US court approves life without parole for 14-year-old

zarocat

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/life-no-parole ... 14576.html

Wisconsin's top court ruled Friday that sending a 14-year-old killer to jail without the chance of parole is not an "unduly harsh and excessive" punishment for a gruesome crime.
Omer Ninham is one of more than 2,200 US teens sentenced to life in jail without parole after they were prosecuted as adults, according to the Equal Justice Initiative.
Some 73 of those cases involved children aged 13 or 14 at the time of the crime.
In what the court described as a "horrific and senseless crime," Ninham was convicted of picking a fight with a 13-year-old boy who was riding home on his bike in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Ninham and a group of four other teens did not know Zong Vang, a Hmong immigrant, but just decided to "mess with this kid" in September 1998, court records showed.
They beat him and chased him up the ramp of a nearby parking garage, where Ninham and a 13-year-old boy beat Vang some more then grabbed him by the ankles and wrists, swung him back and forth over the edge, and let go.
A bystander testified that Vang's 45-foot fall sounded like "a bag of wet cement hitting the pavement."
"Under the circumstances of this case, Ninham's punishment is severe, but it is not disproportionately so," Judge Annette Ziegler wrote in the 5-2 decision.
"We conclude that his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is not unduly harsh and excessive."
Ninham's lawyers vowed to appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court on the basis that it violates constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
"To say to any child of 14 -- or 10 -- that you are beyond hope, beyond any chance of redemption or rehabilitation is cruel," said Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative.
"The United States is the only country in the world to sentence children to die in prison."
The US Supreme Court ruled last year that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for non-homicide cases is unconstitutional.
Under Wisconsin law, juveniles aged 10 or older can be tried as adults if they are accused of homicide and face a mandatory life sentence if convicted.
It is up to a judge to decide if parole will be a possibility.
Ninham's lawyers urged clemency based on his age and troubled life -- he came from an extremely dysfunctional family and had been getting drunk to the point of passing out nearly every day sine grade school and snorting cocaine on a weekly basis.
The circuit court judge described Ninham as "a frightening young man" and said his problems were no excuse because he was "a child of the street who knew what he was doing."
Now 26, Ninham petitioned the court to modify his sentence, arguing that young teens ought to be treated differently than adults and that the sentence violates constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment.
The state court concluded the punishment was "not categorically unconstitutional" and that Ninham "has failed to demonstrate that there is a national consensus against sentencing a 14-year-old to life imprisonment without parole when the crime is intentional homicide."

Godfather.

little bastard fucked up diden't he and now everybody is supposed to feel sorry for him right,given his "troubled past" odd's are that it would be just a matter of time before he killed someone else
if he walked on this charge at 14 years old. it is what it is.

Godfather.

Nothingman54

Fry his ass

SatansFuton

Many other countries, including Australia, have life without parole for minors who commit murder. Although the US is currently the only country that actually has a minor serving life without parole. But it is approved in other places.

This is a tough case. In my mind 14 is old enough to know right from wrong, at least on this level. A little kid I could see cutting some slack, but a 14 year old should know better than to drop somebody off a building to his death. At least they aren't giving him the death penalty.

Godfather.

he's probably finding out right now just how tuff he is.

Godfather.

keeponrockin

This seems reasonable, IMO.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

He is 26 years old now...
Where has the murdering piece of garbage spent the last 12 years????

Byrnzie

"The United States is the only country in the world to sentence children to die in prison."


Interesting.

dimitrispearljam

here in Greece we when we say life in prison penalty means 23 years,and with good feadback means 16
and in horrible crimes,or terorism crimes,or serial killers we have death panalty,but it means real life in prison
so cant never go out...
if i was a jugde and the law alloud it,ill give a 10 year penalty to the kids parents

BLACK35

Some of theses kids that are 11-14 now a days think they know everything and that they can do anything they want. I'm trying not to paint that age group all with the same brush. But if some of these little bastards want to commit these crimes, then man up and take your punishmnet. They know right from wrong, they just think they won't get caught. I think alot of these young criminals know what will happen if they commit the crime. What I don't understand about them is that they are willing to throw everything away for something so petty ie; kill a store clerk for $30 in a cash register.........fucking dumb

zarocat

dimitrispearljam wrote:

if i was a jugde and the law alloud it,ill give a 10 year penalty to the kids parents

I agree

Eliot Rosewater

SatansFuton wrote:

Many other countries, including Australia, have life without parole for minors who commit murder. Although the US is currently the only country that actually has a minor serving life without parole. But it is approved in other places.

