tv camera watching.
The court of public opinion:
...approved slavery in the United States up until the Civil War
...approved of Hitler's actions that resulted in World War II and the suffering leading up to it
...approved of putting Japanese-American civilians in concentration camps
...brought about the KKK in the South and other parts of the country, particularly after the Civil War
...approved the widespread use of lobotomies on psychological patients
...approved of the decimation of American-Indians in North America
...paved the way for Senator Joe McCarthy's blacklisting
...approved of long-term prison sentences for many pot smokers
...approved of denying rights to gay men and women
...approved of separate water fountains, bathrooms, and waiting rooms of African-Americans
...denied women the right to vote until 1920
I sometimes think the court of public opinion does far more harm than good.
That's just semantics. We all know the guy is guilty.
He is a role model for kids and he beat his wife for all to see.
Of course he should lose his job! It's a no brainer.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't it also change all that too?
The public didn't know about the Japanese-American internment camps. That was a government decision. And I'm not so sure that the national public knew about the KKK. Even in the South for awhile, the general public wasn't aware of it. It was a secret society. Cross-burnings occurred in segregated communities, so only the perpetrators and Blacks knew about them for years, until the media began to report on them. You can be sure that secret society with members in influential places made sure the local media kept quiet about those activities.
The public did NOT approve of Jim Crow north of the Mason-Dixon line. And the general public didn't know about lobotomies. Part of the problem is that some policies and practices take place outside of the public's radar. This is why it's so important to have independent media and investigative journalism. Our news media is drifting away from investigative journalism toward more and more merely reporting events as they happen. Most of the media are corporate-controlled.
Yes, and of course elected lawmakers will hesitate before doing the right thing, for fear of losing their jobs.
How many people, teachers and such have lost their jobs due to facebook postings. Or recorded telephone conversations. It's not always up to the courts. Employers have rights too.
You're missing the point. The court of public opinion is fickle. And yes, it changes over time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Some topics in the court of public opinion fade as others take prominence.
But the bottom line is that court of public opinion is not principled.
The public did NOT approve of Jim Crow north of the Mason-Dixon line. And the general public didn't know about lobotomies. Part of the problem is that some policies and practices take place outside of the public's radar. This is why it's so important to have independent media and investigative journalism. Our news media is drifting away from investigative journalism toward more and more merely reporting events as they happen. Most of the media are corporate-controlled.
I'm sorry, but you are misinformed about public knowledge of the Japanese-American internment camps. http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/evactxt.html gives links to a series of articles published at the time in just one newspaper. Colliers Magazine, among others published photo rich stories -- albeit slanted -- about life in the camps: http://oldmagazinearticles.com/1940s_Color_Photographs_of_Manzanar_Internment_Camp_from_WW2
I didn't mention Jim Crow laws. But since you did, suggest you read:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/4124/jim_crow_in_the_north
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12462
And especially a succinct article from the National Park Service: http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm
Among many others.
In regards to the KKK, do a Google search of images with "newspaper reports about the KKK"
In re lobotomies, by the 1970s, lobotomies were still being carried out in the some states, despite: "Robert Penn Warren's 1946 novel All the King's Men describes a lobotomy as making "a Comanche brave look like a tyro with a scalping knife," and portrays the surgeon as a repressed man who cannot change others with love so instead resorts to "high-grade carpentry work".[153] In Tennessee Williams's Suddenly, Last Summer (1958) a wealthy matriarch offers the local mental hospital a substantial donation—if the hospital will give her niece a lobotomy, which she hopes will stop the niece's shocking revelations about the matriarch's son.[154] Warned that a lobotomy might not stop her niece's "babbling," she responds, "That may be, maybe not, but after the operation who would believe her, Doctor?"[155]"
But I think the question is: what rights do and what rights should an employer have (two different things)?
For example, this is a public forum. Let's say your employer finds out you (that's the royal "you") are Buddhist and posting negative things about Christians and Christianity here. Should they have the right to fire you. I wonder what Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A would say.
Ere, guv, we do 'ave criminals in England too.
.
@vinlyn I bolded the Jim Crow policies you mentioned when I quoted you.
That's very interesting info, but one of your links on segregation confirms that generally the public didn't know that practice did not follow laws that were on the books that made segregation illegal. And segregation in the North wasn't across the board, contrary to what the book would have us believe. A number of states didn't have a Black population, or had such a small one that again, the public wasn't aware of segregationist practices. There were no "Whites Only" signs in Bay Area or Seattle stores, restaurants or theaters that I ever saw in the 50's or 60's, and I went to school with Black, Asian and Hispanic kids, and "consorted" with them in town after school, which supposedly wasn't allowed. Public highschools in the area were integrated.
Another link gives a page of examples, nearly all of which pertain to the South. And re: lobotomies, I think if the public knew about them, they didn't know how bad they were. People put tremendous often unwarranted faith in doctors, and still do.
Still, it's good info to have, filling in some of the blanks in history. Was your field as a teacher History?
Cool.
It is very difficult to see it in your own self, and is considered offensive when someone points it out to you -- your deep and vigilant attachment to ideas, whether or not they are reasonable or relevant to the subject.
But I think the question is: what rights do and what rights should an employer have (two different things)?
>
>
>
I'm not sure what the answer to the question is.
Here in Canada if I were to have to fire someone because they actually had beaten their wife, it would most likely be me who wound up in court, if he complained to the authorities.
Here is a disturbing experience that I had some years back.
Once while unloading fish, I was watching from the dock. One of the dock workers there said to me, "See that guy in your fish hold? He raped his 4yr old daughter to death".
Naturally I was shocked. I said to him "Don't say that! That's a horrible thing to say". He replied, "No, it's true. He went to prison for it".
I went to the plant owner and told him that I wasn't comfortable having that fellow on my boat.
The guy was taken off the boat and fired. Was it legal? Probably not. He had served his time. Was it justified? Some acts are close to unforgivable. For me anyway.
I have a fairly high tolerance for people's faults. But I couldn't get past that one.
On TV there are programmes such a 'UK Border Force' Or 'Border Control' and other such programmes dealing with different nations' methods of watching who comes in and why....
Australia is particularly harsh on those who have had criminal convictions, of any kind, and have served time. In many cases, even though the person may appear to be an entirely reformed character, done their time and served their sentences (Paying their dues, as it were) Australian Immigration officials will still see fit to exclude the person as a 'possible danger to the public and Australian way of life'.
Actions bear consequences, and they are not always exonerated and cancelled out by legal procedure, punishment and the application of the law.