I'd love to know how people delude themselves into thinking it's OK for two murderers to be released from prison at age 21 *with clean records* (according to the article), simply because they were juveniles at the time of the crimes. Are we so child-obsessed in this culture to think that a little prison time would set these two straight, after killing five people?

The funny thing about your comment, Mike, is that, on the one hand, kids are too precious and child-like to be charged as adults, etc., for sickening crimes like murder but God help you if you suggest, in polite company that, since they're kids, they might want to wait until they're a bit older to begin having sex, using recreational drugs, etc. because you're stifling their development and that they're 'practically adults' anyway...

I'm with you, ECM. It all seems pretty backward to me.

God save us from the "it's not my fault genaration"

Obviously, if he thought the police would approve that application, he didn't learn much common sense in school.

I'm of two minds about this.
For one I think it good that such irresponsible people don't get permits, but then again I also am strongly opposed to a guy's past deeds influencing his future this way.
He did the crime, he served the time.
For the law the penalty absolves him from that crime (that's what it's all about...), so what he did is (or rather should be) a closed book.
Yet that crime will continue to haunt him whenever he comes into contact with the law for the rest of his life. Essentially then he's got a life sentence, despite one never having been applied by a judge or jury.
And that's wrong.

"Essentially then he's got a life sentence, despite one never having been applied by a judge or jury."

In some cases I can see this point (eg. relatively small amounts of drugs), but in the case of murder? Many crimes WILL result in a permanent loss of your freedom and rights. Such an extended "life sentence" is easily avoidable, don't commit those kind of crimes.

"For one I think it good that such irresponsible people don't get permits, but then again I also am strongly opposed to a guy's past deeds influencing his future this way."

How much of his future, and in what category? Going to jail for five years will influence five years of your future, so should we not send people to jail for any reason? Should saving your money not make you wealthier, or wasting your money not make you poor? Both examples are past influencing future. Its called consequences.

"He did the crime, he served the time.
For the law the penalty absolves him from that crime (that's what it's all about...), so what he did is (or rather should be) a closed book."

There are many theories about the purpose of incarceration, including retribution, rehabilitation, and protection of society-at-large from criminals. Absolution is not one of them. The only way to absolve someone of a crime against another is to repay the one wronged. Since the ones he wronged are DEAD, he cannot be absolved.

"Yet that crime will continue to haunt him whenever he comes into contact with the law for the rest of his life. Essentially then he's got a life sentence, despite one never having been applied by a judge or jury."

Past events are the greatest predictor of future behavior. In my experience, once a crook, always a crook, with very few exceptions.

"And that's wrong."

By what standard? Murder of innocents is wrong. Theft of property is wrong. Bearing false testimony to avoid just consequences is wrong. How is being forced to live with a reputation you fashioned for yourself, wrong?