This is a tough case. In my mind 14 is old enough to know right from wrong, at least on this level. A little kid I could see cutting some slack, but a 14 year old should know better than to drop somebody off a building to his death. At least they aren't giving him the death penalty.

A 14 year old may or may not know right from wrong, but there are reasons that 14 year olds are classified legally as minors. To try a 14 year old as an adult is just fucking absurd in the first place. It is just one more frustrating thing about the shitty U.S. government that they can pick and choose and do whatever the fuck they want to do.

A minor is a minor. An adult is an adult. If the U.S. courts truly believe that a 14 year old should be held to the same standards as a full fledged adult and want to start sentencing children to life terms in prison then they should change the laws to lower the legal age. This "tried as an adult" nonsense is ridiculous.

By far the most disturbing part of this story is the fact that they U.S. can somehow lock a 10 year old up for the rest of his or her life. As a father of a 9 year old girl this has inspired me to write my congressman.

Obviously I teach my daughter right from wrong. But despite the fact that she is extremely bright, she's nine years old. She will be ten in one month....and she is nowhere near being an adult. No child of that age is. The fact that they could be tried as adults fills me with anger and disgust for this country.

Byrnzie

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

Many other countries, including Australia, have life without parole for minors who commit murder. Although the US is currently the only country that actually has a minor serving life without parole. But it is approved in other places.

This is a tough case. In my mind 14 is old enough to know right from wrong, at least on this level. A little kid I could see cutting some slack, but a 14 year old should know better than to drop somebody off a building to his death. At least they aren't giving him the death penalty.

A 14 year old may or may not know right from wrong, but there are reasons that 14 year olds are classified legally as minors. To try a 14 year old as an adult is just fucking absurd in the first place. It is just one more frustrating thing about the shitty U.S. government that they can pick and choose and do whatever the fuck they want to do.

A minor is a minor. An adult is an adult. If the U.S. courts truly believe that a 14 year old should be held to the same standards as a full fledged adult and want to start sentencing children to life terms in prison then they should change the laws to lower the legal age. This "tried as an adult" nonsense is ridiculous.

By far the most disturbing part of this story is the fact that they U.S. can somehow lock a 10 year old up for the rest of his or her life. As a father of a 9 year old girl this has inspired me to write my congressman.

Obviously I teach my daughter right from wrong. But despite the fact that she is extremely bright, she's nine years old. She will be ten in one month....and she is nowhere near being an adult. No child of that age is. The fact that they could be tried as adults fills me with anger and disgust for this country.

In England the age of criminal responsibility is 10 or above. On the other hand, the age of sexual consent is 16 and above. So, as far as the law is concerned, if you are 10 or above then you are responsible for your actions. On the other hand, if you are younger than 16 and decide to have sex with someone then you are not responsible for your actions, because you are not old enough to know what you're doing.
If someone can explain this logic for me, I'll be grateful. But when it comes to 'minors' and what they are, or are not responsible for, it seems to me like the law is somewhat absurd.

Though I do agree with an earlier poster that the parents should be punished for crimes like these. If your 10 year old, or 14 year old kills someone, then some of the punishment should fall on the parents.

SatansFuton

I see what some of you guys are saying, but I don't think some flexibility in the law is such a bad thing, whether it work for or against a person. You don't want law that is completely black and white. In this case it just bent in a direction that some people dislike. Although others think it is fitting. They decided that his crime was much more severe than what he could be punished for as a juvenile. Do you want minor to think they can do whatever they want and just get a slap on the wrist because they are technically a minor?

I try to put myself in the shoes of the victims family. They sent their son to the store to get some tomatoes, and he never came home because some little douchebags decided to beat him up and toss him off the 5th floor of a parking garage. I know it is important to consider the rights of the defendant, but as Dirty Harry once said "What about the rights of that little girl?". Or little boy in this case. As the witness said, it sounded like a sack of wet concrete hitting the pavement. I'm pretty sure his rights were violated, and it isn't like they are trying to toss the defendant off a parking garage in retribution.

