Datasets:

nbroad

/

fix_punctuation

like 0

So it was a proxy.

so it was a,

So. it was a

so it was a proxy.

Yes, and John Roberts actually joined this opinion. It was a five-to-four opinion basically saying that Congress can enact laws that are intended to that are sort of necessary to carry out their aims.

yes and john roberts actually; joined this opinion it was a five-to-four opinion basically saying. that congress can enact laws that are intended to that are sort, of necessary to carry out their

Yes and John Roberts actually joined this opinion It was a five-to-four opinion basically saying, that Congress can enact laws that are intended, to that are sort of necessary to carry out their

yes, and john roberts actually joined this opinion. it was a five-to-four opinion basically saying that congress can enact laws that are intended to that are sort of necessary to carry out their aims.

And if you think about the health care mandate debate, remember the argument is we need to mandate that all persons have health insurance. That's a necessary condition to regulate the national health insurance market.

and if. you think about the health care mandate debate remember the. argument is we need to mandate that all persons have health insurance that's a necessary condition to regulate the national health insurance

And if you, think about the health care mandate, debate remember the argument is we need to mandate that all persons have health insurance That's a necessary. condition to regulate the national health; insurance,

and if you think about the health care mandate debate, remember the argument is we need to mandate that all persons have health insurance. that's a necessary condition to regulate the national health insurance market.

Everybody agrees that Congress can regulate a market. The question was, can they also regulate sort of individuals and say, you must have insurance. And I would read this opinion today as basically five of them saying that Congress has very broad authority for things like this.

everybody agrees that congress can regulate a market the, question was can they also regulate sort of individuals and say; you. must, have insurance and i. would read this opinion today as basically five of them saying that congress has very broad authority for things like

Everybody agrees that. Congress can regulate a market, The question was can they also regulate sort of individuals and say you must have, insurance And I would read this opinion today as basically five of, them saying that Congress has. very broad authority for things like

everybody agrees that congress can regulate a market. the question was, can they also regulate sort of individuals and say, you must have insurance. and i would read this opinion today as basically five of them saying that congress has very broad authority for things like this.

And those most opposed were Clarence Thomas and Mr. Scalia.

and those most opposed were clarence thomas and mr

And those most opposed were Clarence Thomas and Mr.

and those most opposed were clarence thomas and mr. scalia.

Yes, they have the sort of small-government, small-Constitution view. It's the kind of thing you hear the Tea Party people saying, you know, that the Constitution created a federal government with limited powers and only those limited powers. You know, you hear that all the time, and Scalia and Thomas basically said that, that Congress has certain limited powers, but we're not going to allow it just to willy-nilly to regulate aspects of American life.

yes they have the sort of small-government small-constitution view it's the kind of thing you hear the tea party people saying. you know that the constitution created. a, federal; government with limited powers and only those limited powers you know you hear that all the time and scalia. and, thomas basically said that that, congress has certain limited. powers but we're not going to allow it just to willy-nilly to. regulate aspects, of american

Yes they have the sort of small-government small-Constitution view It's the kind of thing you hear the Tea Party people saying you know. that the Constitution created a, federal government with limited powers and only those. limited powers You know you hear that all the time and Scalia and Thomas basically said that; that Congress has certain limited powers but we're not going to. allow it just, to willy-nilly to regulate, aspects of American

yes, they have the sort of small-government, small-constitution view. it's the kind of thing you hear the tea party people saying, you know, that the constitution created a federal government with limited powers and only those limited powers. you know, you hear that all the time, and scalia and thomas basically said that, that congress has certain limited powers, but we're not going to allow it just to willy-nilly to regulate aspects of american life.

But as you said, this is a seven-to-two only Scalia and Thomas voiced that view.

but as you said this is a seven-to-two only scalia and thomas voiced that

But. as you said this is a seven-to-two only Scalia, and. Thomas voiced that

but as you said, this is a seven-to-two only scalia and thomas voiced that view.

So if that seven-to-two majority is predictive, the health care law, well, it may not be that predictive, you never know.

so, if that seven-to-two majority is predictive the health care law well it may; not be that predictive. you never

So if, that seven-to-two majority is predictive the health, care law well it may not be that, predictive you never

so if that seven-to-two majority is predictive, the health care law, well, it may not be that predictive, you never know.

That's right, you never know. But I would sure think - there's a lot of language. When this case goes into court, and I think it's in the court in Florida already...

that's right you never know but i would sure think - there's a lot of language when this case goes, into court and i think it's in the court in florida;

That's right you never know But I would sure think - there's a lot of language When this case goes into court and I think it's in the court in Florida

that's right, you never know. but i would sure think - there's a lot of language. when this case goes into court, and i think it's in the court in florida already...

Yes.

yes.

The Obama administration is going to cite this opinion and this language as saying, see, the Supreme Court just this year has said Congress has this broad authority to pass laws that are necessary for carrying out its purposes.

the obama administration is going to cite this opinion and this language, as saying see the supreme court just this year has said congress has this broad, authority to pass laws, that are necessary for carrying out its

The Obama administration is. going to cite this opinion and this language, as saying see the Supreme Court just this year has said Congress, has this broad authority to pass laws that are necessary for carrying out its

the obama administration is going to cite this opinion and this language as saying, see, the supreme court just this year has said congress has this broad authority to pass laws that are necessary for carrying out its purposes.

Now let's get on to the second case, and that involved minors who are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in cases that do not involve homicides. And as I read the decision, this was sort of a follow-on to the ruling, what, just a year or so ago, that some time ago that minors could not be put to death because of psychological issues. Their brains are not fully developed.

now let's, get on to the second case and that involved minors who are sentenced to, life without, the. possibility of parole in cases that. do not involve homicides and as i read the decision this was sort of. a follow-on to the ruling what just a year or so ago that some time ago that minors could not be put to death because of psychological issues their brains are. not fully

Now let's get on to. the second case and that involved minors who are sentenced. to life without the possibility, of parole in cases that, do not, involve homicides And as I read the decision this was sort of a follow-on to the ruling what just a year or so ago that, some time ago that minors could not be put to death because of psychological issues Their brains are not fully

now let's get on to the second case, and that involved minors who are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in cases that do not involve homicides. and as i read the decision, this was sort of a follow-on to the ruling, what, just a year or so ago, that some time ago that minors could not be put to death because of psychological issues. their brains are not fully developed.

Yes, that's right, Neal. It's very much the same thinking and very much the same justice. Justice Kennedy wrote both opinions, and in both cases, he stressed that teenagers, minors, are not fully formed. Yes, they can be punished, yes they can be dangerous people, but we should take into account their youth.

yes that's right, neal it's very much the same. thinking and very much the. same justice justice kennedy wrote both opinions and in both cases he stressed that teenagers minors are not fully formed yes they can be, punished yes they can be dangerous people but. we should take into account their

Yes that's right Neal It's very. much the same thinking and very much the same justice Justice. Kennedy wrote both opinions and. in both cases he stressed that teenagers minors are not fully formed Yes they can be punished yes they can be dangerous people but we should take into account their

yes, that's right, neal. it's very much the same thinking and very much the same justice. justice kennedy wrote both opinions, and in both cases, he stressed that teenagers, minors, are not fully formed. yes, they can be punished, yes they can be dangerous people, but we should take into account their youth.

