What does society owe the child they have failed to protect?

What prompts me to ask this question? The Supreme Court is currently considering the cases of two youthful offenders who have received life sentences for crimes that did not rise to the level of homicide.

One of these children, a 16-year old, was convicted of armed burglary, and the facts of the case are vicious and violent. The other was convicted of raping a woman when he was 13.

The issue before the court is whether the age of the individuals involved mandates against life imprisonment as “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Much of the debate on this subject revolves around how our brains function and develop. On one side are those who cite recent studies that have shown that the brain functioning of individuals under the age of 23 is different from a mature functioning brain. Specifically, the “younger” brain is subject to less restraint and is more susceptible to peer pressure. These who agree with this evidence believe that some younger offenders are able to shed all the behavior patterns associated with criminality once they mature.

Those on the other side respond that while this change can and does happen, studies also show that there tends to be a hardcore level of criminality that seems unlikely to change. Once this core criminality has been demonstrated by certain levels of cruelty and continued dangerous behavior, the public needs to act to protect itself.

I have found in my experience that certain levels of cruelty very frequently occur in individuals who have been the victim of years of ongoing abuse. This may include mental, physical, or sexual abuse, and all too often a parent who has taught the child before the court to steal, sell drugs, or to act antisocially. For this reason it is not at all unusual for a criminal defense attorney to inform the court at sentencing of the terrible childhood that a youthful offender has been subjected to. I also have heard many prosecutorial arguments about why this background cannot be used as an excuse for violent, repeat criminality.

This brings me back to my original question: What does society owe the child that they have failed to protect?

If the school system has not identified the abuse and child protective agencies have not protected the child, or if the other parent has not stepped in, then does society have a degree of culpability in later criminal behavior? Can we get indignant on behalf of the victim of the rape committed by the 13 year old, but not indignant about the crimes that 13 year old has endured? What would we do if one of the victims of a heinous crime survived to go on to behave in completely antisocial ways? Cruelty begets cruelty. Perhaps it is time that we sought more effective means of bringing about societal change than to give up on the very young.— Ann Renaud