Blogs and Stories
Can Teen Killers Be Rehabilitated?
Michael Ainsworth, Dallas Morning News / Newscom
Only the U.S. and Somalia sentence teenagers to life without parole. Today the Supreme Court must decide: Is it constitutional? Adam Serwer tells the heartbreaking stories of kids who kill their abusers. Inside the heartbreaking stories of kids who kill the adults who abuse them.
At 16, Sarah Kruzan was sentenced to life without parole for killing her pimp, “G.G.” Despite the fact that G.G. had abused Sarah since the age of 13, when he put her on the street and made her work 12-hour shifts as a prostitute, the judge in her case decided the nature of the crime was so heinous that she was, essentially, irredeemable. A widely circulated YouTube video of Kruzan, now 29, discussing her crime suggests the opposite. “I definitely know I deserve punishment—I mean, you don’t just take somebody’s life and think that it’s OK,” Kruzan says. “So, yes, definitely, I deserve punishment.”
In 1992, 15-year-old Jacob Ind murdered his mother and stepfather while they lay in bed. His stepfather, Kermode, had sexually abused Jacob and his brother, Charles. Their mother offered no refuge—she would tell Jacob that she “hated him” and “wished he had never been born.” Years later, Ind told a local Colorado news station that he killed his parents because “I was too weak to directly confront them…My act was of pure selfishness. It was the coward’s way out.”
The examples of Sarah Kruzan and Jacob Ind, both of which involve brutal killings committed by abused and frightened children who are now remorseful adults, suggest that juveniles who commit heinous crimes are capable of being rehabilitated.
The practice of tossing juveniles in prison for life without the possibility of parole began during America’s great crime panic. Gripped by an irrational fear of what political scientist John DiIulio termed a generation of juvenile “super-predators,” in the mid-1990s legislators at the state and federal level acted to ensure these “super-predators” would be treated like the monsters the public believed they were. The result is a gruesome footnote to the story of America’s love affair with mass incarceration: an estimated 2,570 juveniles serving life without parole in a nation that already imprisons more of its population—1 percent, or nearly 2.5 million people—than any other country.
News stories about juveniles serving life without parole often focus on suburban white children, such as Ind or Brandon Hein, the subject of a 2003 investigation by Dan Rather. But the racial disparities already apparent in the criminal-justice system are replicated among juvenile lifers. According to a 2005 report from Human Rights Watch, black youth receive life without parole at a rate about 10 times greater than the rate of white youth.
On Monday the Supreme Court will consider whether juvenile life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” in the context of two specific cases. Joe Sullivan was convicted, along with two accomplices, of robbing and raping a 72-year-old woman when Sullivan was 13 years old. Terrance Jamar Graham was convicted of armed burglary at the age of 17, and then sentenced to life without parole after he violated the terms of his probation.
The decision will ultimately hinge on two factors—the nation’s falling out of love with an excessively punitive criminal-justice system, and the same scientific research on which the court based its 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, in which the justices ruled it unconstitutional to execute juveniles. Back then, Justice Anthony Kennedy, still the Supreme Court’s all-important swing vote, was persuaded by research that showed teenage brains are less capable than adult brains of evaluating decisions and that adolescents’ “characters” are not “fully formed.”
That seems to be stating the obvious. The research in the Roper decision already undercuts the premise under which juvenile life without parole is justified—the presumption that convicted young people are simply monsters in training who cannot be rehabilitated, and that harsh sentencing will act as a deterrent. The examples of Kruzan and Ind, both of which involve brutal killings committed by abused and frightened children who are now remorseful adults, suggest an equally obvious conclusion: that juveniles who commit heinous crimes are capable of being rehabilitated.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
dooreen
In Canada, there are cases where teens kill and only get a few years in prison.
They are old enough to know what they are doing is wrong, terribly wrong and I think they should always be treated the same as adults in murder cases, unless it is self defense or special circumstances as described in the article.
The same with that gang rape, I mean those kids are at the age to know, what they did was incredibly harmful.
Maybe a teenager does not know enough to be an engineer, or a doctor, but he knows enough to know murder is terribly wrong.
People act stupid, at times, just to gain power over others, pretending they have no idea of what they are doing is going to matter.
