Last night I belatedly caught Helen Prejean’s interview with MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow. Helen Prejean is the nun who wrote the book “Dead Man Walking,” chronicling her experience with a condemned killer, and one of the most forceful opponents to capital punishment.
Part of what she said really struck me, about “once you get people to be able to identify that the human being who did that outrageous act is more than that one act in their life.”
The quote struck me as I recalled the arguments presented against the parole of Chris Fowler, who brutally murdered a helpless baby 30 years ago. And the quote strikes me as our society ponders what to do with 16-year-old Daniel Marsh for his alleged brutal slaying of two respected Davis residents.
One thing that continues to trouble me is that, despite the age of Mr. Marsh, 15 at the time of his alleged act, Mr. Marsh is being tried as an adult and facing the maximum penalty which could be 50 years to life.
Now the US Supreme Court has struck down the death penalty for minors and, this year, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that prohibits the sentence of life without parole for minors.
Under Senate Bill 9, courts could review cases of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after 15 years, potentially allowing some individuals to receive a new minimum sentence of 25 years to life. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Leland Yee, said that “the bill would require the offender to show remorse and be working towards rehabilitation in order to submit a petition for consideration of the new sentence.”
More important than the specifics of the law, however, is the principle. As Senator Yee, himself a child psychologist, said, “The neuroscience is clear – brain maturation continues well through adolescence and thus impulse control, planning, and critical thinking skills are not yet fully developed. SB 9 reflects that science and provides the opportunity for compassion and rehabilitation that we should exercise with minors.”
“In California, a sentence of life without parole is a sentence to die in prison,” said Elizabeth Calvin, children’s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. “Teenagers are still developing. No one – not a judge, a psychologist, or a doctor – can look at a sixteen year old and be sure how that young person will turn out as an adult. It makes sense to re-examine these cases when the individual has grown up and becomes an adult. There’s no question that we can keep the public safe without locking youth up forever for crimes committed when they were still considered too young to have the judgment to vote or drive.”
If Mr Marsh did what he is accused of doing, it is clear from media accounts and conversations with people that know him that he is a troubled kid, bullied in school and suffering perhaps from some form of mental illness or depression. None of this is intended to minimize, rationalize or justify the brutal act that he is accused of doing.
But will he always be that troubled youth, that dangerous person? Will his life always be defined by the unspeakable act he committed at age 15, a mere child?
Should we effectively throw him in jail for the rest of his life and throw away the key, which is essentially what a 50 year to life sentence would do?
Or is there another way?
Clearly, the first step on his journey will be to get his mind in the right place. He will require years of counseling, treatment and therapy to overcome what afflictions he currently suffers.
But is that the sum total of what we as a society can do for this young man, whom we may well have failed?
One of the interesting juxtapositions in this case is that Oliver Northup was a defense attorney and not just a defense attorney – he was the defender of those for whom the state sought the death penalty.
Among the intriguing possibilities is the likelihood that Mr. Northup probably was a critic of youth sentencing policies and would probably oppose the notion of a 50 year to life sentence for this youth.
While we do not have access at present to writing that might suggest this, I found his daughter’s comments to the press rather telling.
She said, “I thought, ‘It’s a 16-year-old. It’s a kid. Why would a kid want to kill an 87-year-old father? My father would be the first to jump up to defend that kid.’ “
She said. “I’m sorry we’ve suffered for his poor judgment. But I’m also sorry for this young man who has ruined his life.”
Ms. Northup told the Enterprise, “My dad would say, ‘At 16, they should know better, but they can’t think clearly… If this person did it, they need to make compensation, or get better if this is someone who needs mental health help.
“But I’m not into revenge, and I don’t think my father would be into revenge,” she added.
The problem with our sentencing laws is that they are based on politics, not science.
The science increasingly, as shown in the comment by Senator Yee, shows that juvenile brains are not fully developed.
I recall a conference call I did last year with the Sentencing Project. Particularly on point here was the point by a federal prosecutor and law professor, Marc Osler.