I think back to when I was 14, I wasn't exactly some little kid, I was a freshman in high school. I knew right from wrong, and I'm pretty sure everybody else I knew was smart enough to know not to kill somebody. It's not like a little kid who doesn't understand that once you kill somebody they aren't coming back. There was something really wrong with this young man to do what he did.

As for punishing the parents, I don't know about that, or what role his upbringing had in turning the kid into a murderer. Growing up I knew a few bad apples that were bad in spite of parents trying to raise them correctly. Some kids rebel, and are bad BECAUSE their parents try to make them act right. If some kid turns out to be a bad apple, it would certainly be unfair to punish the parents for it. And I bet there would be an article posted here and a debate over how wrong that is. If you start punishing parents for what their kids do, can you imagine the way parents would start raising their kids? I know I would probably never let my kid go outside for fear of being brought up on some kind of charges. Some lessons you have to let them learn on their own, and this young man (not so young anymore) is learning a tough lesson. But he should have thought about what he was doing before he dumped that poor kid off the parking garage.

The bottom line is that the young man went out and committed a big boy crime, and now he is getting a big boy punishment. He could have avoided the whole thing by not acting like a dickhead and tossing the kid 5 floors to his death. A 14 year old might not be completely developed, but should know better than to commit murder. I would put my foot down at the death penalty, but life in prison I can see. Would I personally have given that sentence? I don't know, probably not. But I am not a judge, and decisions like that are the reason I have not pursued it as a career. That and the robes.

Eliot Rosewater

I understand that a 14 year old should know right from wrong. But the fact remains that a 14 year old is a child. The asshole judge got this one wrong because no matter the crime, and now matter how brutal the crime, locking up a child for the rest of his life with no chance of ever getting out is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment.

He should absolutely be held accountable for his crime. But I think as in most situations, that children should be held LESS accountable for their actions than adults. Adults are held to a higher standard for a reason. It makes no goddamn sense to "bend" the law to circumvent that sound reasoning.

SatansFuton

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I understand that a 14 year old should know right from wrong. But the fact remains that a 14 year old is a child. The asshole judge got this one wrong because no matter the crime, and now matter how brutal the crime, locking up a child for the rest of his life with no chance of ever getting out is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment.

He should absolutely be held accountable for his crime. But I think as in most situations, that children should be held LESS accountable for their actions than adults. Adults are held to a higher standard for a reason. It makes no goddamn sense to "bend" the law to circumvent that sound reasoning.

Well, it is a matter of opinion. It might not make sense to you, but it does to some. And there are more factors than just, he's only 14. Judges take a lot of different things into account when passing judgement, that's why we have them. The character and actions of the kid before, during and after the crime were taken into account.

I just read the actual judgment from the case, and it is a little bit more telling as to why he got such a harsh sentence. Up until his sentencing a few years later, he was still acting like a bad apple. He was charged with 3 counts of witness intimidation and 1 count of threatening a judge. By that point he was almost 17 and allegedly threatening to kill those who testified against him (a rape threat for one as well), and the judge. I say allegedly because they never convicted him of those charges, they ended up dropping them as part of a plea bargain, and because really all they needed was the first degree murder and physical harm to a child charges to put him away.

Until the day he was sentenced he never admitted to the crime, was combative in court, threatened the judge and the witnesses, and apparently learned no lesson at all. Maybe if he had come into the courtroom and admitted what he had done was wrong, that the gravity of the situation was evident to him now but not then, then he may have been given some slack. Instead he changed his story about how the kid died (first blaming his friends, then saying that some adults tossed the kid off the roof because he had stolen their hood ornament) and continued to behave like a criminal, showing no remorse. They also cited various other misconduct from behind bars, but didn't elaborate.

If he didn't learn his lesson after killing the kid, if it didn't become real to him then, he has problems.

Eliot Rosewater

SatansFuton wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I understand that a 14 year old should know right from wrong. But the fact remains that a 14 year old is a child. The asshole judge got this one wrong because no matter the crime, and now matter how brutal the crime, locking up a child for the rest of his life with no chance of ever getting out is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment.

