The Oxnard teen who shot a gay classmate he believed was flirting with him has agreed to spend the next 21 years in prison, a plea deal that ends a case that drew national attention and ignited debate on how schools should deal with openly gay students.
Brandon McInerney, who was 14 when he pulled a gun out of his backpack and shot Larry King twice in the head in 2008, has already served nearly four years in jail and would be released by the time he is 38, under terms of the deal.
Brandon McInerney’s crime was unforgivable. But I just don’t believe that two decades in prison for a crime committed when he was fourteen makes sense. It doesn’t bring Larry King back; it doesn’t act as a deterrent for the next 14 year old who might commit murder; it doesn’t bring justice. It doesn’t do anything but compound the tragedy.
If we want a just society, we can’t hold children as accountable as adults.
A brave perspective, Amp, but one I agree with. What do they think they’re going to create by jailing a boy at 14 until he’s 35? Is he ever going to be anything but a criminal? Is he likely to come out with a deeper respect for gay people?
When my father was killed, in 1981, it was determined that it was a neighbour’s negligence (neighbour of the house he was killed at, not his neighbour) that caused the accident. I was 15. I heard later (this was 3000 miles from home, in the pre-Internet days) that they were charging the man with manslaughter.
I wrote a letter to the man and his lawyer, and specifically said that they could use it in whatever way they wanted, in which I said that I didn’t believe any justice would be served by jailing this otherwise-clean-record-having man. It would only deprive another family of their father, and I sure as hell didn’t want that pain on any other kid’s back.
In the end, he pleaded guilty to negligent homicide, and was given a year’s suspended sentence. I’ve never regretted that choice for a minute.
We need to move out of retribution as a justice model, and into rehabilitation. It costs more in the short term, but is so, so much more valuable in the long. Yes, some can’t be rehabilitated, and we’ll just have to pay to keep them and us safe for the rest of their lives. But we have to recognize, at some point, that retributive justice only leads to more anger, more deprivation, and eventually more crime, and thus MORE cost, not less.
It has to stop somewhere.
What does make sense for a punishment? You say you don’t agree, but you don’t offer anything as an alternative.
It’s always been my belief that if someone is able to understand that death is permanent and that murder is sentencing someone to death, then whomever commits that crime should be tried as an adult. I’m always open to changing this opinion, but I’d need a good reason to do so.
I don’t think just sending people to jail works. I just don’t know what does. Rehabilitation? Will Brandon McInerney ever think that what he did was wrong? That his view of gay people is wrong?
What can we do to prevent the next killing? Can we prevent it?
“It doesn’t do anything but compound the tragedy.”
It might save the lives of 1+ gay men that McInerney would otherwise have met out in the general population. Admittedly, at the cost of increasing the risk to the lives of gay men in the prison. But a decreased risk to thousands and thousands of people is worth an increased risk to a few dozen, particularly if the few dozen are Bad Guys.
I do agree that jails and prisons are pretty useless, other than as an instrument of punishment. But if we decide that we want and/or need punishment, there are far more cost-effective ways to do so. Heinlein was right; jails should be rare and widely-scattered asylums for the non-insane but totally-antisocial who just can’t be allowed into the civil society, and the punitive function, if any, should be done quickly and efficiently with the lash or the modern equivalent.
The money saved (billions upon billions) can be used for rehabilitative services, parole, probation, etc. (Lots of criminals are simply people who weren’t quite functional on their own but who would do fine if provided with a little adult supervision.)
I do not think that there is a good solution in this particular case. For about 30 seconds I loved the “quick punishment followed by rehabilitative services” solution, but that would work only if combined with MUCH harsher penalties for repeat offenders… which would still mean repeat offenders, which would mean more victims.
If I were given absolute responsibility for deciding the fate of those who commit premeditated murders, I would kill them. No, I do not want the job of deciding. I would not want it for 1o millions per year. But if I had to decide, that’s the only thing I could do with a clear conscience.