He also argues that the science that is emerging suggests that we need to continue to look at juveniles differentially from adults. Science has shown that the brain of teenagers is still unformed.
“[The teenage brain] essentially is different from what adult brains are,” he continued. “Essentially that means if we’re making a judgment about a 14-year-old… we’re not looking at the same brain that’s going to emerge later.”
But in most ways, sentencing teens as though they were adults ignores many of these critical distinctions. Add in the trauma of a difficult childhood, likely depression and possible other mental illness, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Many on here took my comment about Mr. Marsh’s parents’ bitter divorce perhaps too literally. The point here is not that divorce is likely to lead to murder, but rather that a series of traumatic events combined with individual level traits can become contributing factors.
While I completely a agree that we cannot infer from traits to behavior in any direct manner, we can backtrack to look at this as contributing factors.
In the end, I think we have this almost anti-romanticism of the serial killer and this notion that most killers possess these anti-social, amoral traits. In reality, most killers are not sociopaths suffering from anti-social disorders, they simply are people who committed horrible and unspeakable acts under a wide variety of different circumstances.
I hold out hope that eventually we be able to, in addition to the treatment and counseling that must occur, find ways, through processes like victim-offender mediation and restorative justice, for those who have wronged society and other individuals to work toward redemption and, in so doing, help to produce a better model for justice.
We are not there yet and this young man, if this were indeed his act, has a long journey to get to that place.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I hold out hope that eventually we be able to in addition to the treatment and counseling that must occur, find ways through processes like victim-offender mediation and restorative justice, to find other ways that those who have wronged society and other individuals can work toward redemption and in so doing helping to produce a better model for justice.”
Well said. I believe that we can “look backwards” at the setting of Holmes Jr. High School. This is only one aspect of the history, but it is one we can improve. One of Mr.Marsh’s friends stated he liked school, but he hated getting bullied and hated going to that campus. An assertiveness class (taught by high school aged kids)and an anger management class could have helped him. Also, yoga should be an allowed P.E. choice. (Maybe it is, now? I don’t know.) Assertiveness training is crucial to help kids resist peer pressure. Sometimes the peer pressure is to not stand up to bullies, especially the popular ones, because your social life could be ruined throughout junior high and high school, if one goes against the bullies. Students see their own parents participating in social gatherings, having friends. Students crave acceptance, love, a sense of belonging. When a teenager is bullied, they don’t get that sense of belonging.
How many sleepless nights did Mr. Marsh endure, knowing he had to go to Holmes Jr. High the next day and face the bullies again? How did that lack of REM sleep affect him? How many teachers or licensed therapists were present on the campus during lunchtime, to prevent at least some of the bullying?
My son had several excellent teachers at Holmes. Bless you, Mr. O’Brien. You allowed kids to sit in your classroom and listen to music during lunchtime. That really helped the seventh graders get used to their new setting, and they felt safer in there. You seemed to understand how scary the transition to junior high can be. Thank you.
It really does take a village to raise a child. We can all do something to help our children become caring, useful adults.
What is your talent? What can you do to help our kids?
[quote] “once you get people to be able to identify that the human being who did that outrageous act is more than that one act in their life.”[/quote]
This is well said and so is your final paragraph. Until we can see that many prisoners, if treated humanely, can be rehabilitated and deserve the chance to become productive members of society.
Sometimes the penal system is there to protect the public from dangerous individuals. Given the brutality of the case I would say this is one of those times.
I don’t dispute that Mr. Obvious, where I think we differ is how long and how we determine how long society needs protection from an indvidual. Will this individual be the same threat at 35 that he was at 15. Maybe? But shouldn’t that be something that should depend on who he is in twenty years rather than some predetermined one-size-fits all and overly political determination?
“Many on here took my comment about Mr. Marsh’s parents’ bitter divorce perhaps too literally. The point here is….”
Or, we took you at your clean written word. You said that the public record (which told of the child’s quick, smart actions) “also suggests trouble” referring specifically to the parents’s divorce. When questioned about this supposedly troublesome indicator, you justified it by evaluating the divorce as messy and contentious.