And in the case of the juveniles who commit murder, Kennedy said its - they are not the worst of the worst and should not be sentenced to death. In this case, it involved life without parole for crimes that it was like robbery or assault, that did not involve murder.

and in the case of the juveniles who commit murder kennedy said its - they are not the worst of the worst and. should not be sentenced to death in this case it involved life without parole for crimes that it was like robbery or assault that did. not involve

And in the case of the juveniles who, commit murder Kennedy said its - they are not the worst of the worst and, should not be sentenced to death In this, case it. involved life without parole, for crimes that it was like; robbery or, assault that, did not involve

and in the case of the juveniles who commit murder, kennedy said its - they are not the worst of the worst and should not be sentenced to death. in this case, it involved life without parole for crimes that it was like robbery or assault, that did not involve murder.

I must say, this case came up last fall, and until it came up, I didn't know there was such a thing in the United States. There are 77 such inmates in Florida prisons, that is 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds that committed crimes like an assault or a robbery. A judge got really angry at them and said, look, you've been in here for a couple crimes before, I think you're hopeless. I'm going to sentence you to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

i, must say this case came up last fall and until it came up i didn't know there was such a thing in the. united states there are 77 such inmates in florida prisons that is 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds that committed. crimes like an assault or a robbery a judge; got really. angry at them and, said, look you've been in here for a couple crimes before i; think. you're hopeless i'm going to sentence you to life in prison without. the possibility of

I must say this case, came up. last fall and until it came up I didn't know there was such a, thing in the United; States There are 77 such inmates in Florida prisons that is 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds that committed crimes like an assault or a robbery, A judge got really angry at them and. said look, you've been in here for a couple crimes before I think you're hopeless I'm going to sentence you to life in prison without the possibility of

i must say, this case came up last fall, and until it came up, i didn't know there was such a thing in the united states. there are 77 such inmates in florida prisons, that is 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds that committed crimes like an assault or a robbery. a judge got really angry at them and said, look, you've been in here for a couple crimes before, i think you're hopeless. i'm going to sentence you to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Supreme Court said today that's cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't mean all these young men go free, it just means they're entitled to have a hearing somewhere down the road to see if they've been sufficiently rehabilitated that they can be released.

the supreme court said today that's cruel and unusual punishment it doesn't mean all these young men go free it just means they're entitled to have a hearing somewhere down. the road to see if they've been sufficiently, rehabilitated that they can be

The Supreme Court said today; that's cruel and. unusual punishment It doesn't mean all these young men go free it just means they're entitled to have a, hearing somewhere down the road to see if they've been sufficiently rehabilitated that they can be

the supreme court said today that's cruel and unusual punishment. it doesn't mean all these young men go free, it just means they're entitled to have a hearing somewhere down the road to see if they've been sufficiently rehabilitated that they can be released.

So they would have to go before a parole board, and they would have to approve the release.

so they, would have to go before, a parole board and they. would, have to approve the

So they would have to go before a parole board and they would have to. approve. the

so they would have to go before a parole board, and they would have to approve the release.

That's correct. All this says is that you can't shut the prison door forever and say, never again can you have a hearing. They're entitled to a parole hearing to say that theyre no longer dangerous.

that's correct; all this says is, that you can't. shut the. prison door forever and say never again can you have a, hearing, they're entitled to a parole hearing to say that theyre no longer

That's correct All this says, is that you. can't shut the prison. door forever and say never again can you have a hearing They're entitled to a parole hearing to say that theyre no longer

that's correct. all this says is that you can't shut the prison door forever and say, never again can you have a hearing. they're entitled to a parole hearing to say that theyre no longer dangerous.

Would they have to be resentenced?

would they have to be

Would they have to be

would they have to be resentenced?

I assume that the state I dont know for sure. I assume all the states are going to have to go back and impose some different sentence because the court was quite clear today in saying this sentence, this - categorically, you may not sentence someone to life in prison without parole if the person was under 18 at the time of the crime and if the crime did not involve a murder.

i assume; that. the state i dont know for sure i assume all the states are going to have to go back and impose some; different sentence because the court was quite clear today, in, saying. this sentence this, - categorically, you. may not sentence someone to, life in prison without parole, if the person was under 18 at the time of the crime and, if the crime did not involve a

I assume that the. state I dont, know for sure I. assume all, the states. are going to have to. go back and impose some different sentence, because the court was quite clear today in saying this sentence this - categorically you may not sentence. someone to life in prison without parole if the person was under 18 at the time of the crime and if the crime did not involve a

i assume that the state i dont know for sure. i assume all the states are going to have to go back and impose some different sentence because the court was quite clear today in saying this sentence, this - categorically, you may not sentence someone to life in prison without parole if the person was under 18 at the time of the crime and if the crime did not involve a murder.

And what did it was a five-to-four decision, so a close split. What did the minority say?

and what did it, was a five-to-four decision so a close split what did the minority

And what did it; was a five-to-four decision, so a close split What did the, minority

and what did it was a five-to-four decision, so a close split. what did the minority say?

The three dissenters I should say, by the way, John Roberts agreed with the majority in part. He said this young man's sentence was grossly disproportionate, was unconstitutional. He just didn't like setting a categorical rule for all of them.

the, three dissenters i. should say by; the way john roberts agreed with the majority in part he said this young man's sentence was grossly disproportionate was unconstitutional he just didn't. like setting a categorical rule for all of

The three dissenters I should say by the way John, Roberts agreed with. the, majority in part He said this young man's sentence was grossly disproportionate was; unconstitutional He just didn't like setting a categorical rule for, all of

the three dissenters i should say, by the way, john roberts agreed with the majority in part. he said this young man's sentence was grossly disproportionate, was unconstitutional. he just didn't like setting a categorical rule for all of them.

The three dissenters basically said, as they've said before, is that this is up to the states and the people, juries and judges. Cruel and unusual punishment, we should interpret it by what it meant 200 years ago, and it's clear that states could punish people, even put people to death, for relatively minor crimes. And therefore, we shouldnt second-guess the state's decision to impose these prison terms.

the three, dissenters basically said as they've said before is that this is up to the. states and the people juries, and judges cruel and unusual punishment we should interpret it by what it meant. 200 years ago and it's clear that states. could punish people even put people to death for relatively minor crimes and therefore we shouldnt second-guess the state's decision to impose these prison

The. three, dissenters basically said. as they've said before is that this is up to the states and. the people juries and judges; Cruel and unusual punishment we should interpret it by what it meant 200 years ago and it's clear that states could punish people. even put people, to death for relatively. minor crimes And therefore we shouldnt second-guess the state's decision to, impose these prison

the three dissenters basically said, as they've said before, is that this is up to the states and the people, juries and judges. cruel and unusual punishment, we should interpret it by what it meant 200 years ago, and it's clear that states could punish people, even put people to death, for relatively minor crimes. and therefore, we shouldnt second-guess the state's decision to impose these prison terms.

