Author: has written 5297 posts for this blog.

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

7 Responses

  1. FashionablyEvil
    FashionablyEvil May 17, 2010 at 12:59 pm |

    Definitely a step in the right direction. Maybe one day we’ll get to some semblance of meaningful prison reform (though not if Thomas has anything to say about it, apparently.)

  2. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable May 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

    CNN has an article right now about SCOTUS determining that they can keep sex offenders indefinitely after they’ve served their terms. I wonder how these two things are reconciled or how it’ll pan out if someone under a given age commits a sex offense and is determined to still be a danger at the end of the non-life sentence.

  3. William
    William May 17, 2010 at 4:46 pm |

    FashionablyEvil: Heres the weird bit. Thomas dissented here, apparently because he felt that some crimes (I think his example was aggravated sexual assault of a minor) other than murder might warrant a life sentence for juvenile offenders. On the same day he dissented against Comstock, arguing against civil commitment for sex offenders.

  4. William
    William May 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm |

    I was trying to thumbnail it, but yeah, you’re right. As a psychologist I know theres a reason he does what he does and I’m determined to find it, if only in the name of morbid curiosity.

  5. ThickRedGlasses
    ThickRedGlasses May 17, 2010 at 7:40 pm |

    Now if only we stop trying juveniles “as adults.”

  6. Protagoras
    Protagoras May 18, 2010 at 3:32 pm |

    Definitely a good decision. However, it’s also true that teenagers are different from younger children, and for that matter 20-somethings are different from older adults; our dividing lines retain a good degree of arbitrariness. Older men commit far, far fewer violent crimes than younger men, so much so that if the goal is to reduce violent crime, it might not be a bad policy to take anyone convicted of any violent crime before they’re 30 and just lock them up until their 40th birthday, and then set them free, regardless of how horrible (or how relatively minor, for that matter) the crime was. Or just imprison all men until they turn 40, though it will be a few months before I’ll feel able to fully endorse that proposal.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.