The Vanguard also was quick to criticize the community for its lack of mental health services. (“What we sow so shall we reap.”).
What we’ve read since suggests that this youngster was the object of caring concern of his family and friends, that he got the best educational attention that our school district offers and responded well to its programs and that he was the subject of timely, quality evaluation and treatment.
So, the collective community guilt seems limited to the fairly universal (but admittedly painful) teen bullying practices.
What it all comes down to is that it’s impossible to identify and weed out or treat potential killers without profiling most of the population into some mysterious program.
Ironically, the fact that the rush to blame parents and the.community turns out to have little merit simply adds support to today’s Vanguard premise about how to deal with those who do such horrible things.
A justice system that treats child offenders as the children that they are should be our objective. For adults, death sentences should. be eliminated and life and long sentences should be subject to carefully reconsideration.
Good article David! It is sad that the mental health of the defendant is a major issue in this tragic case. Where does all of the tax money collected by the State through the Mental Health Services Tax (Line 62 of CA Form 540A, among others) go? Is it being siphoned off to fund other, more “important” areas of the State budget? Just asking.
“What we’ve read since suggests that this youngster was the object of caring concern of his family and friends, that he got the best educational attention that our school district offers and responded well to its programs and that he was the subject of timely, quality evaluation and treatment. “
That’s the view that was told to the paper, but not what I’ve heard from kids and people who knew him.
There are a lot of people among us feeling that they are not cared for. They might be bullied. They might be attention-starved children of divorced parents. They might just be afflicted with a bounty of insecurities and corresponding needs that exceed all but the most attentive and empathetic care-giver.
Empathy for this is fine. But it should stop when that needy person is found to have committed a heinous act that materially harms another. The reason that it should stop it to set a line of demarcation… a line of zero tolerance. There are simply behaviors, acts and mistakes that society cannot tolerate and should not assess circumstantial justification to.
There are a number of reasons to stick to our guns on this. I think one the biggest reasons is that people psychologically and emotional sick from the lack of needs being fulfilled, may be motivated to act out in heinous ways just to get attention. We need to make sure that attention is not attractive in any way shape or form.
Said another way, I think we can and should separate our empathy for circumstances from our response to acts perpetrated. Once you cross the line, the type of care you should get should not be seen as positive in any way, shape or form. I don’t care that your frontal lobe is still developing.
Yes, the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25, but a person’s conscience is fully developed at a much younger age. Please read about reactive attachment disorder. It is not something that responds to therapy. Again, I am not speaking about this person specifically because he is accused but not guilty yet. Educate yourselves about the causes and prognosis for reactive attachment disorder. I have worked with these kids and it is grim.
Frankly: Why can we not have both empathy and appropriate levels of punishment for bad crimes? I guess I don’t understand why you see these traits in some sort of conflict?
Davis Mom: I appreciate your point. My thinking is informed by this piece I wrote earlier this year link ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6035:meeting-face-to-face-with-daughters-killer&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100[/url]). I would prefer science based approaches drive our decisions and if it turns out the person is unreasonable, then we act appropriately.
[i]Why can we not have both empathy and appropriate levels of punishment for bad crimes?[/i]
I think we can and should have empathy for a criminal’s circumstances, but not let this manifest into any assessment of fairness for a level of punishment. At a very early age ALL people need to understand there is a line that cannot be crossed causing material harm to another. By crossing that line a person enters a new domain of existence where society no longer concerns itself with striving to fulfill his needs. We can have empathy for the tragedy resulting from the mistakes and bad behaviors, and sympathy for the circumstances that might have contributed to the motives for the mistakes and bad behaviors, but from the point of conviction we should not conflate these things with the delivery of punishment.
Frankly: “The reason that it should stop it to set a line of demarcation… a line of zero tolerance.”
Understood, but who decides which acts deserve zero tolerance? Driving DUI, causing vehicular manslaughter because one is texting, looking at a GPS, etc. Those acts may cause some to draw the line.Others may say the act of murdering two senior citizens.Beating a three year old to death- other people make that the line. Molesting a child- that could also be the line. Who decides.