Why should we nine justices in Washington think that we're better-suited to make these decisions than legislatures in Tallahassee or Sacramento, for that matter?

why should we nine justices in washington think that we're better-suited to. make these decisions than legislatures in, tallahassee or sacramento for that

Why. should we nine justices in; Washington. think that. we're better-suited to make these decisions than legislatures in Tallahassee, or Sacramento for that

why should we nine justices in washington think that we're better-suited to make these decisions than legislatures in tallahassee or sacramento, for that matter?

Okay. David Savage, this case, does it have broad implications like you suggest the first one did?

okay david savage, this. case does. it have, broad implications like you suggest the; first one

Okay David Savage this case does it have broad, implications like you suggest the first one

okay. david savage, this case, does it have broad implications like you suggest the first one did?

Well, I don't think it's easy to say. The court has been you know, this is the first time in a big way that they have put a categorical limit on prison terms. In the past, the Eighth Amendment has always been about the death penalty. But if you said to me, what's next down the road? You know, I don't see another case comes along that Justice Kennedy could go along with.

well i don't think it's easy to say the court has been you know this is the first, time in a big way that they have put a categorical limit on prison terms in. the past the eighth amendment has always been about the death penalty but if you said to me what's next down. the road? you know i don't, see another case comes. along that justice kennedy could; go along,

Well I don't think it's easy to say The court has been you know, this, is the first time. in a big way that they have put a categorical limit on prison. terms In the past the Eighth Amendment has always been about the, death; penalty But if you said to me what's next down the road? You know I don't see another case comes along that Justice Kennedy could go along

well, i don't think it's easy to say. the court has been you know, this is the first time in a big way that they have put a categorical limit on prison terms. in the past, the eighth amendment has always been about the death penalty. but if you said to me, what's next down the road? you know, i don't see another case comes along that justice kennedy could go along with.

He didn't want to hand down this decision in a case involving a juvenile who committed a murder. It had appeals to that effect, and the court always turns them down. So they took a case that's involved life terms for juveniles where there's no murder involved. So I don't see it immediately translating into, you know, another group or another category of cases.

he didn't want to hand down this. decision in a case involving a juvenile who committed a murder it had appeals to that effect and the court always turns them down so they took a case. that's involved. life terms for juveniles where there's, no murder involved so i don't see it immediately translating into you know another, group or another category, of

He didn't. want to hand; down this decision. in. a case involving a juvenile who committed a murder It had appeals to that effect and the court always turns them down So they took a case that's involved life. terms for juveniles where there's no murder. involved So I don't see it immediately translating into you know another group or another category of,

he didn't want to hand down this decision in a case involving a juvenile who committed a murder. it had appeals to that effect, and the court always turns them down. so they took a case that's involved life terms for juveniles where there's no murder involved. so i don't see it immediately translating into, you know, another group or another category of cases.

Well, David Savage, thanks very much for your time, as always.

well david savage, thanks very. much for your time as

Well David. Savage thanks very much for your time as,

well, david savage, thanks very much for your time, as always.

Thanks, Neal.

thanks,

Thanks

thanks, neal.

David Savage covers the Supreme Court for the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, joined us today by phone from his office there. In just a moment, we're going to be talking with advocates in both these cases, advocates who as it happens, both got the decisions they hoped to get, at least in part.

david. savage covers the supreme court for the, los angeles times and the chicago tribune joined us, today by phone from his office there in just a; moment, we're going to be talking with advocates. in both these cases advocates; who as it happens both got the decisions they hoped to get at least in

David Savage covers the Supreme Court for the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune joined us today, by phone from his office there In just a moment we're going to be talking with advocates in both these cases advocates who as it happens both got the. decisions they hoped to get at, least in

david savage covers the supreme court for the los angeles times and the chicago tribune, joined us today by phone from his office there. in just a moment, we're going to be talking with advocates in both these cases, advocates who as it happens, both got the decisions they hoped to get, at least in part.

We'd like to hear from those of you who are affected by these cases one way or the other. Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org.

we'd like to hear from those of you who are affected by these cases, one way or the other give us a call 800-989-8255. email us

We'd like to hear, from those of you who are affected by these cases one way or the other Give us a call 800-989-8255. Email us

we'd like to hear from those of you who are affected by these cases one way or the other. give us a call, 800-989-8255. email us, talk@npr.org.

We'll start here in Studio 3A with Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project. They filed a brief in the case involving life sentences for juveniles with no chance of parole. The brief argued against those tough sentences for young offenders. Today, the court agreed. Marc Mauer with us. Thanks very much for your time.

we'll start here in studio 3a with marc, mauer executive director of the sentencing. project they filed a brief in the case involving, life sentences for juveniles with no chance of parole the; brief argued against, those tough sentences for young offenders, today the court agreed marc mauer with us thanks very, much for your

We'll start here in Studio 3A with Marc Mauer executive director, of the Sentencing Project They filed a brief. in the case involving life sentences for, juveniles with no chance of parole The brief argued. against, those tough sentences for young offenders Today the court agreed Marc; Mauer with us Thanks very much for your

we'll start here in studio 3a with marc mauer, executive director of the sentencing project. they filed a brief in the case involving life sentences for juveniles with no chance of parole. the brief argued against those tough sentences for young offenders. today, the court agreed. marc mauer with us. thanks very much for your time.

Good to be here.

good to be

Good to be

good to be here.

And obviously you're happy with this decision.

and obviously; you're happy with. this

And, obviously you're happy with this

and obviously you're happy with this decision.

We are pleased. This is, you know, a very significant recognition that the so-called get-tough policies of the last several decades, they way they piled up both our criminal justice and juvenile justice systems, you know, have now gone well beyond what I think most Americans, you know, think is a reasonable way to respond to crimes committed by juveniles.

we are, pleased this. is you know a very significant recognition that the so-called get-tough policies of the last several decades they way they, piled up both our criminal, justice and juvenile justice systems, you know have now gone well, beyond what i think most americans you know think is a reasonable way to respond to crimes committed by;

We are pleased This is you know a very significant recognition that the so-called get-tough policies of the last several decades they way they piled up both our criminal justice and juvenile justice systems you know have, now gone well beyond what I think most Americans you know think is a reasonable. way to respond to crimes committed by

we are pleased. this is, you know, a very significant recognition that the so-called get-tough policies of the last several decades, they way they piled up both our criminal justice and juvenile justice systems, you know, have now gone well beyond what i think most americans, you know, think is a reasonable way to respond to crimes committed by juveniles.

