1. First, describe the main arguments/opinions of people on BOTH sides of this debate, as presented in “Second Chance Kids.”
2. Second, drawing on specifics presented in the “Second Chance Kids,” as well as your own opinion on this matter (and “When Kids Get Life,” and/or other relevant sources you find), explain which side of the debate you agree with more AND why. Under what conditions (if any) do you think it is appropriate to sentence a juvenile to life in prison? In answering this question, be sure to touch on the reasons for the Supreme Court’s recent trend of denying the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for juveniles.
3. Third, in the Frontline episode “When Kids Get Life” (2007), Professor Jeffrey Fagan states:
We know what the families of the victims of their crimes feel, as well. And so we can try and weigh the loss of families, which is quite horrible, against the level of punishment, or the severity of the punishment of juveniles, and make a decision societally about whether we are achieving the goals of justice, retribution, or any other component of punishment, relative to what this punishment really is like when it’s experienced.
What is your view of Professor Fagan’s statement, overall? Do you think life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of homicide achieve the goal of “justice”? What about the punishment goals of general deterrence, specific deterrence, and/or incapacitation? Why or why not? Be sure to draw on Agnew & Brezina (2018, Chapter 23)