It’s enlightening that the Enterprise article mentions his use of cannabis, but doesn’t mention alcohol. He probably experimented with both. Many non-violent teens do. Again, the Enterprise was not being objective.
“At a very early age ALL people need to understand there is a line that cannot be crossed….”
This, of course, is the problem since it’s been established that this is not physically and intellectually possible until a a later age than than we’d like.
Because of this, we now conclude that they shouldn’t be held responsible and punished in the same way as a fully functioning adult.
Yet, we ignore that generally accepted concept in this case and in many others. We treat these random cases as though the child is an adult–not because case-by-case evaluation suggests they’re mature, but because the act is incomprehensively outrageous.
Good thing the Supreme Court decided we really shouldn’t be killing our children who are found guilty of such acts. This decision had the additional benefit of keeping us from murdering those who actually are innocent.
[i]Who decides[/i]
JimmysDaughter, I don’t have any problem with sentencing nuance applied with respect to demonstrated behaviors. For example, if some guy lacking any priors drives with a .08% and kills someone in a crash, and guy number two has four DUIs, has done jail time for it, and does similar harm driving with a .08% blood alcohol level, then I support guy#2 getting a harsher penalty. But I would NOT support guy#2 getting leniency because he was abused as a child, or because he was bullied in school. I would also not support guy #1 getting any harsher penalty because he had a perfect upbringing and should have known better.
I comes down to demonstrated behavior versus passive circumstances. I think you can demonstrate behavior that can and should be used to help mitigate the severity of punishment for mistakes made, but passive circumstances should not be a consideration.
Just because someone is wealthy and comes from a good family should not be a mitigating circumstance. Just because someone comes from a broken home and has been bullied should not be a mitigating circumstance. We need to draw the line at behavior. We should reward and punish behavior based on merit and/or law. Circumstances are the same as luck. And luck is luck. We have no choice as humans but to accept the luck we are fortunate or unfortunate to be provided and then make the best of it.
If we attempt to net out criminal, or even social, justice based on some calculation of deservedness based on a persons passive circumstances, we will encourage more unwanted behavior that causes real material harm.
Frankly, I really question whether you understand the argument being put forth here. It is not that upbringing matters in terms of the penalty, but what matters is the ability for the individual to serve an appropriate period of time and then no longer pose a considerable risk to the community. And factors in that are the extent to which his crime is due to mutable rather than immutable factors. And what I’m arguing here is that assessment should be done through careful evidence based and scientific approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that was done less based on evidence and science and more based on someone political calculations
[i]This, of course, is the problem since it’s been established that this is not physically and intellectually possible until a a later age than than we’d like.[/i]
JS, I’m not sure what you are basing this on. While I agree that better judgment tends to develop as the flood of adolescent hormones subsides, and because of this young people will tend to make more mistakes that inadvertently harm people than will older people, I think we are talking about fundamental morality here.
Those that believe religion should play a bigger role in society, especially Christianity and Judaism, would say that the moral lessons contained would cover about all we would need as a society for drawing the line for causing material harm to others. Those that reject the need for religion-based morality in society say that there is a form of natural morality present from a Darwinist viewpoint. And they simply look to our judicial process as the governor for administering a morality contained within out laws. Despite which you believe, it is clear to me that we should be able to draw a line and teach people they cannot go over it without suffering the full extent of punishment for their actions.
Let’s use the rape of the 11 year-old girl by two boys 14 and 15. Do you really want to make the case that a 14-year old and 15-year old boy did not know that rape was/is wrong and that they did not know they were seriously and materially harming the victim by raping her?
I think these two boys knew exactly the gravity of their actions, but also knew that there would be probable empathy for them because of their age and their passive circumstances. That is the slippery slope when moral relativism and liberal social justice is applied to criminals. It gives some incremental license to these unwanted behaviors that result in material harm. It also inspires some criminal acting-out for attention motivated by demonstrated evidence that some empathy and sympathy will be delivered. That is exactly the wrong type of attention we should provide.
