I could point out how we all did really dumb things at 14, and then someone would reply “but not murder” which is fair, but we are still elft with the idea that 14 year old kids do really dumb things becuase they are stupid human beings who lack judgment, and morals, and succumb to pressure. And that by the time they hit – hell – 21 years of age and certainly 30 they have become a *completely different person*.

Why doesn’t our system allow for a re-evaluation to see if the person continues to be a risk. Did the person commit this crime on a dare/peer pressure (which actually happens, sadly a lot) or due to/in combination with a mental health problem, and now they are in a different better place and no threat to society, or are they a sociopath, psycho-killer who can’t be released without risk to society? With that question looming at some point then maybe we can send them to a locked mental health facility and work on rehabilitating their lives.

This woman was just as much a victim as the boys she (allegedly) killed, and there is a realistic chance she could have been saved with treatment and support. But she was a victim who by doing something tragic that she probably could not comprehend or fully understand was regarded as, as the headline says, completely disposable.

“largest prison population in the history of prisons and populations”

Larger than the soviet Gulags? Or the Mainland Chinese equivalents? I’m not saying the U.S. prison population isn’t a scandal; it is. And if you have numbers to disprove my doubts, so be it. I just think that “worst ever” statements tend to be wildly inaccurate, and for that reason people dismiss them.

But I grew up in the 1970′s, then the environmental movement was saying “worst ever” about air pollution. My mother had lived in coal-heated cities.

Also, it seems people have not noticed that a free society involves risks. And although we have an exaggerated fear of violence by the mentally ill, in reality, other aspects of our lifestyle, and in particular the automobile, pose far greater risks. We can tolerate the risks entailed in not locking up an abused, mentally ill child for quite the duration of her natural life.

Finally, I would like to point out a toxic form of disrespect to survivors: the appropriation of their voices. KRF’s comment that the Harveys deserve justice assumes, without any basis that I can see, that the Harveys will never forgive, that the Harveys wanted, would want, and continue to want Trina Garnett imprisoned forever. Unless someone can point to a statement they have made to that effect, then I suggest that if you want to justify the continuing imprisonment of an aging and debilitated woman, you need to do it in some way other than assuming what the survivors of that tragic fire thirty five years ago want.

The worst part is that she set a fire that killed people, including 2 children that never had a chance to grow up. Not getting how you think this should be handled by society.

Don’t want to beat anyone up (today), but this above comment is a lot of why we have a horrific prison system today.

No one (NO ONE) is denying the fire was a tragedy. And, for many reasons we don’t have the direct victims in charge of determining a punishment. Today’s prisons put people in tiny boxes for decades or life. That’s it…and that isn’t much of an objective…and it has a part in resulting in the largest prison population in the history of prisons and populations. While in prison they are confined to tiny boxes, degraded, sometimes tortured, and often develop mental disorders. It should also be mentioned that a large percentage of the people in prison go in suffering from one/several mental issue/s (depending on how you define such things). In other words: the prison system (USA) doesn’t “work”.

Eventually, a lot of those prisoners are set free, dangerous and unstable, and not even remotely capable of getting within a mile of the elite who run the prisons or determine policy. But, they can sit next to your kid at the movies.

If a group of bandits kidnapped a politician and kept him in a dumpster, raping him often, for over a decade, we’d have a lot of trouble defending that treatment of a human being. But a state run prison…!

All this sets aside the discussion (which many view as crazy) about the “right” of the state to take on the role of punishing members of society.

My takeaway on this was not that Radley wanted her to go free, but that he thought that there was a substantially better option than throwing her in prison for the rest of her life. What I’m saying is that, barring the possibility of wrongful conviction, I’m not too sure that I see an option that would be (as opposed to should be) a whole lot better. Government run mental institutions tend (historically) to be snake pits.

I suppose there is the possibility that the conviction is wrong. But if she did set the fire, and is mentally incompetent to know what she was doing, then society has a right to view her as a serious threat. If she set the fire and DID know what she was doing, then life without parole seems about right. The guard who raped her should (assuming we can prove we have the right guy) be castrated and then thrown to the crocodiles.

If she did set the fire, didn’t know what she was doing, can be better under controlled circumstances, and has a doctor who is willing to supervise her in his own home, the let’s let her out. But IF SHE SET THE FIRE, she needs to be, at a minimum, supervised for the rest of her life.