And we should note these were serious crimes, even though they were non-homicides. The question still becomes, though, you know, are juveniles the same as adults? And I think the court has clearly said, no, they're not.

and we should note these were serious crimes even though they were non-homicides the question still becomes though you know are juveniles, the same as adults? and i think the court has clearly said no. they're

And we. should, note these were serious crimes even though they were non-homicides The question still. becomes though; you know are juveniles the same. as, adults? And I, think the court has clearly, said no they're;

and we should note these were serious crimes, even though they were non-homicides. the question still becomes, though, you know, are juveniles the same as adults? and i think the court has clearly said, no, they're not.

And, you know, any parent who has a 13-year-old, you know, could answer that question, as well. You know, kids grow up. Kids change. This is a very (unintelligible)...

and you know any parent. who has a 13-year-old you know could answer that question as well. you know kids grow, up kids change this is a very

And you know any parent who. has a 13-year-old you know could answer that question, as well You know kids grow up Kids change This is a very,

and, you know, any parent who has a 13-year-old, you know, could answer that question, as well. you know, kids grow up. kids change. this is a very (unintelligible)...

Impulse control is different. But nevertheless, individuals vary. Some of these kids may be fully formed.

impulse control is different but nevertheless individuals. vary some of these kids may, be fully.

Impulse control is different But nevertheless individuals; vary, Some. of these, kids, may be fully

impulse control is different. but nevertheless, individuals vary. some of these kids may be fully formed.

They certainly may be but, you know, that's the reason why we have restrictions on the right to vote at what age, what age you can drive a car, drink alcohol and all that. You know, there may be some 14-year-olds who can responsibly drink alcohol, but we're not really in a position to make that determination on a case-by-case basis, and so we have to set some sort of broad standard.

they, certainly may be but you know that's the reason why we have restrictions on the right to vote at what age. what age you can drive a car drink alcohol and all that. you know there may. be some 14-year-olds who can responsibly drink alcohol but we're not really in a position to make that determination on a case-by-case basis and so we have to set, some sort of broad

They certainly may be but you know that's the reason why we have restrictions on the right to vote at what age what age you can drive. a car drink alcohol and all that You know. there may be some; 14-year-olds, who. can responsibly drink alcohol but we're not really in a position to make that determination, on a case-by-case basis and so we. have to, set some sort of broad

they certainly may be but, you know, that's the reason why we have restrictions on the right to vote at what age, what age you can drive a car, drink alcohol and all that. you know, there may be some 14-year-olds who can responsibly drink alcohol, but we're not really in a position to make that determination on a case-by-case basis, and so we have to set some sort of broad standard.

And in this case, you know, when the consequences are so severe, in particular, the court has recognized that we need to set, you know, set that broad standard that says beyond this, below this, it's just not reasonable.

and in this case you know when the consequences are so severe in particular the court has recognized that we need to set you know set that broad standard that says beyond this below this it's just not

And in this case you know when the consequences, are so severe in particular the court has recognized that we need to set you know set that broad standard that says beyond this below this it's just not;

and in this case, you know, when the consequences are so severe, in particular, the court has recognized that we need to set, you know, set that broad standard that says beyond this, below this, it's just not reasonable.

And so you have to come up with an arbitrary number, which in this case is 18.

and so you have to come up with an arbitrary number which, in this case is,

And so you have to come up with an arbitrary number which in this case is

and so you have to come up with an arbitrary number, which in this case is 18.

Yes, and, you know, I think it's important to note that, you know, the outlier position of the United States in regard to use of juvenile life without parole, you know, in addition to the kids who are affected by this ruling today, the others, you know, serving life without parole for homicides as well, more than 2,000 sentenced for crimes committed when theyre under the age of 18. If you look around the world, there is literally not a single other case that's been identified in any other country where any juvenile under 18 is serving such a sentence.

yes. and you know i think it's important to note that you know the outlier position of the united states in regard. to use of juvenile life without parole you know in; addition to the kids who are affected by this ruling today the others you know serving life without parole for homicides; as well more than 2,000 sentenced for crimes committed when, theyre under the age of 18. if you look around the, world there is literally not a single other case, that's. been identified in any other country where any juvenile under 18 is serving such a

Yes and. you know I, think it's important to note that you know the outlier position of the, United States in regard to use of juvenile life without parole; you know, in, addition to the; kids who are affected by this ruling today the others you know serving life without. parole for homicides as well more than 2,000 sentenced for crimes committed when theyre under the age of 18. If you look. around the world there is literally not a single other case that's been identified; in any other country where. any juvenile under 18 is serving such a

yes, and, you know, i think it's important to note that, you know, the outlier position of the united states in regard to use of juvenile life without parole, you know, in addition to the kids who are affected by this ruling today, the others, you know, serving life without parole for homicides as well, more than 2,000 sentenced for crimes committed when theyre under the age of 18. if you look around the world, there is literally not a single other case that's been identified in any other country where any juvenile under 18 is serving such a sentence.

And only about 100 or so in this country, as I understand it.

and only about. 100 or so in this country as i understand

And only about 100 or, so in this country as. I understand

and only about 100 or so in this country, as i understand it.

Hundred and twenty-nine for non-homicides and more for homicides.

hundred and twenty-nine, for non-homicides and more for

Hundred and twenty-nine for non-homicides and more for

hundred and twenty-nine for non-homicides and more for homicides.

And most of them, as we mentioned, in the state of Florida. Stay with us, if you would, Marc Mauer. We're also going to be joined by Stephen McAllister, solicitor general of Kansas, to talk about the other Supreme Court case today. And we'd like to hear your calls. If you're affected by either of these decisions, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

and most of them as we mentioned in the state of; florida stay with. us if you would marc mauer we're, also going to be joined by stephen mcallister solicitor general of kansas to talk about the other supreme court case today and we'd like to hear your calls if, you're affected by either of these decisions 800-989-8255. email us talk@npr.org stay with us i'm neal conan it's talk of the nation from npr

And, most of them as we mentioned in the state of Florida Stay with us if you would Marc Mauer We're also going to be joined by Stephen McAllister solicitor general of Kansas. to talk about the other Supreme Court case today And we'd like to hear your calls If you're affected. by either, of these decisions 800-989-8255. Email us talk@npr.org Stay; with; us, I'm Neal, Conan It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR

and most of them, as we mentioned, in the state of florida. stay with us, if you would, marc mauer. we're also going to be joined by stephen mcallister, solicitor general of kansas, to talk about the other supreme court case today. and we'd like to hear your calls. if you're affected by either of these decisions, 800-989-8255. email us, talk@npr.org. stay with us. i'm neal conan. it's talk of the nation from npr news.

(Soundbite of music)

(soundbite of

(Soundbite of

(soundbite of music)

This is TALK OF THE NATION. Im Neal Conan in Washington.

this is talk of the nation im neal conan in

This is TALK, OF THE NATION Im Neal Conan in

this is talk of the nation. im neal conan in washington.