Often powers pretending that they are helping people in poor neighbourhoods, when they put a barrier in the public driveway, because people in those neighbourhoods, they say have more accidents. They know perfectly well they are devaluing the business and the neighbourhood by putting up more barriers instead of taking them down, and the gap grows between wealthy and poor that way. They know that.
But to admit it, takes on a liability, so they pretend they don't know what harm was done. Of course they know.
That is the oldest trick in the book.
When a kid kills they know what they have done. If they ruin a life, why should they not have their life ruined? Unless there are special circumstances.
planet54
It's about time we examine our motives and our treatment of juveniles. Hmm...we don't allow them to drive until they are 16 because they have poor judgment. We don't allow them to vote because we think they have poor judgment. We don't allow them to drink alcohol because we believe they have poor judgment. They have to have parental permission to receive medical care because we think they have poor judgment. The list of things we prevent juveniles from doing because we don't think they are mature enough to make good decisions is endless. Yet, let them kill someone else and, abbracadabbra, they were perfectly capable of making the right decision just like any mature adult. They are just BAD. We Americans don't want to rehabilitate people, we want them to suffer. The younger they are, the longer we want them to suffer apparently. If you think they are adults, then let them do all the things adults do. Watch porn. Buy cigarettes. Juveniles are capable or not, this isn't selective. This society can't continue to waffle on this issue. Make a decision.
sistalee
I totally agree with you today they meet the age requirements, but yesterday they didn't and tomorrow we'll decide what age fits the crime then.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--squareyellowpapernortonclybourn
"Most of these kids?" What percentage? Based on what number you pulled out of your ass?
attackley
A lot of these kids are victims of child abuse. They may act like sociopaths, but there is a good chance that their brains never properly. In those cases conventional therapy is generally not going to work. But there are promissing new approaches using brain mapping to identify underdeveloped sections of the brain and tailoring therapies to develope those areas. There have been some amazing sucess stories, but it takes a long time to overcome societal inertia and implement this approach on a large enough scale to make a difference.
Anonimom
My best friend and her son were murdered in their home 6 days before Christmas by a 17-year-old would-be burglar. He gave those of us left behind a life sentence of pain, longing, and anger.
He took away a life time of Christmases, birthdays, and family moments. He left three children with a lifetime without their mother or brother. He sentenced a father to a life haunted by the day that he buried his son and wife next to each other the day after Christmas. There will be no parole for us.
The person who committed these crimes did so with malice in his heart. He deserves to spend every one of his remaining days paying for the paying for the devastation that he left in his wake.
This article is insulting to the victims of these teenaged thugs in its bleeding heart, the-criminal-is-the-real-victim point of view. There is no mention of innocent victims. Those with the real undeserved life sentences. Where is the story of the nine year old boy who had to be told that his mother was never coming home? Where is the story of the 19 year old boy whose life was ended before it had really begun? Where is the justice for us?
attackley
Life sentences like these are ridiculous. In the two cases highlighted in this article, I have difficulty believing that the juveniles were even charged with first degree murder. We have way too many people in prison who can be rehablilitated, but in some cases, we let sex offenders who can't be rehabilitated out. I don't believe in the death penalty for punishment, but sometimes think it would be an effective way to protect society. How about putting a death penalty on the seventh DUI offense? In my state we have people with ten or more DUI's riding around, without insurance, killing and maiming people. Enough is enough.
Dillon
In Florida there is concern
Of juvenile justice too stern;
But kids prefer jail
To having to tail
Old drivers who blink but won't turn.
News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8
crypto
Follks you can justify or comdemn either side of this. But in my opinion the bottom line belongs to the famlies of the people affected (killed, raped, etc). Where and when do they get their justice. If you keep the offender in prison his or her family will say it's unfair. If you let 'em out the famlies of the murdered etc get no justice. And what if they kill again after you let 'em out, just like the child molesters who are congregated in these neighborhoods. No this is one where the punishment should fit the crime.
taharqa11
So you believe that the girl who killed her pimp deserves life without the possibility of parole? Do you think it is highly likely she will kill again? I think that is part of what the article is about.
crypto
No, read the last line. This is where the jury system must be relied upon. Was she guilty of murder or was it self preservation. In that jury room I don't care what the DA or the Defense says. I'm gonna vote my conscience after hearing the case. I do believe it's easier to kill the second time and much easier if you are threatened.