“David: So in your world its ok for a mentally ill teenager, as long as they have Dr who agrees they are mentally ill, to go on a killing spree and face no consequences whatsoever? I have no problem with them receiving treatment, but have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that you can let them out of prison into society and they will be any better, and not decide to kill all over again.”

Also condescending, since David didn’t write anything like what you attributed to him. He advocated for treatment, which may, presumably include some form of custody, as she was, presumably, not mentally competent, and quite possibly a danger to those around her; nobody said she should have been released into the streets to roam free and unpunished/treated. At all.

And you’re right. You don’t have to be a clinician to know that anyone who thinks it is ok to kill another person based on if they have hurt your feelings makes a person mentally ill. But there’s no evidence whatsoever that Trina intended to kill anyone. If she set the fire (and I can’t say, given the obvious clown court that was her trial), she obviously intended to do that. Revenge as a motive? Perhaps. I can concede that it is likely that she intended to set the fire as revenge, that sounds like just the kind of stupid thing a mentally-challenged psychologically scarred kid would do. It surely does not sound like she intended to burn two children to death. Yet here she was, convicted of second-degree murder, as opposed to, say, involuntary manslaughter.

“If your advocating for a better system, and facilities, for handling these types of situations I could along with you on that. But If she doesn’t understand her actions and doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong then yes she does belong kept away from society as a whole. The bottom line is she is dangerous, and capable of killing again. The Harveys deserve justice too.”

So you also advocate for better systems. Fine. But how is what happened to Trina justice for the Harveys? Two injustices does not make one justice, not at all. Your statements in this regard show lukewarm, at best, support for the necessary systems to keep things like this from happening, but I’ll concede that you do, in fact, support such systems. What I do see clearly is that you feel she should be “kept away from society as a whole.” How would you know? If she’s a cold-blooded murderer, sure. But that really doesn’t seem to be the case here. What seems to be the case is that here we have a poor kid, with problems numerous enough certainly to have been taken into consideration (though they were not) who did something stupid, incredibly stupid, that cost two children their lives. This happened because the system failed miserably. This same system then runs a poor excuse for a show trial, locks up a mentally and psychologically challenged 14-year-old for life without treatment, lets her get raped and impregnated, and the best YOU can say is:

“But If she doesn’t understand her actions and doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong then yes she does belong kept away from society as a whole. The bottom line is she is dangerous, and capable of killing again. The Harveys deserve justice too.”

She doesn’t understand because the system failed her, because she was a kid. Maybe treatment could have helped her understand. But not according to you. ANYONE is capable of killing, moreso do we share the capability to make a stupid decision that costs someone their life, without meaning to. But I don’t at all see that you get that. That’s why I was a condescending ass. Because you deserve it.

Indeed. Given the circumstances as described, it would seem plausible that this girl was simply a scapegoat. If she didn’t actually commit the crime, then she shouldn’t have been locked up at all.

If, however, she did commit the crime, it’s far less clear what should happen. True, schizophrenia is often treatable, but how much risk should society be willing to accept from people who would become dangerous if their treatment lapsed? One could certainly argue that it would be better for someone like this girl to be in a supervised living facility than in a prison, but it’s unclear how much the state should be expected to spend for such things.

It is one thing to advocate on behalf of innocent motorists getting robbed by police and asset forfeiture schemes. It is one thing to advocate on behalf of drug offenders banged for mandatory 20 year stretches over possessing a cube of LSD.

But you really kind of start to lose philosophical support from folks like me when you seem to argue that actual murderers should, what? Go free? Get some prozac and a ticket back onto the streets? Get some slap on the wrist because it is “barbaric” to punish a juvenile (rather than “treat” her.)

Stuff like this diminishes the effect of legitimate protest against the legitimate excesses of the criminal justice system.

This is kind of analogous to Al Sharpton crying racism when some black actor fails to win an award or some such. So when “Reverend” Al next pulls that card out of the deck I kind of tend to mentally discount whatever it is he is saying. Which is too bad, because maybe that next time he was actually correct but my only reaction is “crazy ideologue screaming about imagined injustices.”

Of course, I’m sure that’s not a problem for you. And I’m sure you’re fine with felony murder statutes. Intent? Why, what’s that…

Also, bluntly, schizophrenia is HIGHLY treatable in the vast majority of cases.