“Let’s use the rape of the 11 year-old girl by two boys 14 and 15. Do you really want to make the case that a 14-year old and 15-year old boy did not know that rape was/is wrong and that they did not know they were seriously and materially harming the victim by raping her?”
My understanding is that these were kids who were sexually abused at very young ages, shouldn’t we be basing out assessment about what science teaches us about the sexual behavior of young children rather than your supposition which seem rooted more in your own prejudices than any sort of evidence based approaches?
[i]My understanding is that these were kids who were sexually abused at very young ages, shouldn’t we be basing out assessment about what science teaches us about the sexual behavior of young children rather than your supposition which seem rooted more in your own prejudices than any sort of evidence based approaches? [/i]
This is a perfect illustration of my point.
What happened to you before should be no excuse for your actions harming another.
If were to not mince words and tell you what I really think.
I don’t give a shit that a person’s childhood sucked at the point I discovered that he acted out and hurt someone knowing it was wrong. This tendency to legislate fairness in punishment for serious crimes based on the passive circumstances of individuals is severely wrong-headed and detrimental to the victim, to future victims and to those that otherwise might be encouraged to look for other outlets for their frustration of not receiving enough genuine care and love.
By the way. With respect to bullying of a kid. I blame the crappy education system.
Case in point… If an employee in my company bullies another, the bullying employee, the company and me personally as the manger, could be held liable and fined and/or sured for damages and restitution for the victim of the bullying. It is called “hostile work environment”.
So, why would we not expect the same liability for teachers, the schools and the principles for failing to prevent a student from being harmed from a hostile school environment?
“My understanding is that these were kids who were sexually abused at very young ages….”
David, where do you keep coming up with this kind of add-on bs, stuff that either is unsubstantiated rumor or/and information of such a confidential nature in the system that whoever gave it to you should be highly suspect (and old enough to be charged and prosecuted!).
The basic point is that kids aren’t ready to be treated as adults for their crimes whether or not they’ve been sexually abused. Why complicate it? Now, Frankly wants to see some research about children’s capabilities to be trained not to do bad things. Got anything handy?
P.S.–I’m still agonizing over your earlier disregard of other media reports that suggested your initial reactions might have been mistaken.
Where? I have talked to a lot of people. Why are you agonizing over it? I got information that differed from other accounts, I trust my sources.
Quick question for Mr. Frankly – do you have kids?
Yes I have kids. Two boys. Young men now. Why?
David–I’m also glad to see the Supreme Court has forbidden the use of the death penalty for minors; they have a good chance of growing out of their pathologies–don’t think anyone on this forum supports it for minors!
The comment by Davis Mom about about reactive attachment disorder is sobering and sad to contemplate; I would guess that some percentage of children whose parents are emotionally and/or legally divorced (during their early childhood) may suffer in part from this; presumably a higher percentage of those children in foster care facilities; such as Families First in Davis?
Hopefully we’ll find out more on motive, but my first thought is similar to that of Mr. Northup’s daughter. There’s something wrong here, that a 16-year old with no apparent record of violence or emotional disturbance (that we’re aware of) would do such a thing. I am not remotely an expert, but my gut reaction is to think he may have had an acute onset of psychological disturbance, psychotic break, or something.
I am somewhat of an expert on reactive attachment disorder, or disorganized attachment. though i don’t know that there is a credible suggestion that Mr. Marsh suffers from either of these.
But on the subject of contributing factors, what is the difference between a hurt child abandoned by their birth parents, put into foster home after foster home (the genesis of a lot of RAD kids’ symptoms), and a perp? the day they become an adult? or reach their teen years? I don’t know that this applies to Mr. Marsh at all, his early childhood with his parents as sole caregivers would suggest he does not, though that’s not necessarily a given.