In this particular case, the age is the only thing that stops me from saying ‘just kill him.’ I believe that he is dangerous, and not only to gay people. Four years ago, he prepared and executed a murder, and I don’t know that the last four years have done anything to make him a person that’s better at controlling himself. But, theoretically his brain is maturing, and once mature, he may not be a person who’s afraid of homosexuals. He may not be a person who can be driven to extremes by peer pressure. He may not be a person who views murder as a solution to a minor problem.
But I would not want to be the person who decides to let him out. In France, he would have been free on his 18th birthday, and no one but a few people would know his history. (No free speech, so his name would have not ended in the news at all, and people would have gone to jail for divulging it)
I honestly believe that the French way is theoretically more just. In general. But if I knew I had to have him moving in the same circles as me or my (theoretical) kids, I would wish he was safely underground instead.
You do know that this sentiment is exactly the sentiment most often used to make light of prison rape?
I believe in most if not all US jurisdictions the juvenile court can keep jurisdiction over a person who committed a crime while under 18 until the person is at least 21. In my quite unprogressive state the juvenile system can incarcerate a kid until 21. If you want the kid to serve time past the 21st birthday you would have to transfer to adult court but you could still give a “blended” sentence, for example the kid serves time in juvie prison until 21, then serves an adult sentence (which could be suspended on conditions of adult probation supervision).
It is in no way “theoretical” that a 14 year old’s brain is still maturing. It is a fact. I don’t know anyone who didn’t do something stupid at 14 or 17 or 21 for that matter. My husband is the most disciplined, responsible person I know and at age 19 or so he walked into a DMV, presented a friend’s birth certificate, and got a real state issued ID in someone else’s name with his picture. I guess before 9/11 maybe that wasn’t as serious of a crime as it is now, but still.
Kids should not be treated like adults because they’re not adults. No matter how mature they think they are, they just don’t think like adults.
“You do know that this sentiment is exactly the sentiment most often used to make light of prison rape?”
No it isn’t. Offhand, the most common sentiment in making light of prison rape is “ha ha, those guys are getting what they have coming to them”. Though I am sure there are others. Social policy often requires the balancing of competing harms; who should bear the risk of a reoffense from someone who has shown themself to be dangerous? Most people would prefer a small number of criminals to bear the risk rather than the larger group of non-criminals, and they aren’t rape apologists in thinking so.
(I should say “convicts” rather than “criminals” to be accurate, since there are some people in jail who aren’t criminals and plenty of people outside it who are.)
Committing murder isn’t “doing something stupid”. 14 year olds don’t think like adults, but they’re definitely old enough to understand the concepts of life and death. 14 year olds are not ten year olds – there’s a lot of ways in which they still need to mature, and they need to be brought up in a system that allows them to make mistakes and recover from them. But premeditated murder is not a mistake.
I’m really not sure a 14 year old who commits premeditated murder needs to be treated differently than a 22 year old who does the same. I’m also really not sure what the correct way to treat either of them would be. But whatever is wrong with a 21 year sentence in this set of circumstances (first offender, troubled past, hate motivated crime) is wrong regardless of the murderer’s age.
You did imply that they deserved it by stating “particularly if the few dozen are Bad Guys”, why else bring it up in addition to the number difference between a thousand and thousands on the outside and a dozen inside.
“Better them than us” != “they deserve it”.
I think that how the people within the system *think of* someone may be relevant. A 14 year old who has committed murder may be salvageable; a 44-year old who has committed his eighth murder is probably not salvageable, given the tools and powers available to the authorities. Both might be in prison (even the same prison) and have the same theoretical sentence, but the people dealing with them are going to have different agendas for the incarceration; “let’s try and get this kid on some kind of decent life track” vs. “let’s make sure this guy never hurts anyone again.”
Just poking in for a moment – hardly anyone serves their full sentence in CA. I wish I’d seen this before I’d had my last Criminal Procedure class last night, because I could have asked my teacher about the specifics (he’s a juvenile court justice.) It also doesn’t say what he pleaded to – I will be interested to see what the lawyers around here say.