He should absolutely be held accountable for his crime. But I think as in most situations, that children should be held LESS accountable for their actions than adults. Adults are held to a higher standard for a reason. It makes no goddamn sense to "bend" the law to circumvent that sound reasoning.

Well, it is a matter of opinion. It might not make sense to you, but it does to some. And there are more factors than just, he's only 14. Judges take a lot of different things into account when passing judgement, that's why we have them. The character and actions of the kid before, during and after the crime were taken into account.

I just read the actual judgment from the case, and it is a little bit more telling as to why he got such a harsh sentence. Up until his sentencing a few years later, he was still acting like a bad apple. He was charged with 3 counts of witness intimidation and 1 count of threatening a judge. By that point he was almost 17 and allegedly threatening to kill those who testified against him (a rape threat for one as well), and the judge. I say allegedly because they never convicted him of those charges, they ended up dropping them as part of a plea bargain, and because really all they needed was the first degree murder and physical harm to a child charges to put him away.

Until the day he was sentenced he never admitted to the crime, was combative in court, threatened the judge and the witnesses, and apparently learned no lesson at all. Maybe if he had come into the courtroom and admitted what he had done was wrong, that the gravity of the situation was evident to him now but not then, then he may have been given some slack. Instead he changed his story about how the kid died (first blaming his friends, then saying that some adults tossed the kid off the roof because he had stolen their hood ornament) and continued to behave like a criminal, showing no remorse. They also cited various other misconduct from behind bars, but didn't elaborate.

If he didn't learn his lesson after killing the kid, if it didn't become real to him then, he has problems.

I agree 100% that he has problems. And yes, this is my opinion, but it's logical that children be held less accountable for their actions. We do it in nearly every other aspect of life. I don't think it's the right thing to lock a child up for the rest of his or her life without the possibility to ever get out.

He deserves punishment, no doubt. A very stern punishment. But not cruel or unusual punishment. Not life without parole when he was just a young boy at the time he committed the crime. Come on. 14 fucking years old. It's hard for me to believe this is even a debate. The judge got this one wrong. No doubt in my mind.

Can someone explain to me the logic that a child as young as 10 years old can be tried as an adult in this country? That is a serious flaw. Just absolutely absurd.

marcos

I use to be a juvenile probation officer and most children do not have the same reasoning as adults. Usually, even in the adult system, the question is what types of rehabilitation have previous been made and whether they worked somewhat or not at all. He may have a long history of criminal behavior as a child and certain rehabilitative methods did not prove appropriate for him. I am certain there were a cadre of social workers and youth guardians that examined this case before it got to where it is. This is not a rule that will be applied to all children as the juvenile court operates on a case by case basis, more so than the adult court. And though it was tried in the adult court I'm sure careful consideration was given that he was a juvenile at the time of the crime. Most studies have that juveniles tried in adult court often receive liter sentences.

Byrnzie

SatansFuton wrote:

I see what some of you guys are saying, but I don't think some flexibility in the law is such a bad thing, whether it work for or against a person. You don't want law that is completely black and white. In this case it just bent in a direction that some people dislike. Although others think it is fitting. They decided that his crime was much more severe than what he could be punished for as a juvenile. Do you want minor to think they can do whatever they want and just get a slap on the wrist because they are technically a minor?

I try to put myself in the shoes of the victims family. They sent their son to the store to get some tomatoes, and he never came home because some little douchebags decided to beat him up and toss him off the 5th floor of a parking garage. I know it is important to consider the rights of the defendant, but as Dirty Harry once said "What about the rights of that little girl?". Or little boy in this case. As the witness said, it sounded like a sack of wet concrete hitting the pavement. I'm pretty sure his rights were violated, and it isn't like they are trying to toss the defendant off a parking garage in retribution.

I think back to when I was 14, I wasn't exactly some little kid, I was a freshman in high school. I knew right from wrong, and I'm pretty sure everybody else I knew was smart enough to know not to kill somebody. It's not like a little kid who doesn't understand that once you kill somebody they aren't coming back. There was something really wrong with this young man to do what he did.