But for a kid with disorganized attachment, what turns them from child needing help desperately, and extra care, into a perp? the commission of a crime, i think. I know firsthand that these kids are less capable of cause and effect thinking than their securely (or even insecurely) attached counterparts. the sad thing is that these kids never chose to suffer from any mental limitation. and often they can function as apparently ‘regular’ kids, until something moves them and they, for no apparent reason, do something a bit off, whether it’s way way off, and criminal, or just antisocial.
sadly, when they turn into adults, and even as kids, they are in society, which is not prepared to deal with them, and often harms them by lack of education, or awareness of their special needs. because it’s not the average person’s job to be educated on how to deal with such a person, and even if they were, it’s not their obligation to give that person special treatment.
these people do best with a large support group that is very aware of their special needs, it requires insanely proactive and tiring parenting, and even then outcome is not certain.
that they know right from wrong is however generally true. and if they commit crimes they are as responsible legally for them, though it may seem unfair. I’m not certain how i feel on this, on the one hand if someone commits a crime they knew was wrong, then they are competent to stand trial for that crime. on the other hand, someone with a lack of attachment, is not mentally as capable of the social inclusiveness, the morality, that tells them this is a bad idea. they know it’s wrong because someone told them.
but then having said this, society should be protected from those who are a danger to them.
i don’t know how to resolve these disparities, once a crime has been committed.
my vote is for social service structures that help these kids not harm them. it would be nice to imagine some way to place resources where these kids can find them, where the resources can find these kids! some do exist, there are parenting classes in Yolo county that specificially cater to parents of children with difficult issues. parents at these classes are a support group to each other, because just having other parents tell you the same stories you tell of your own experiences, is vastly emotionally supportive. there are also online forums (ones for RAD) and one or two are very very good, not just people ranting but real parents offering real support and suggestions to one another.
i do not know what resources are available however to adults or kids with severe issues of this nature. because of their issues they are less likely to identify themselves as being in need of help, and less likely to seek support. attachment comes with extremely low self esteem, generally speaking.
is somewhat off topic, but i wanted to comment on Mr. Greenwald’s comments about contributing factors, because he’s right, there are very real factors that contribute to someone arriving where Mr. Marsh arrived.
whether it’s just a ‘simple’ acute presentation of mental illness that took a psychotic turn, in absence of any environmental factors (childhood issues, etc), or whether it’s a combination, etc. i think we can agree that no one gets to where Mr. Marsh is, without something having gone very very wrong. or Mr. Wolfington for that matter.
Children who are sexually abused, it has been well documented in psychological literature, I refer the above commentors to pubmed or similar, that these individuals have been violated in such a manner at a young age that various catastrophic outcomes are a potential. They can suffer from personality disorders, go on to become perps themselves, or go on to become victims as adults (place themselves in dangerous situations, etc).
That their basic understanding of boundaries has been severely compromised, is not remotely controversial. What impact that may have on their thinking in future has been well documented, though obviously every person’s outcome will be unique.
It is also well documented that the emotional maturity of severely abused children is behind their nonabused counterparts, sometimes by many years (e.g. a 14-year old may have the emotional maturity and development status of a 4-year old, though that child attends regular school and does not overtly appear to casual observers as being immature).
I agree with Mr. Greenwald, that on reading that 2 boys of age 14 and 15 who were sexually abused, may very correctly assume, in their own frame of reference, that their rape of an 11 year old would not be severely damaging. i say ‘very correctly’ because it’s from their frame of reference. to them, this may be a normal occurrence. i dont know the case, so i’m speaking of a situation where 2 such boys were raped themselves.
am guessing they 1. don’t see themselves as damaged, and 2. are simply ‘passing on’ behavior that they experienced. they have been conditioned to see these acts as not far off the norm. or possibly the norm.
think back to when you were a kid, whatever your experience was, good, bad, or both, you thought that your experience was the norm. most don’t question or notice whether their experience was off the norm, until teen years. and depending on the severity of their situations, their own mental capacities, they may not question until later, or ever.
that they’re a danger, that such boys should be held responsible for their conduct, absolutely. to what extent the intervention should be punishment, protection of society, and/or rehabilitation of the offenders to try to prevent future reoccurence, i honestly don’t know.