It certainly is not all jurisdictions. In California, where this crime happened, prosecutors have unilateral power to move juvenile defendants into adult court. They do not need the juvenile court’s permission.
Our prison system is terribly flawed, I freely (and frequently) admit, but that’s not a reason to…I’m actually not sure what you’re proposing. Not send people into it? We desperately need prison reform but I don’t see that as directly connected to the guilt/severity of this crime.
As a queer person who has to live every day with the threat of this happening to me, I’m glad to see the authorities taking this hate crime seriously. It scares me deeply to hear that even fourteen-year-olds can be so filled with hate that they murder people like me for, basically, existing. I’m not nearly as worried for McInerney as I am for his future victims.
“it doesn’t act as a deterrent for the next 14 year old who might commit murder”
How do you know? I think it sets a very good example and may indeed possibly serve as a very strong deterrent.
Fear of consequences is a strong deterrent in life.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/nov/21/mcinerney-trial/
Supposedly, this plea deal removes any opportunity for those California sentencing discounts:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/nov/21/mcinerney-trial/
I am sure. But, then again, I remember what it was like to be 14 and I remember things that I wished to do that I would never wish to do as an adult. My understanding of death and consequences was much different at 22 than it was at 14.
It’s keeping the identity of a minor secret.
Also, not publishing the name of the not-yet-trial-convicted should be the norm, it’s not an affront to free speech to protect the reputation of the potentially-innocent until they are proven to be guilty (if this happens).
In this, I fully support France’s anonymity clauses.
Even for the guilty-of-crime, when not relevant (pedophile in daycare is very relevant, Hells Angels who got murder in a geriatric place is not relevant), they should not have to divulge to everyone in proximity, and employers, and people who house them, that they are criminals. It prevents reinsertion, and being poor and unable to work (because no one will hire you due to your record)…more likely to be a recidivist in thievery and the likes.
Funny that all sex offenders, regardless of what they got convicted of, are suspected of pedophilia. 35 yo male raped 35 yo girlfriend…I must protect my 6 yo daughter from him…does not compute.
Note that we don’t have a public registry of sex offenders here. It’s private.
These are the tough ones. I really don’t support the death penalty. As far as rehabilitation vs. punishment goes, some people can be rehabbed and some cannot. I figure that it’s pretty hard to make that decision up front. You offer rehabilitation and see a) who wants to be rehabbed ( you can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped) and b) who of that group actually gets rehabilitated. The latter group – much smaller than “all prisoners”, for sure – gets a shot at the outside, eventually.
Prison isn’t for the benefit of the prisoners. It’s for the benefit of society. Rehab is a worthy goal, but we have to protect the non-criminal public first.
I’m also of a mind that there’s nothing wrong with the objective of punishment for punishment’s sake. The threat of punishment does deter crime to a certain extent. And when you commit a crime you have incurred a debt to society that punishment can expiate. I also think that we need to be WAY more diverse in our punishments. In some cases I’d say bring back the chain gangs and labor camps. Sure, they can and have been abused. So has locking people up in prisons. That doesn’t mean we can’t do it, it just means we should see if we can control it better.
Perhaps we should also consider having non-violent criminals directly compensate their victims, but with labor, not money. Vandalize a neighbor’s property or steal their car? Sentence them to mowing their victim’s lawn, repaving their driveway, painting their house, washing their car, etc. Public humiliation is underutilized these days. People, especially juveniles, tend to be pretty self-centered these days and have a little too much self-esteem. Getting knocked down a few pegs publicly might be just the thing to teach them humility. It also would gratify the public who would see the justice system in action.
Sylvia, while you are entitled to your own opinion, it appears the concept that this was a “hate crime” was difficult to support among the people most familiar with the crime:
I did lots of stupid shit before I was 21. Stole some stuff (nothing real $$, minor property, but still not mine). Took risks that should have killed me and a couple other people in the bargain. Did things and said things to people I never should have. Good Lord, I was so stupid that once I even voted a Democratic straight ticket!