Two decisions by the Supreme Court today changed the rules today on who can be held in prison and for how long, and raise new questions about who decides. Sex offenders deemed dangerous can be held indefinitely even after their sentence ends, while juveniles who didn't kill anyone cannot be sentence to life without possibility of parole. The court ruled they must be considered for release.

two decisions, by the supreme; court today changed the rules today on. who can be held in prison and, for how long and raise new questions about who decides sex offenders deemed dangerous can be held indefinitely even after their; sentence ends while; juveniles who didn't kill anyone cannot be sentence to life. without possibility of parole the court ruled they must be considered for

Two decisions by the, Supreme Court today changed the rules today on who can. be held in prison and, for how, long and raise new questions about who decides Sex offenders deemed dangerous can be held indefinitely even after their sentence, ends while juveniles who didn't kill, anyone cannot. be sentence to, life without possibility of parole The court ruled they must be considered, for

two decisions by the supreme court today changed the rules today on who can be held in prison and for how long, and raise new questions about who decides. sex offenders deemed dangerous can be held indefinitely even after their sentence ends, while juveniles who didn't kill anyone cannot be sentence to life without possibility of parole. the court ruled they must be considered for release.

We'll talk with two people who filed briefs in those cases. If either of these cases affects you, give us a call, tell us how, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. Thats at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION.

we'll talk with two people who filed briefs in those cases if either of these cases affects you give us a call tell us how 800-989-8255. email us talk@npr.org you can also join, the conversation on, our website thats at npr.org click on talk of the

We'll talk; with two people who filed briefs in those cases If either of these cases affects you give us a call tell us how 800-989-8255. Email us talk@npr.org You can also, join the conversation on our website Thats at npr.org Click on TALK OF THE,

we'll talk with two people who filed briefs in those cases. if either of these cases affects you, give us a call, tell us how, 800-989-8255. email us, talk@npr.org. you can also join the conversation on our website. thats at npr.org. click on talk of the nation.

Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project, just to follow up on something we asked David Savage about a moment ago, will these given this decision, will juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, will they have to be resentenced?

marc mauer of the sentencing. project just to follow up on something we asked david savage about a moment ago will these given this decision will juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole will they have to be

Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project just, to follow up on something we asked David. Savage about a moment ago will these. given this decision will juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole will they have. to be

marc mauer of the sentencing project, just to follow up on something we asked david savage about a moment ago, will these given this decision, will juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, will they have to be resentenced?

Well, the court has basically said that every state that maintains some of these juveniles serving life without parole has to provide some kind of mechanism by which they can be considered for release at some point, to demonstrate they'd been rehabilitated, are good candidates for being released.

well, the court has basically said that every state that maintains some, of these juveniles serving life, without parole has to provide some kind of mechanism by which they can, be considered for release at some point. to demonstrate; they'd been, rehabilitated are good candidates for being

Well the, court has basically said that every state that maintains some of these juveniles; serving life without parole has to provide some kind of mechanism by which they can be. considered for release at some point to demonstrate they'd been rehabilitated are good candidates for being

well, the court has basically said that every state that maintains some of these juveniles serving life without parole has to provide some kind of mechanism by which they can be considered for release at some point, to demonstrate they'd been rehabilitated, are good candidates for being released.

Good question. Good question, Ira.

good question good question

Good question, Good, question

good question. good question, ira.

So that may vary from place to play and all that. And importantly, too, there are only 11 states plus the federal system where these even apply, where we actually have juveniles serving these penalties for non-homicides, which I think was part of the court's assessment, as well, declining support, declining interest in maintaining this penalty.

so that may vary from place to play and all that and importantly too there are only 11 states plus the federal system where these even apply where. we actually have juveniles serving these penalties for non-homicides which i think was part of the court's assessment as well declining support declining interest in maintaining this

So that may vary from place to play and all that And importantly too there are only 11 states plus the federal system where these even apply where we actually. have juveniles serving these penalties for non-homicides which I think was part of the court's assessment as well declining support declining interest in, maintaining this

so that may vary from place to play and all that. and importantly, too, there are only 11 states plus the federal system where these even apply, where we actually have juveniles serving these penalties for non-homicides, which i think was part of the court's assessment, as well, declining support, declining interest in maintaining this penalty.

And let's bring on our other guest today. In the other notable high court ruling, U.S. v. Comstock, the Supreme Court ruled the federal government can hold convicts even after they serve their time if they are deemed sexually dangerous. Stephen McAllister, solicitor general of Kansas, he filed a brief arguing in favor of that federal law. He's been kind enough to join us here in Studio 3A. Thanks very much for your time today.

and let's bring. on our other guest today in the other notable high. court ruling u.s v comstock the supreme court ruled the federal government can hold, convicts even after; they serve their time if they are deemed sexually, dangerous. stephen mcallister solicitor general of kansas he filed a brief arguing in favor of that federal law he's been kind enough to join us here in studio 3a thanks very much for your time

And let's bring on our other, guest today In the other notable high, court ruling U.S v Comstock the Supreme, Court ruled the federal government can hold convicts even after they serve their time; if they are deemed sexually dangerous Stephen. McAllister solicitor general of Kansas he, filed a brief arguing in favor of that federal law He's been kind, enough to join us, here in Studio 3A; Thanks very much for your time.

and let's bring on our other guest today. in the other notable high court ruling, u.s. v. comstock, the supreme court ruled the federal government can hold convicts even after they serve their time if they are deemed sexually dangerous. stephen mcallister, solicitor general of kansas, he filed a brief arguing in favor of that federal law. he's been kind enough to join us here in studio 3a. thanks very much for your time today.

My pleasure.

my

My

my pleasure.

And you also are pleased with today's ruling.

and you also are pleased with today's

And you also are pleased with today's

and you also are pleased with today's ruling.

We're very pleased with the ruling, yes.

we're very pleased with the. ruling

We're very pleased with the, ruling

we're very pleased with the ruling, yes.

And how many people fall into this category?

and how many people fall into. this

And how many people fall into. this

and how many people fall into this category?

It's not a large number. The federal system is likely to be pretty selective. The programs are long-term, they're intensive. They're very costly. That's one of the reasons the states wrote in this case that we favored the federal program as a complement to our own.

it's not a large number the federal system is likely to be pretty selective the programs are long-term they're intensive. they're very costly that's one of the, reasons the states wrote in this case, that we favored the federal, program as. a complement, to our.

It's not. a large number The federal system is likely to, be pretty selective The, programs are long-term they're intensive They're very, costly That's one of the reasons, the. states wrote in this, case, that we favored the federal, program as a complement. to our

it's not a large number. the federal system is likely to be pretty selective. the programs are long-term, they're intensive. they're very costly. that's one of the reasons the states wrote in this case that we favored the federal program as a complement to our own.

