Unit 4 Project: Letter to the Editor

October 24, 2009

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20007

Dear Editor: I am writing this letter in response to the article by Alan K. Simpson entitled, “A Sentence too Cruel for Children.” Simpson’s discussion concerns the decision that will be rendered during the oral arguments held by the U.S. Supreme Court on November 9th with respect to two cases; Sullivan vs. Florida and Graham vs. Florida. The deliberation will determine whether it’s cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a 13 year old and a 17 year old to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime that did not involve the taking of a life constitutional. His position is illustrated in a re-visit to his early childhood; he confesses to being on probation at the age of 17 for destroying federal property, yet reveals the admiration he had for the parole officer’s genuine concern expressed in his ability to listen. The turning point was at the age of 21 when he spent a night in jail for hitting an officer; again he was given the opportunity to turn his life around, and he did. Sullivan is now a lawyer who works with juvenile offenders, and parents who are aware of his history also request his help with their children. He narrates his personal experience in an effort to plead with the U.S. Supreme court to decide in favor of giving other young people the same second chance. Simpson effectively argues his position through the combination of deductive reasoning and illustration. To demonstrate the inconsistency of the punishment in relation to American values and society, he brings attention to our recognition of minors’ vulnerabilities due to their relative immaturity and irresponsibility. In response to this admission, every state in the nation restricts them from voting, serving on juries, purchasing alcohol and marrying without parental consent. States further restrict young adolescents from activities that require a more mature judgment such as driving and sexual activity. To support his claim he argues from comparison referencing the Roper v. Simmons case where the Supreme Court recognized the differences between teenagers and adults by ruling that it was unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on defendants younger than 18. Simpson questions the distinction between this ruling and that of Sullivan v Florida and Graham v. Florida; whereby locking up a youth for the rest of his life, with no hope for parole is not unconstitutional for the same reasons. Sullivan advocates that juvenile offenders be given the opportunity to have their sentences reviewed later in life. Speaking from experience, he offers the explanation that “it is cruel and unusual to pass a final judgment on a person whose character is still forming.” It is here that the author appeals to the reader’s lathos by asking them to compare the person they were at 13 or 17 to the person they are at 30, 40 or 50. He attributes a large part of kid’s behavior to ignorance, by resorting to peer pressure without giving much thought to the consequences. It is his participation in these cases that he identifies with parole authorities and their ability to determine whether adolescents have served a significant portion of their sentences, have been rehabilitated and pose no threats to others, and deserve the chance to complete their sentences in the community. It is my understandings that even the U.S Supreme court is susceptible to mistakes, and the author suggests that a better option is to sentence serious juvenile offenders to life sentences with the possibility of parole; with the hope that this will encourage them to continue their education and take advantage of programs in prison to rehabilitate and reform them. I felt that the method of presenting his argument based on personal experience using him as an example was very effective, yet it lacked in offering evidence from prior juvenile convictions whereby his suggested remedies were successful. Another flaw I identified was the author’s assumption that the reader new the circumstances underlining the cases of Sullivan v Florida, and Graham v Florida. To obtain a better understanding of the argument, I had to research these two cases, which could have been avoided if a short review of the cases were provided. Overall, I agree with Simpson’s position on revising the imposed sentencing to allow for the possibility of parole. Although concrete evidence was not supplied, the reader is lead to believe that his accomplishments can be attributed to being given a second chance. He concludes his article with an analogy, “When a young person is sent ‘up the river,’ we need to remember that all rivers can change course.” This was his final attempt to emphasize the ability for juvenile offenders to recognize their mistakes and make a change for the better. I am a firm believer that the punishment must fit the crime. Yet I also support discipline that will teach our children to be productive citizens, if serving time in jail is the antidote for juveniles to recognize their mistakes and rehabilitate themselves, then having the opportunity to prove themselves goes hand in hand.

References A Sentence too Cruel for Children. (2009, October 23). The Washington Post. Retrieves October 23, 2009 from http://www.thewashingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/opinion

Memering, D. & Palmer, W. (2006). Discovering Arguments: An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Writing with Readings. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.