More directly on topic: earlier today a young NIU student got gunned down by someone he didn’t know who got into an argument a party. I’m guessing it’s someone whose ego was so inflated that he felt justified in killing someone who said something he deemed insulting. The mother granted a brief interview to a local news cast. Her reaction to the offender being caught was that she really didn’t care what they did to him. Regardless of whether they got 1 day in jail or 1 week or 100 years, her son was gone and never coming back. Even if you hang this kid, the person he killed is still dead.
Whatever you do to this 14-year old killer, it won’t bring his victim back. So what needs to be done to him? Punishment? Retribution? Rehabilitation? What of those (and they’re not all mutually exclusive) best serves society’s needs?
BTW – how is it that I’ve seen no comment on here about Anne McCaffrey’s death?
Jake Squid says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:54 pm
I’m really not sure a 14 year old who commits premeditated murder needs to be treated differently than a 22 year old who does the same.
I am sure. But, then again, I remember what it was like to be 14 and I remember things that I wished to do that I would never wish to do as an adult. My understanding of death and consequences was much different at 22 than it was at 14.
—
I remember being 14 too and the thought of planning a murder and carrying it out never entered my head.
I mean, is this kid even remorseful? Do we have a Michael Myers on our hands here?
There certainly are cases of teenagers who commit murder, even calculated, cold-blooded murders, and go on to lead productive lives with never another hint of antisocial behavior (Anne Perry, for example). Murder appears to be easier for teenagers and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the individual in question is going to keep on committing murders, which suggests that putting them in a situation where antisocial behavior seems more normal (prison) is counterproductive.
Murder appears to be easier for teenagers
Appears to whom? Is there any objective data behind this claim, or is it your opinion?
[teenage murder] doesn’t necessarily indicate that the individual in question is going to keep on committing murders
This is entirely true; but it’s also true of many adult murderers, premeditated or not.
I am very much in favour of a categorical distinction between children and adults when it comes to protecting them from the actions of others. I am not, however, in favour of extending a categorical protection to children when it comes to shielding them from the consequences of their own actions. A 14 year old should be afforded a whole lot more protection than a 24 year old, yes, but they are old enough to understand that there’s a line that must never be crossed, and that murdering someone crosses that line.
In general, I think long sentences like this one are more appropriate only for repeat offenders. I’d like the justice system to change so it’s better for everyone. But I don’t believe that – in the case of premeditated murder – a 14 year old should be treated differently than a 24 year old.
Should 14 year olds be permitted to vote? Should they be allowed to drive? Should the drinking age be lowered to 14? I’m just trying to get a sense of whether you think a 14 year old is an adult or if you just think that crime, murder in particular, is a facet of the brain that matures earlier than others.
(OT) Ron–I’m not sure anyone who writes here was particularly invested in her as a writer… I liked her books a lot when I was in elementary school; I was sad when I tried to reread them in college and they were… not good. I think also no one’s surprised the way that we have been when some other prominent writers have died recently.
I don’t think that 14 year olds are adults. I also don’t think one needs to be fully mature to not plan and execute a murder.
If this was manslaughter, or second degree murder, I’d be arguing differently. 14 year olds are not necessarily mature enough to think of the safety of their actions, or to not let their emotions overwhelm them. But they – as a general rule – mature enough to understand what deliberately deciding and setting out to murder someone means.
People here are speaking of the child/adult distinction as if it’s binary. But it’s not. Maturation is a gradual process. An average 8 year old would simply not understand the concept of murder. But the average 14 year old is mature enough for that.
Now, you may well argue that the average 14 year old is, but that the ones who commit murders aren’t the average ones. And I’d agree with you. Brandon McInerney clearly had a tragic upbringing, if even some of the reports are true. It may well have warped his maturation process. But the thing is, the same is true of a lot of 19, 25, and 67 year old murderers.