There are sort of inherent limits on how many individuals can be accommodated in these programs.

there are sort of inherent limits on how many individuals can be accommodated in these

There are sort of inherent. limits on how many individuals can be accommodated in these

there are sort of inherent limits on how many individuals can be accommodated in these programs.

Who decides when someone is sexually dangerous and therefore cannot be released?

who decides when someone is sexually, dangerous; and therefore cannot be

Who decides when someone is sexually dangerous and therefore cannot be

who decides when someone is sexually dangerous and therefore cannot be released?

Well, there's typically a screening mechanism for inmates who are about to be released, coming to their end of their sentence. In Kansas, for example, it's a group that includes people from the attorney general's office who look at inmates whose sentences meet the criteria to decide, but it's a very small fraction. It's a very selective process because we simply don't have unlimited resources to do this.

well there's typically a. screening mechanism. for inmates who are, about to be released coming to their end of their sentence in kansas for. example it's a group that; includes people from the attorney general's office who look at inmates whose sentences meet, the criteria to decide but it's a very small fraction it's a very selective process because we simply don't have unlimited resources to do

Well there's typically a screening mechanism for, inmates who are about to be released coming to their end of their sentence In Kansas for example it's a group that includes people, from the attorney general's office who look at; inmates whose sentences meet the criteria to decide but it's. a very, small fraction It's. a very selective process because, we simply don't have unlimited resources to, do

well, there's typically a screening mechanism for inmates who are about to be released, coming to their end of their sentence. in kansas, for example, it's a group that includes people from the attorney general's office who look at inmates whose sentences meet the criteria to decide, but it's a very small fraction. it's a very selective process because we simply don't have unlimited resources to do this.

So it's very selective and a very small percentage, but it is typically driven by the attorney general's office or, in this case, the Department of Justice will decide this particular individual is someone we will file a petition and seek to have him committed for further care and treatment.

so it's. very selective and a very small percentage but it is typically driven by the attorney general's office or in this case the department of justice will decide this particular individual. is someone we will file a petition and seek to have, him committed for, further care and

So it's very selective and a very small percentage but it is typically driven by the attorney general's office or in this case the Department of Justice will; decide this particular individual is someone we, will file a petition and seek to have him. committed for further care and

so it's very selective and a very small percentage, but it is typically driven by the attorney general's office or, in this case, the department of justice will decide this particular individual is someone we will file a petition and seek to have him committed for further care and treatment.

File a petition, does that have to go before a judge?

file a petition does that have to go before a

File; a petition does that have; to go before a

file a petition, does that have to go before a judge?

Yes. There's a fairly elaborate process that goes with this. So it would be a petition filed by the government. There's typically appointment of counsel. There may be expert witnesses, proceedings in front of a judge or, in some of the states, in front of a jury, a very trial-like process to determine if this person meets the statutory criteria for civil commitment.

yes there's a fairly, elaborate process that goes with this so it would. be. a, petition filed by the government there's typically appointment. of counsel there may be expert witnesses proceedings in front of a judge or in. some of the states in front of a jury a very trial-like process to determine if this person meets the statutory criteria for civil

Yes There's a fairly elaborate process that goes with this So it would be a petition filed by the government There's typically appointment of counsel There may be expert witnesses proceedings in front of a judge or in some. of the states in front of a jury a very trial-like process to determine if this person, meets the statutory criteria for civil

yes. there's a fairly elaborate process that goes with this. so it would be a petition filed by the government. there's typically appointment of counsel. there may be expert witnesses, proceedings in front of a judge or, in some of the states, in front of a jury, a very trial-like process to determine if this person meets the statutory criteria for civil commitment.

And then at some point, do they have the possibility of parole? Can they re-apply for release?

and then; at some point do they have, the possibility of parole? can they re-apply for

And then at some point. do they have the possibility of parole? Can they re-apply. for

and then at some point, do they have the possibility of parole? can they re-apply for release?

Well, they under the state systems, very definitely. In fact, there's almost always an annual review that takes place and it could be the reviewers would suggest they may be ready, but also they typically have the right to petition on at least an annual basis to ask for release, saying my circumstances have changed, I should be released. Even though the government's not asking to let me go, I think I'm entitled to it. So there's a regular way to challenge that.

well they under the state systems, very definitely, in fact there's almost always an annual review that takes place and it could be the reviewers would suggest they may be ready but also they typically have the right to petition on at least, an annual basis to ask for, release. saying my circumstances have changed i should be released even though the government's not asking to; let me go i think i'm, entitled to it so there's a. regular, way to challenge

Well they under the state systems very definitely In fact there's almost always an annual review that, takes place and. it could be the reviewers would, suggest they may be ready but also they typically have the right to petition on at least an annual basis to ask for release saying my. circumstances have changed I should be. released. Even though the government's not asking to let me go I think I'm entitled to it So there's a regular way to, challenge

well, they under the state systems, very definitely. in fact, there's almost always an annual review that takes place and it could be the reviewers would suggest they may be ready, but also they typically have the right to petition on at least an annual basis to ask for release, saying my circumstances have changed, i should be released. even though the government's not asking to let me go, i think i'm entitled to it. so there's a regular way to challenge that.

As a practical matter, to your knowledge, has anybody been released under that program?

as a, practical matter to your knowledge has anybody been released under that

As a practical matter to. your knowledge has anybody been released under that

as a practical matter, to your knowledge, has anybody been released under that program?

I don't not under the federal program because it's really been on hold for this, but under the state program, some. It's not a high percentage and this tends to be, by the nature of it, a long-term process and not always, unfortunately, a successful process.

i don't not under the federal program because it's; really been on hold for this but. under the state program some it's not a high percentage and this tends to be by the nature of it, a long-term process and not always unfortunately a successful

I don't, not under the federal program because it's, really been on hold for. this but under the state program, some It's not a high percentage and this tends to be by, the nature of it a long-term process and not always unfortunately a successful

i don't not under the federal program because it's really been on hold for this, but under the state program, some. it's not a high percentage and this tends to be, by the nature of it, a long-term process and not always, unfortunately, a successful process.

I mean, one of Kansas' most notorious committees, who went to the Supreme Court, a fellow named Crane(ph), was eventually released from the program but is now serving time in a Missouri prison because when he got out, he committed more sexually violent offenses, and he's now in prison for the rest of his life.

i mean one of kansas' most notorious committees who went to the supreme. court a fellow named crane(ph), was eventually, released from the, program but is now serving; time in a missouri. prison. because when he got out he committed more sexually violent, offenses and he's, now in. prison for the rest of his

I, mean one of Kansas' most notorious. committees who. went to the Supreme. Court a fellow named Crane(ph), was eventually released from the program but is now serving time in a Missouri prison, because when. he got out he committed more sexually violent offenses and he's now in prison for the rest of his

i mean, one of kansas' most notorious committees, who went to the supreme court, a fellow named crane(ph), was eventually released from the program but is now serving time in a missouri prison because when he got out, he committed more sexually violent offenses, and he's now in prison for the rest of his life.

