Kick off your Friday morning with another GBOC lightning round. As always, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!Item 1: "What is the Age of Responsibility?"
Wednesday's Talk of the Nation posed that very complex question to journalist Alan Greenblatt of Governing Magazine and Temple University professor Laurence Steinberg. The conversation came in response to Greenblatt's recent article describing the "mixed messages" young people receive from state and local laws that dictate different minimum ages for different behaviors (e.g., consenting to sex, drinking alcohol, voting, etc.). Of interest to criminologists, the experts discussed both the minimum legal drinking age and the processing of juvenile offenders as adults. In addition, Steinberg -- who appeared on NPR last year to criticize the adultification of youthful offenders -- explained how chronological age restrictions bear little correlation with developmental science regarding the maturation of adolescent brains; however, as meaningful tests for maturity are impossible to develop, chronological age is the only viable proxy for maturity we've got. Finally, the conversation touched on some of the issues we discussed here with respect to LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders. If you've got a few minutes, it's definitely worth a listen (or read).
Item 2: The High Cost of Capital Punishment
Speaking of LWOP sentences, last week the Death Penalty Information Center altered us to a recent NYT editorial encouraging states to abolish the death penalty based on economic considerations:
To the many excellent reasons to abolish the death penalty — it’s immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately — we can add one more. It’s an economic drain on governments with already badly depleted budgets...I don't have much commentary about this, other than to add that financial considerations provide lawmakers who oppose capital punishment a more palatable platform for public opposition than, say, moral appeals. Thoughts from others?
According to the [DPIC], keeping inmates on death row in Florida costs taxpayers $51 million a year more than holding them for life without parole. North Carolina has put 43 people to death since 1976 at $2.16 million per execution. The eventual cost to taxpayers in Maryland for pursuing capital cases between 1978 and 1999 is estimated to be $186 million for five executions...
A Republican state senator in Kansas, Carolyn McGinn, pointed out that her state, which restored the death penalty in 1994, had not executed anybody in more than 40 years. In February, she introduced a bill to replace capital punishment with life without parole. The bill gained considerable attention but stalled. Similar arguments were made, unsuccessfully, in states such as New Hampshire and Maryland. Colorado considered a bill to end capital punishment and spend the money saved on solving cold cases. But this year, only New Mexico went all the way, abolishing executions in March.
Item 3: Say it Ain't So, Joe!
Bad news yesterday for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (he of the pink clothing policies for DUI offenders and, more importantly, the bobblehead on Velma's desk):
Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff's department have had an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security since 2007 that allows his department to enforce federal immigration laws. But Arpaio says the federal agency is moving to revise the agreement to limit that power to checking the immigration status of inmates already in his Phoenix jail...Hmmm. Perhaps "America's Toughest Sheriff" is about to become a little less tough? Interesting to see how this develops.
Now he faces a Justice Department investigation into allegations of civil rights abuses, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is suing the sheriff over immigration raids conducted by his department. The class-action lawsuit alleges that Arpaio has abused the power delegated to him under his agreement with Homeland Security, known as the 287(g) program.
Item 4: President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!
And he's only the third sitting president to do so.
(I'm sure Scooby, in particular, is thrilled.)
Posts
1 comments:
The third issue gave me quite a laugh when I just saw it...if it wasn't so pathetic. This just shows you how "in the bag" these things can be. I find the timing particularly important based on the previous SNL skit. To think that any president several months into office should get something like this is, well, a joke. Then to boot, someone who has been able to accomplish so little on the international front. We all expected a good ole' fashion "kumbaya moment" when he got into office, remember. We would just "sit right down and talk with those dictators" and things will take a change for the better. Let me follow up on the SNL model:
1. IRAN: Things would get better. they would stop escalating problems in the middle east, would cut back their nuclear plans. Did it work, "Hhhellll No"
2. North Korea: Kim would take off his platform shoes and open up his plants to inspectors. Did it work? "Nnnnnnno!"
3. China: Coordinated trade efforts, open dialogue, etc would make relationships better. Did it work? "Yes, well, at just nearly devaluing our currency"
On the positive front, we know how is vision and new world order ideas at least made things better in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is at least one positive development.
This could not be a better example how the hype just doesn’t live up to reality with this guy. All he has to do is show up and he has accomplished something for these people.
Post a Comment