Yes I do feel that way, using both logic and emotion.
Logic dictates that criminals (those who premeditate murder esp) are just killers plain and simple. Many criminals who have 'repented' 'converted' or otherwise turned over a new leaf ended right back in prison or were guilty again of the same crimes that got them in prison in the first place.

Emotionally, one can only feel bad for those who have killed someone involuntarily (like when a child runs in front of your car and you cannot stop in time). I know of such a person and he will be still be in prison for the next 15 years. Is he a 'good' person? He was and still is, hopefully even after he's released. That's what judges ...

Yes I do feel that way, using both logic and emotion.
Logic dictates that criminals (those who premeditate murder esp) are just killers plain and simple. Many criminals who have 'repented' 'converted' or otherwise turned over a new leaf ended right back in prison or were guilty again of the same crimes that got them in prison in the first place.

Emotionally, one can only feel bad for those who have killed someone involuntarily (like when a child runs in front of your car and you cannot stop in time). I know of such a person and he will be still be in prison for the next 15 years. Is he a 'good' person? He was and still is, hopefully even after he's released. That's what judges are supposed to do- Judge based on the facts of the case. If the facts prove that you killed someone on purpose, then your life should be forfeit. Will it bring back the people that were killed? No. But it will prevent a killer from killing another innocent again, maybe someone you or I know and love.

Judicial punishment is traditionally based on five things: a deterrent to others, an expression of society's response to moral violation ('revenge'), removal of guilty from society (protection against further transgression), removal of liberty as a severe sanction to shock perpetrator into changing ways, rehabilitation and reform of criminal (as in 'reform school).
The emphasis or lack of emphasis on any factor (and there are others) is a reflection of the moral texture of a society. For instance, the death penalty is a powerful satisfaction for those who wish for revenge, and it is claimed that it acts as a deterrent to others, while it ignores any possibility that an individual can ch...

Judicial punishment is traditionally based on five things: a deterrent to others, an expression of society's response to moral violation ('revenge'), removal of guilty from society (protection against further transgression), removal of liberty as a severe sanction to shock perpetrator into changing ways, rehabilitation and reform of criminal (as in 'reform school).
The emphasis or lack of emphasis on any factor (and there are others) is a reflection of the moral texture of a society. For instance, the death penalty is a powerful satisfaction for those who wish for revenge, and it is claimed that it acts as a deterrent to others, while it ignores any possibility that an individual can change.
Personally, I believe that especially in the case of young people, often products of the badness they were born into, we should hold out every hope that they may 'reform'. I also believe that holding out for this is healthier for society in the long run than the instinct to annihilate evil with draconian methods. Some will agree with this, some won't. It is a huge area that has sparked intense debate at least since the time of the Ancient Greeks. It is a moral debate.

Thank you, abailart, for guiding the discussion back to its topic: life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for children and young teenagers.
I wonder how anybody can think of "revenge" the society executes, and of "satisfaction" it gets by denying children and young teenagers a "second chance". Instead, the society should punish itself, or better work on itself to guard against disastrous circumstances, in which youngsters can become murderers.

It seems to me that a certain religious ideology works in the mental background of many a proponent of judicial revenge: the dogma of the essential cursedness of human beings from birth on. I cannot imagine a more ...

Thank you, abailart, for guiding the discussion back to its topic: life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for children and young teenagers.
I wonder how anybody can think of "revenge" the society executes, and of "satisfaction" it gets by denying children and young teenagers a "second chance". Instead, the society should punish itself, or better work on itself to guard against disastrous circumstances, in which youngsters can become murderers.

It seems to me that a certain religious ideology works in the mental background of many a proponent of judicial revenge: the dogma of the essential cursedness of human beings from birth on. I cannot imagine a more desastrous ideology. It is blind to the fact of developmental psychology that a human being gains responsibility for their actions only little by little, by education-assisted and -guided development.

So is it logical to put all those who committed the act of murder while a juvenile away for life without the possibility of parole or do you think one should weigh the merits of each individual case with the facts and come to a conclusion?

I believe I answered that already. AGE has nothing to do with premeditated murder. If you plan to kill someone and do it, you are guilty. If you are proven guilty without a doubt you do the time. IF you accidentally kill someone and the facts state that you did not premeditate said murder than the facts should also speak for themselves. The killer should be sentenced according to the intent in the crime. If you read my clips, you ...

So is it logical to put all those who committed the act of murder while a juvenile away for life without the possibility of parole or do you think one should weigh the merits of each individual case with the facts and come to a conclusion?

I believe I answered that already. AGE has nothing to do with premeditated murder. If you plan to kill someone and do it, you are guilty. If you are proven guilty without a doubt you do the time. IF you accidentally kill someone and the facts state that you did not premeditate said murder than the facts should also speak for themselves. The killer should be sentenced according to the intent in the crime. If you read my clips, you would see I'm an advocate of BrainWave Finger Printing. It can exonerate innocents while proving the guilty without doubt. It has already been used in important court cases with great results.

The responsibility for whatever nonadults become and do, rests with their socio-psychological environment, and the society and its legal system cannot steal away from this educational principle by treating nonadults as if they were little adults or self-operating machines.

When a nonadult (as well as a mentally disabled person) violates the rights of other persons to a degree, because of which an adult would have to be sentenced to imprisonment, judiciary must inquire, whether and to what extent that nonadult's (psychological) parents, principal care givers, role models, attachment figures, briefly: their biographical background, are involved in that case and are to blame for its causatio...

The responsibility for whatever nonadults become and do, rests with their socio-psychological environment, and the society and its legal system cannot steal away from this educational principle by treating nonadults as if they were little adults or self-operating machines.

When a nonadult (as well as a mentally disabled person) violates the rights of other persons to a degree, because of which an adult would have to be sentenced to imprisonment, judiciary must inquire, whether and to what extent that nonadult's (psychological) parents, principal care givers, role models, attachment figures, briefly: their biographical background, are involved in that case and are to blame for its causation.

Maybe the US-American justice (at least the representatives of its framework) must learn that yet.