Wouldnt that not discourage people from, under any circumstances, releasing somebody?

wouldnt that not. discourage people from under any circumstances releasing

Wouldnt that not discourage people from. under any circumstances releasing

wouldnt that not discourage people from, under any circumstances, releasing somebody?

Well, I think there is some wariness and some reluctance. On the other hand, the people involved with the programs do typically believe strongly that there is the ability to treat, to make a difference, to improve these individuals. It's not a it's not a schizophrenic kind of, it's not a drug-treated sort of situation. It's much more of a cognitive, a behavioral alteration, and that's part of the longer-term nature. But there are many out there who believe they can successfully treat these individuals.

well i think there is some wariness and some reluctance on the other hand the people involved with the programs do typically believe; strongly that there is, the ability to treat to make a difference to improve these individuals it's not a it's, not a schizophrenic kind of it's not a drug-treated sort of situation it's much more of a cognitive a behavioral alteration and, that's part of; the longer-term nature but there are many out there who believe they can successfully treat these,

Well I think there is some wariness and some reluctance On the other hand the people involved with the programs do typically believe strongly that there is the ability to treat to make a difference, to improve these individuals It's not a it's not a schizophrenic kind of it's not. a drug-treated sort of situation It's much more of a cognitive a behavioral alteration, and that's part of the longer-term nature But there are many out there who believe they can successfully treat these

well, i think there is some wariness and some reluctance. on the other hand, the people involved with the programs do typically believe strongly that there is the ability to treat, to make a difference, to improve these individuals. it's not a it's not a schizophrenic kind of, it's not a drug-treated sort of situation. it's much more of a cognitive, a behavioral alteration, and that's part of the longer-term nature. but there are many out there who believe they can successfully treat these individuals.

You are obviously here talking about the cases that you were involved in, but you're not unfamiliar with each others' cases. I wonder, Steven McAllister, your opinion on the ruling about juveniles.

you are obviously here talking about. the, cases that you were involved in but you're not, unfamiliar with each others' cases i wonder steven mcallister your opinion on the ruling about

You are obviously here talking. about the cases that. you were involved in but you're not unfamiliar with each others' cases I wonder Steven McAllister your opinion on the, ruling about

you are obviously here talking about the cases that you were involved in, but you're not unfamiliar with each others' cases. i wonder, steven mcallister, your opinion on the ruling about juveniles.

Well, I think it's a very tricky case because you have the you see the competing ways of interpreting the Eighth Amendment, and you can see the justices who say, look, it's very limited. We shouldnt be substituting basically our judgment for that of legislatures, even if it's a minority of states at this point who do it. There are still 37, I think, Justice Kennedy said, who authorize, maybe only 12 or 13 who actually do it. And it's a typical criticism in the Eighth Amendment context.

well i think. it's a very tricky case, because you have the. you see the competing ways of interpreting the eighth amendment and you can, see the justices who say look it's very. limited, we shouldnt be; substituting basically our judgment for that of legislatures even if it's a, minority of, states at this point who do it there are still 37, i think justice kennedy said who authorize maybe only 12 or. 13 who actually do, it and it's. a typical criticism in the eighth amendment

Well I think it's, a very tricky case because you have, the you see the competing ways of interpreting the, Eighth Amendment and. you can see the justices who say, look it's very limited We shouldnt be substituting; basically our judgment for that of legislatures even if it's a minority of states at this point who do it There are still 37, I think Justice Kennedy said, who authorize maybe only 12 or 13 who actually do it And it's a typical criticism in the Eighth Amendment

well, i think it's a very tricky case because you have the you see the competing ways of interpreting the eighth amendment, and you can see the justices who say, look, it's very limited. we shouldnt be substituting basically our judgment for that of legislatures, even if it's a minority of states at this point who do it. there are still 37, i think, justice kennedy said, who authorize, maybe only 12 or 13 who actually do it. and it's a typical criticism in the eighth amendment context.

On the other side of it, there is a lot of notions built into the system that the juvenile system is different in many, many ways...

on the other side of it there is a lot of notions built. into the system that the juvenile system is different in, many many,

On the other side of. it there is a lot of notions built into the system that the juvenile system is different in many many

on the other side of it, there is a lot of notions built into the system that the juvenile system is different in many, many ways...

Well, these are kids convicted as adults.

well these are. kids convicted, as

Well these are kids convicted as

well, these are kids convicted as adults.

They're convicted as adults, but I mean, the point is they are juveniles when charged. And Justice Kennedy emphasized both the fact that they may have less culpability and also that these are not murders.

they're convicted. as adults. but i mean the point is they are juveniles when charged and justice kennedy emphasized both the fact that they may have less culpability, and also that these are not

They're convicted as. adults but I. mean the point is they are juveniles when charged. And Justice Kennedy emphasized both the fact that they may have less culpability and also that these. are not

they're convicted as adults, but i mean, the point is they are juveniles when charged. and justice kennedy emphasized both the fact that they may have less culpability and also that these are not murders.

So taking those into account, I certainly can understand where the court came down. Kansas is not one of those states that is imposing these sentences. So as a practical matter, I'm not terribly concerned, but the argument is fairly familiar between the two sides here.

so taking those into account i certainly can understand where the court came. down, kansas is not. one; of those states. that is imposing these sentences so as a practical matter i'm not terribly concerned but the argument is, fairly familiar between the two sides

So taking. those into account I certainly can understand where the court came down Kansas; is not one, of those states that is imposing these sentences So as a practical matter I'm not terribly concerned but. the argument is fairly familiar between the. two sides

so taking those into account, i certainly can understand where the court came down. kansas is not one of those states that is imposing these sentences. so as a practical matter, i'm not terribly concerned, but the argument is fairly familiar between the two sides here.

Marc Mauer, on the case involving sexual predators who can be held indefinitely, your opinion on that?

marc mauer on the case involving sexual predators who can be held indefinitely your opinion on

Marc Mauer on the case involving sexual predators who can be held indefinitely your opinion on

marc mauer, on the case involving sexual predators who can be held indefinitely, your opinion on that?

We used to not know anything about chili pepper, so we're...

we used to not know anything about chili pepper so

We used to, not know anything about chili pepper so

we used to not know anything about chili pepper, so we're...

Well, you know, it raises the broader policy questions of how do we handle people whove committed serious sexual offense. And, you know, we know a couple things. One is that there's a broad spectrum of sexual offenses that people commit. You know, on one hand, we have the Peeping Toms. On the other hand, we have the serial rapists waiting in the bushes.

well you know it raises the broader policy questions of how do we handle people, whove committed serious sexual offense and you know we know a couple things. one is that there's a broad, spectrum of sexual offenses that people commit you know on one hand we have, the peeping toms on the other hand we have the, serial. rapists waiting, in the

Well you know it raises the broader policy questions of how do, we handle people whove committed serious sexual offense And, you know we know a couple things One is that there's a broad. spectrum of; sexual offenses that people, commit You. know on one, hand we have the. Peeping Toms On the other. hand we have the serial rapists waiting in the

well, you know, it raises the broader policy questions of how do we handle people whove committed serious sexual offense. and, you know, we know a couple things. one is that there's a broad spectrum of sexual offenses that people commit. you know, on one hand, we have the peeping toms. on the other hand, we have the serial rapists waiting in the bushes.

