Lost in this article is "what serves the greater good of all of us?". We could argue forever about this particular convict and crime, we could debate forever the developmental state or educational state or intellectual state or emotional state of 13 year olds in general or this particular one.

But the purpose of prison isn't just to serve or rehabilitate or retrain a convict. One large purpose of prison is to keep the convicts AWAY from the rest of US. At least part of the prision sentence argument is a decision by the judge and jury that a convict is so dangerous, based on the actions of their crime(s), and so likely to be dangerous in the future they need to be kept away from the rest of society to protect the rest of society.

So while the debate about a 13 year old might be interesting in a scientific or philosophical or rhetorical sense, the real question here is "When, IF EVER, does this convict NOT present a threat to society?" The judge and jury looked at his actions and said, pretty clearly, NEVER. The statistics are not in favor of ever letting this convict out either.... repeat offender frequency for rapists is especially high.

So how would you ever explain to a future victim their loss? What explaination of release would YOU accept if the future victim was YOU?

I completely understand what you're saying, and I share your concern. If this young man were released to my neighborhood in a year, I'd be looking for a U-Haul!! However, let's assume that instead of a "life without possibility of parole" sentence, he got a long sentence with the possibility of parole, or even a life with the possibility of parole. Still harsh. Yet, I'm much less worried if he's spent his prime crime-committing years in prison, and emerges to the community as a 53-year-old man. Not a guarantee, but less of a concern. I'm not speed-dialing U-Haul. With the possibility of parole, we'd have the benefit of psychiatric evaluations, the opinion of prison guards who have observed him for years, etc. We'd have the ability to see what he has done with the opportunity for change that society has given him. If after 30 years the answer is nothing, let him stay where he is. At least we haven't diminished who we are. We are still sympathetic, understanding, kind, optimistic beings.

The challenge I see to the argument that "Life with the possibility of parole" is somehow better than "Life without the possibility of parole".... is but for who? Who really benefits? As an incentive for the convict to act appropriately in prison and maybe be less of a workload for the guards? As a jobs program for all those councelors and teachers and workshop providers who, in theory, are preparing the convict for a future outside? As a political "feel good" measure to the general public with a wink/nod that "bad" convicts won't be released ever?... or worse, as a political "feel bad" measure to the public whenever budgets get tight and the governments quietly speak of early release to save some money?

The last persons who benefit from the distinction are the convict and their victim(s) or victim(s) family/friends/community.

Taking a 13 year old burglar/rapist and keeping him locked up until sometime when somebody far in the future decides to throw him out on the street, untrained, uninsured, unemployable at the age of 50+ certainly doesn't help the institutionalized convict. It is an insult to the victim. It threatens the future community, witness the recent case where a rapist held for 15 years came out and killed multiple victims, apparently while passing various parole officer visits somehow while the bodies decayed in the cellar.

It also calls into question the entire fairness of the parole review process, every bit as possibly tainted as a bad trial process may be, but with the added threat that while their might be a small chance an innocent is convicted, there is a large chance the already convicted and potentially dangerous may be released to commit crimes again.

And all this so we can still call ourselves sympathetic, understanding, kind and optimistic? I fell pretty comfortable calling myself those things by virtue of providing a pretty fair judicial system, a well funded secure prison system with 3 meals a day, exercise and TV privledges, jobs within the prison... all knowing the convicts will never come out and might actually BE BETTER OFF in prison than on the streets.

Clearly you have not looked at the writings of those who founded the nation. Ben Franklin took Lord Blackstone's 10:1 ratio and extended for the foundation of our judicial system to be

Better 100 guilty go free than a single person suffer

Your notion of an "insult to the victim" seems to presume that prison is retribution. But Retribution is explicitly excluded from our judicial system. Otherwise victims would be the ones responsible for setting punishments.

Degsme, a few corrections:

1. Blackstone was not a lord.

2. Benjamin Franklin (in a private letter, not a legislative or judicial enactment) preferred to see one hundred guilty men escape "than that one innocent Person should suffer".

3. Retribution may well be excluded from our (criminal?) judicial system, but there's nothing explicit about it.

My appologies. Feel free to quibble on the difference between a Knight of the British Empire and a Lord. Yes there is a distinction - who cares.

Doesn't matter that Franklin's views were in a private letter. Franklin was a major influence/driver of the structure of the American system of jurisprudence (as was Jay and Madison).

As for retribution, SCOTUS has been pretty clear on it in all of its major rulings on the influence of victims on prejudicing sentencing and conviction.