I definitely do think that the justice system should apply more care with children. I do not actually with the concept of “try as an adult”, because that returns to the binary notion. I think 14 year olds should be tried as 14 year olds. Which means not a trial by jury – since a jury made of 18+ year olds is not a jury of their peers – but a trial by specialist judges that have the training to deal with teenagers and access to experts who may help determine the true level of maturity of the defendent. But I believe that the penalties that such a judge would be able to sentence in the case of premeditated murder should include the same penalties that an adult who committed a similar murder.
Current science does not agree with your position, Eytan.
You can easily find a lot of studies that find this to be true.
I think you misstate the connection between emotion and planning. Inability to control emotions doesn’t mean that a planned killing isn’t subject to that lack of control.
I am familiar with these studies; but I believe you are misinterpreting them. First, you seem to be maintaining binary thinking, while the neurophysiological data is clearly continuous. “Less mature” does not mean “not mature”, and “the reasoning/control area of an adolescent brain is still maturing” does not mean “inability to control emotions”. A 14 year old boy is usually not fully developed as far as their muscle growth, but that doesn’t mean they are incapable of using the muscles they have.
There are definitely things that adolescents cannot do as well as adults. Risk assessment is one of them. This is almost certainly tied to their immature prefrontal cortex. But the reason not to murder people is not that murdering people is risky. Maybe more relevantly, there have been studies that show that teenagers may interpret emotional responses of others differently, confusing fear with anger. But it is a long stretch from that to concluding that teenagers are not capable of understanding the concept of murder.
I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, that 14 year olds need to be treated as adults. Teenager’s emotional responses, and emotional control, are far cruder that adults. They are not capable of the same level of subtlety, or forward thinking, or balancing risk and reward. But “don’t murder” isn’t a subtlety. It does not require a lot of forward thinking. And the reason not to murder people has nothing to do with the riskiness of murdering.
Now, someone may quite validly say – as people have above – that the punishment is an ineffective deterrent for teenagers, because being put in jail for 21 years is the type of risk they are very bad at assessing. And I concur. But it’s been shown again and again that jail sentences are a pretty lousy deterrent for adults, as well. I don’t know what good putting someone in jail for 21 years does. I am not arguing that Brandon McInerney’s sentence was a good thing. I am arguing that the fact he was 14 at the time of the crime shouldn’t be taken to be one of the more important factors about what’s wrong about the sentence.
I’ve read in a science journal that the brain is not fully developed until around the age of 25.
Anyway, there was a time when 14 year olds were taking on adult responsibilities, working, even getting married. And in some cultures its still like this.
Meanwhile here we seem to want to extend adolesence into our 20s and even 30s.
I say, commit an adult crime, pay the adult price.
If 2 14 year olds have sex with condoms nature is not going to say, “oh geez, they’re young, I won’t make them pregnant or won’t pass on herpes”.
People who behave in an adult manner need to be aware of the consequences, becaues in they will face them.
I meant withOUT condoms ^^^^
Let’s get the hate crime matter out of the way for a minute here. It’s fogging up the issue.
Here we have a 14 year old boy who pulls a gun out of his backpack and shoots another human being in the head. For whatever reason, who cares. (People who are capable of such behavior usually do not confine their efforts to any one class of victims. And even if he did, who cares about that? He deliberately shot one of his classmates in the head. That’s the important fact here, not what passes for his “motivations.”)
This is pretty serious, and this kid is pretty seriously off the norm. Furthermore, he is a manifest danger to the community. Having demonstrated that he is capable of doing this once, what’s to keep me from concluding that he’s capable of doing it again if he is not restrained? Would I want my own 14 year old in school with this guy? Do I want to interact with him on the street, in the supermarket checkout line? (No.)
So if we don’t lock him up, what do we do with him? Not execute him, I take it. Surely we do not release him back into the community! Our demonstrated ability to rehabilitate criminals is about zero.
I’m concerned over his rights, but the other kids he goes to school with have rights too, beginning with the right not to be shot in the head.