>If that is the case, then anyone who commits a crime and is not remorseful and empathetic to their victim at the time of the crime can never be rehabilitied and released from prison, ever.

Depends on the crime. On the more minor crimes like theft etc, if the person can be taught that the cost is greater than the benefit, they can be released with at least the hope that they will not commit the crime again.

A murderer is someone who lacks a proper moral compass and no, he should not be released (except maybe in very exceptional circumstances). The sentence should be life period. If after 25 years it is sufficiently clear (and I don't mean by some parole panel that just wants to clear out the cell) then maybe, but the sentence should not make that assumption 25 years ahead of time.

>A possibility, but I'm not sure I agree. I think teens often know right and wrong and death and life and other concepts. However, I'm not really sure they totally comprehend death, cancer, and other life altering (ending) things at that age. The idea of 'death' and what it means and also its effect on family members is not so fully understood at that age. It is more just a 'concept' or idea than a reality they can imagine. I don't think they can fathom 5, 10, or 20 years of life without someone or even their life 5 years down the road.

I think it depends very much on how the child is raised. If a child is raised not to feel the pain of others, then that's how the kid will be, and as I said, it's not something I think the person will learn from sleeping on the iron beds for a few years.

When I was a kid, I was taught from before I can really remember. I only fought when given no other choice, and I didn't even knowingly step on bugs (still don't). I can't imaging hurting another living creature unless my survival depended on it.

As I said before though, I do eat meat, but I couldn't possibly kill the beast myself.

>
>
>>The trouble is that I'm not convinced that anyone who hasn't evolved the inner workings of empathy by the time he is 17, ever will. I don't see it as something you wake up to discover one day. It's ingrained or it isn't.
>>
>>>I agree that teens know right from wrong. What I don't think they truly grasp yet with full understanding and empathy is the enormity of their actions and the consequences.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds like a bit of an oxymoron - not particularly heinous, but still a murder. I can't think of too many things more heinous than murder. Here is a guy who was enjoying his life, giving enjoyment to others, and just having a good time. Now he is simply gone - poof. To me that is heinous. In fact, I'd say that taking the life of someone in his own home in the persuit of money is about as heinous as it gets. We can always draw lines - 18 years old, 20 years old, wherever, but for me it should be at that point where society believes that a person can understand the consequences of his actions and understands the difference between right and wrong. 17 is old enough. Heck 13 or 14 is old enough for that. Sure at say 13 years old a person might not think through his choices as well as he could or should, but at 17? For me 17 is plenty old enough.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately we've allowed a sort of lethargy to creep into the justice system. The kid does a subconscious cost benefit analysis and decides that because of his age, the benefit if he gets away far outweighs the cost if he's caught. At some point the legal system has to get off its collective butt and make it clear that age is not a factor in that analysis, and that the cost if caught outweighs the benefit of getting away enough to force the 'proper' choice. That is, without resorting to killing (imho). Ultimately, in a court of law, there should always be at least some leeway for the judge to act on a case by case basis. But the laws themselves should be simple and clear and not obfuscated by peripheral nonessentials such as age, status, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, pet names, etc.
>>>>
>>>>>I agree to an extent. I don't see this as a particularly heinous crime, but it is still a murder. Also, I think that at age 18 and over - full prosecution under the law but not the death penalty. 15-17 years old, not necessarily so. In that case, I would hope the 15-16 year old would go to a detention facilty for youth and attend schooling and then to prison for 15 years or so with no early release. For the 17 year old, I think 25-30 years without parole (no early release) is more appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm fascinated how bloodthirsty everyone here is for a _17-year-old_. I see this as a horrible tragedy for all concerned. Sean Taylor is dead, and four young men has essentially ended their lives. What a horrible loss of potential.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The horrible loss of potential occured solely because of the actions of Eric Rivera (and whatever direct role the others played in it).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And you don't see a horrible loss of potential in four young men who had bad (terrificly bad) choices?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Any time I see a story about a kid committing a crime, I see an additional tragedy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When four kids are breaking into houses with guns, they don't have much potential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By the time it gets to that point, they've certainly squandered a lot, but don't you wonder at all about what came before? How did they get to the point of breaking into houses with guns? What went wrong?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hate to say I agree with Mike on something <g>, but in this case... The fact that these kids squandered their potential is on their heads. When you take up a gun and break into somebody's house, it's hard for me to see that as merely a 'bad decision'. That's just flat out evil. And now a decent man is dead, and for what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm still opposed to the death penalty, but it's no good hugging these guys and telling them everything will be ok. Everything will not be ok. The guy is dead, and he will very likely stay dead for a long time if the past is any indicator. My take on murderers is that when the guy comes back to life, they should be let out of prison. The fact that the murderer is 17 or 18 years old is not relevant to me. If he were 4 years old, then ok, but at 17, he knows right from wrong and he deliberately and willfully chose to do wrong. He also knew the consequences of his choice and apparently didn't care. He probably figured that whatever happened, he'd be ok because of his age.