sistalee
I agree with teen offenders being punished, but if there is no attempt to reform them they'll end up in the cycle that adult offenders go through, in jail out of jail and back in again. This cycle needs to stop before it starts. There are so many so-called programs to help people where are the programs to help the youth? Funds are being raised for all kinds of groups and companies that claim they're helping the youth, but where are these programs and who is actually benefiting from the funds raised. Just like the media turns a blind eye to the 'epidemic' of youth violence so doesn't the neighbors of the kids until something happens or the act hits home. How many people talking really care (care by doing) about any of these childrens situations or any of the children in your community. It's easy to point a finger after the fact or leave the job of mentor, friend, concerned samaritian to someone else. Just remember the ultimate judge will decide and not only will the ones behind bars be passed judgment on, but we will be judged as well and if you don't do all in your power to help your just as guilty-guilty of neglect.
BOKOBOT
There's a line in 'Oh, God' when God (George Burns) is given a quiz by a bunch of snotty preachers to try and trip him up. The question is about Adam and Eve and whether they represent an original fall of man. God gets reflective and tells the John Denver character, "You know I made Adam 17, Eve 15, 16 tops. Back then I thought that was middle age. Who knew people would live so long. I thought trees had the best chance." Then he says, in answer to the question about original sin, "Young people can never fall from my grace. They're some of my best things." The scene is a broadside against the sort of cynicism and cruelty towards young people that persists in our society to this day. Punishing young offenders as if they were adults has less to do with justice than it does with expatiating some of our own guilt about the things we've done, we've all done, to become 'grown-ups' in this rather twisted society we've made. It's displacement, and it's bogus. BOKO
ksjules
This article is misleading, particularly the headline. These cases were about juveniles receiving life without parole sentences for NON-HOMICIDE crimes. No 'teen killers' were involved today and the Court's ruling would not apply to juveniles who commit homicide crimes. Let's please make sure the facts are clear before headlining important issues such as these.
vickismom
In '79 my 10yr old daughter, Vicki, was raped, strangled and thrown in a shallow grave her 15yr old chronic child molester had dug 3 days before. We didn't know he was on parole or his sinister past. At an early age he tortured small animals, raped little girls, threatened little girls with knives and guns. Nor did we know he dug, Vicki size graves in the snow or trace out those plots in the dirt. The state of IL knew he wanted to kill, but they sent him to a town of 500 and my baby is dead. This 15yr old was given 30yrs for the rape and LIFE for the murder. He has exhausted all legal appears, he has petitioned the Gov. numberous times for clemency, he's now using the Apprendi decision for release. How many chances does he get? How many chances does Vicki get? None! Vicki is DEAD forever!!! How many more beautiful, innocent, lttle girls will be found in shallow graves if this MONSTER is ever released?
collgra
Many Americans have forgotten that prison and the death penalty have one purpose, to remove people from society who have proven they can't obey society's rules. Rehabilitation is rare. Because the damage is done before the court system gets them. The solution is not to rehabilitate, Russian roulette at best, but to prevent in the first place. If there were programs in place to give people conscience, funded with half the prison money we might show progress. But, the current system is set to fail. The die was cast when our young people were told that God was not welcome in our society and there were no higher powers to which they would answer. God help us now.
Serene
I believe some juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated. Rehab should be offered soon and on a case-by-case basis as long as there are signs of positive progress. I believe there should be second chances for the ones showing positive change while incarcerated. (If this is possible.) A close family I know had a daughter who was murdered by her husband, age 20 & 22. The husband came from an average family. He is an only child, but has siblings from his parents previous marriages. He basicly grew up getting what he wanted and never got in trouble with the law as a teenager. Neither did the young wife. He had an affair with an older woman and soon after he killed his young wife. He killed her and waited until night fall to burn her up in her car. He's serving his sentence now. He did not get life without parole. He is eligible for parole in 2017. He is getting a second chance. This man, along with little "Vicki's" murderer, should NOT (my opinion) get second chances. Sarah Kruzan has acknowledged she did terribly wrong and is still serving her sentence. This husband has not admitted to his crime at all. If he doesn't think he's wrong, he'll do it again.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.