As for punishing the parents, I don't know about that, or what role his upbringing had in turning the kid into a murderer. Growing up I knew a few bad apples that were bad in spite of parents trying to raise them correctly. Some kids rebel, and are bad BECAUSE their parents try to make them act right. If some kid turns out to be a bad apple, it would certainly be unfair to punish the parents for it. And I bet there would be an article posted here and a debate over how wrong that is. If you start punishing parents for what their kids do, can you imagine the way parents would start raising their kids? I know I would probably never let my kid go outside for fear of being brought up on some kind of charges. Some lessons you have to let them learn on their own, and this young man (not so young anymore) is learning a tough lesson. But he should have thought about what he was doing before he dumped that poor kid off the parking garage.

The bottom line is that the young man went out and committed a big boy crime, and now he is getting a big boy punishment. He could have avoided the whole thing by not acting like a dickhead and tossing the kid 5 floors to his death. A 14 year old might not be completely developed, but should know better than to commit murder. I would put my foot down at the death penalty, but life in prison I can see. Would I personally have given that sentence? I don't know, probably not. But I am not a judge, and decisions like that are the reason I have not pursued it as a career. That and the robes.

Fair enough. Though I still think life seems a bit extreme. Ten years would probably be enough In my opinion, depending on how he behaved during his time in the can.

SatansFuton

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I agree 100% that he has problems. And yes, this is my opinion, but it's logical that children be held less accountable for their actions. We do it in nearly every other aspect of life. I don't think it's the right thing to lock a child up for the rest of his or her life without the possibility to ever get out.

He deserves punishment, no doubt. A very stern punishment. But not cruel or unusual punishment. Not life without parole when he was just a young boy at the time he committed the crime. Come on. 14 fucking years old. It's hard for me to believe this is even a debate. The judge got this one wrong. No doubt in my mind.

Can someone explain to me the logic that a child as young as 10 years old can be tried as an adult in this country? That is a serious flaw. Just absolutely absurd.

Well, they aren't locking up all kids without possibility of parole. The other kid in the same murder case has the possibility of parole. The reason being he expressed remorse, admitted to his wrong-doing, and unlike Omer, he didn't threaten a judge and witnesses. Omer may have been a kid when he committed the crime, but in the years afterward he continued to misbehave, and as an adult seems to have remorse only for the fact that he got such a harsh sentence.

When the judge passed this sentence he took into account his behavior as he grew older. It wasn't just "kid kills kid, kid goes to jail for life". There were pre-trial investigations, consideration of how Omer continued to behave, etc. I can understand cutting a kid some slack, but he doesn't appear to have learned any lesson. If he would have said "I fucked up, what I did was wrong, I'm sorry" he might not have gotten life without parole.

I see what you're saying, and I certainly don't advocate putting all kids on trial as adults, or such harsh sentences. But it looks to me like this guy is just a sociopath. The other kid did himself a favor and showed remorse, owned up to what he did, and received some leniency as a result. Omer did not. Hell, he even tried to accuse the dead kid of being a criminal himself and accused some adults of tossing him off the roof for stealing a hood ornament.

The sentence is a bit harsh, they even admit that. But I honestly don't know what you do with a person like that. I'm not going to pretend like I have a better idea on how this should be handled. When I read stories like this I'm just relieved that I'm not in a position where I have to rule on such matters. The judge has a lot to consider, not the least of which is the family of the victim, or what this person would do if/when released. But I think it is important to distinguish that the punishment is not solely based on the crime of a 14 year old kid, but also on his continued behavior, after he was no longer just 14, but as somebody who was just a few months shy of being an adult under Wisconsin law.

mickeyrat

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I understand that a 14 year old should know right from wrong. But the fact remains that a 14 year old is a child. The asshole judge got this one wrong because no matter the crime, and now matter how brutal the crime, locking up a child for the rest of his life with no chance of ever getting out is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment.

He should absolutely be held accountable for his crime. But I think as in most situations, that children should be held LESS accountable for their actions than adults. Adults are held to a higher standard for a reason. It makes no goddamn sense to "bend" the law to circumvent that sound reasoning.

Hmm, I wonder what kind of terror the kid getting beaten felt as he was held by his feet and ankles over a ledge some 50 ft in the air. Wonder he might say about this sentence. Oh wait , he cant say anything.