The film When Kids Get Life presents the cases of five juveniles sentenced in Colorado to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This film explores whether juveniles should receive the types of sentences where there is no possibility of letting them out even if they changed or try to make up for anything they might’ve done. In the movie there are two major sides to this argument, one side being that they are the worst of the worst and they deserve what they got according to the family of the victims. The other side argues that the punishment is too harsh and that doesn't really represent what the defendants did but represents the revenge the victim’s family have. I agree with both arguments, but I lean more towards the argument of
…show more content…
In this case the child murdered both his mom and step dad because he couldn’t live with them due to all the abuse he received. Jacob got life without parole, but his sentence should’ve been mitigated because of all the abuse ( Bikel, 2007). This is because he was only acting in self-defense for his own sake and deadly force can be used when there’s abuse or rape involved. The only reason he would still get some years in prison is because he committed the crime when the abuse and rape wasn’t happing therefor planning it out and being premeditating it. Most of the time children that kill are treated more harshly than parents that kill children because children are thought to be born that way while parents have an experience that makes them do that. This is wrong because children can also have traumatic experiences through their lives just like Jacob …show more content…
All the juveniles in the video wouldn’t be considered as hardened or worst of the worst since none of them has ever done other things like this or anything close to it. In addition to that there all scrawny and weak like they wouldn’t hurt anybody while most hardened criminals are adults with physical power or high intelligence. Furthermore, one of the attorneys describes Andy medina as pathetic and he was still put into a supermax prison ( Bikel, 2007)Clearly, the law Colorado had in place didn’t consist with the international Covenant because Colorado doesn’t provide rehabilitation or possibility of parole, plus Colorado alone has more juveniles in life without parole than the rest of the
In this case the child murdered both his mom and step dad because he couldn’t live with them due to all the abuse he received. Jacob got life without parole, but his sentence should’ve been mitigated because of all the abuse ( Bikel, 2007). This is because he was only acting in self-defense for his own sake and deadly force can be used when there’s abuse or rape involved. The only reason he would still get some years in prison is because he committed the crime when the abuse and rape wasn’t happing therefor planning it out and being premeditating it. Most of the time children that kill are treated more harshly than parents that kill children because children are thought to be born that way while parents have an experience that makes them do that. This is wrong because children can also have traumatic experiences through their lives just like Jacob …show more content…
All the juveniles in the video wouldn’t be considered as hardened or worst of the worst since none of them has ever done other things like this or anything close to it. In addition to that there all scrawny and weak like they wouldn’t hurt anybody while most hardened criminals are adults with physical power or high intelligence. Furthermore, one of the attorneys describes Andy medina as pathetic and he was still put into a supermax prison ( Bikel, 2007)Clearly, the law Colorado had in place didn’t consist with the international Covenant because Colorado doesn’t provide rehabilitation or possibility of parole, plus Colorado alone has more juveniles in life without parole than the rest of the