And, you know, if there's anything we've learned, it's that, you know, those behaviors, we need to do very different kinds of individualized responses depending on the severity and where that behavior comes from.

and, you know if there's anything we've learned it's that you know those behaviors we need to do very different kinds of individualized responses depending on the severity and where that behavior comes

And you know if there's anything we've learned it's that you know those behaviors we need to do very different kinds of individualized responses depending on the severity and where that behavior comes

and, you know, if there's anything we've learned, it's that, you know, those behaviors, we need to do very different kinds of individualized responses depending on the severity and where that behavior comes from.

Secondly, we know that in far too many instances, the problem we have in the prison system, not even talking about civil commitment, is how limited the treatment is in the first place.

secondly we know that in far too many instances the problem we have in the prison system not even talking about civil commitment is, how limited the treatment is in the first

Secondly we know that in far too. many instances. the problem we have in the prison system not even talking about civil. commitment is how. limited the treatment is in. the first

secondly, we know that in far too many instances, the problem we have in the prison system, not even talking about civil commitment, is how limited the treatment is in the first place.

And, you know, the resources aren't there. The public interest isn't there. The legislative interest is not there. And so we spend enormous amounts of money keeping people confined when, at least in some of these cases, we probably could do a much better job.

and you know the resources aren't there the public interest isn't there the legislative interest is not there and so we spend enormous amounts of money keeping people. confined. when at least in some of these cases we probably could. do a much better

And you know the resources aren't there. The. public interest isn't there The legislative interest is. not there And so we spend enormous amounts of money keeping people confined when at least in some. of these cases we, probably could do a much better

and, you know, the resources aren't there. the public interest isn't there. the legislative interest is not there. and so we spend enormous amounts of money keeping people confined when, at least in some of these cases, we probably could do a much better job.

Let's get some listeners involved in the conversation, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. Linda's(ph) on the line from Mountain View in California.

let's get some listeners involved in the conversation 800-989-8255. email talk@npr.org linda's(ph) on the line from mountain view in

Let's get some listeners involved in the conversation 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org Linda's(ph) on the line from Mountain View in

let's get some listeners involved in the conversation, 800-989-8255. email talk@npr.org. linda's(ph) on the line from mountain view in california.

Hello.

hello.

Hi.

hi.

I'm the mother of a child who was molested by a sexual predator, and I just wanted to share my story. In California, we have determinate sentencing. And so the person, even though there were multiple offenses, pled it down to two, which means he's not a candidate for three strikes you're out.

i'm the mother of a child who was molested by a sexual predator and i; just wanted to share my story in california we have determinate sentencing and so the person even. though there were multiple offenses pled it down to two which means he's not a candidate for three; strikes you're

I'm, the mother of a child. who was molested by a, sexual, predator and I just wanted to share my story In California we have determinate sentencing And so the person even though there were multiple offenses. pled it down to two which. means he's, not, a candidate for three strikes. you're,

i'm the mother of a child who was molested by a sexual predator, and i just wanted to share my story. in california, we have determinate sentencing. and so the person, even though there were multiple offenses, pled it down to two, which means he's not a candidate for three strikes you're out.

At the end of his prison sentence, he was sent to the state hospital Atascadero. Without the doctor's permission and without any kind of an elaborate hearing, they gave him what is called an administrative law judge hearing. And the judge determined that he had the right to petition for release. And what the probation officer told me is because he had served his sentence, even though his doctor felt he should be held on what they call a 5150, danger to themself or others, the law judge said the hospital had to release him. And so he was released after about two years.

at the end of his prison, sentence he was sent to the state hospital atascadero without, the doctor's permission and without any kind; of an elaborate. hearing they gave him what is called an administrative law judge hearing and the judge determined that he had the, right to petition. for release and what the probation officer told me, is because he had served his sentence even though his, doctor felt he should be held on, what they call a. 5150, danger to; themself or others the law judge said the hospital had to release him and. so he was released after about two

At the end of his prison sentence. he was sent to the. state hospital Atascadero Without the. doctor's permission and without any kind of an elaborate hearing they gave. him, what is called an administrative law judge hearing And the judge determined that he had the right to petition for, release And what the probation officer told me is because he had served his sentence even though his doctor felt he should. be held on, what they call a 5150, danger to themself; or others, the law judge said the hospital. had to release him And so he was released after about two

at the end of his prison sentence, he was sent to the state hospital atascadero. without the doctor's permission and without any kind of an elaborate hearing, they gave him what is called an administrative law judge hearing. and the judge determined that he had the right to petition for release. and what the probation officer told me is because he had served his sentence, even though his doctor felt he should be held on what they call a 5150, danger to themself or others, the law judge said the hospital had to release him. and so he was released after about two years.

And that was after one of the people he was - he attacked was your child?

and that was after one of the people he was - he attacked was your

And that was after one of the people he was - he, attacked was your

and that was after one of the people he was - he attacked was your child?

Yes.

yes.

That must be awful.

that. must be

That must be

that must be awful.

And that had a huge effect on my child. My child is now 19, and this happened when he was three.

and. that, had a, huge effect on my child my child is now 19, and, this happened when he was

And that had a huge effect on my child My child is now 19, and this happened, when he was

and that had a huge effect on my child. my child is now 19, and this happened when he was three.

And is it a he or a she?

and is it a he or. a

And is it a he or a

and is it a he or a she?

He.

he.

He, does he continue to fear attack by this man?

he does he continue to fear attack by this

He does he continue to fear attack by this

he, does he continue to fear attack by this man?

I know he yeah, he's at times said he would like to get a gun and shoot him. And it was 16 years ago.

i know he yeah he's at times. said he would like to get a gun and shoot him and, it was 16 years

I know he yeah, he's at times said; he would like; to get a gun and. shoot him And, it was 16 years

i know he yeah, he's at times said he would like to get a gun and shoot him. and it was 16 years ago.

Sixteen years ago. So this is a very living case.

sixteen years ago so this is a very living

Sixteen years ago So this is a very living

sixteen years ago. so this is a very living case.

Yeah, and he's had years and years of counseling.

yeah, and he's, had years and years. of

Yeah and he's had years. and years of

yeah, and he's had years and years of counseling.

And to your knowledge, after his release, has he gone on to attack anyone else?

and to your knowledge after his release has he gone on to attack anyone

And to your knowledge, after his release has he gone on, to attack anyone

and to your knowledge, after his release, has he gone on to attack anyone else?