Arguments for and against Parole for Juvenile Offenders Sentenced to Life

Second Chance Kids Documentary Response
1
The major issue addressed by the documentary Second Chance Kids is whether kids who commit violent crimes like murder should get a second chance at life. The documentary shows that teens who are convicted of murder and basically given life sentences with no chance of parole. Thus, before they are even really adults their lives have been forfeited to the state. The question this documentary asks is whether this is a fair approach to criminal justice. The documentary looks at both sides of the issue, showing that from one perspective it does not seem fair that a mistake—even one as bad as murder—should be something that a kid has to spend the rest of his life paying for behind bars; on the other hand, what if society is really dealing with an evil human being? Should it risk the safety of the rest of society by releasing that person back into the community?
2
The documentary opens with a list of people describing their violent crimes. There is Steven Ward, who murdered a man in 1988 by beating him and stabbing him. There is Jose Tevenal who shot and killed a cab driver. There is James Costello who attacked and killed Mrs. Paciulo. There is Herby Caillot who killed a family. There is Malik Aziz who shot a man in the back. The narrator describes the situation for this people as they deal with living in jail. There are opinions given from people like Howie Carr who asks why he is supposed to feel sorry for these people. There are the arguments of lawyers on both sides. There is Professor James Fox who explains that an entire generation has been desensitized to violence and that this might help some people to have compassion on their situation. There are also the members of the families of some of the victims, who give their perspective. Some of the groups involved are the Equal Justice Initiative, as well as the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior. A reporter for the Marshall Project is there to help show that there is more going on with these convicts below the surface: their crimes may seem horrific but they are often victims of abuse themselves, so it is not like they are completely malicious. There is Anthony Rolon, who is up for parole but the mother of his victim will never forgive him and she shows up at the parole hearing to convince the parole board that Anthony should remain behind bars to serve out his sentence. Anthony Rolon was given parole as were a handful of others. The documentary catches up with them a year or so after their parole. Anthony is now a father and wants to make sure he raises his child correctly. There is a sense of regret, remorse and a firm purpose of amendment. In spite of the objections of the families of the victims, these offenders are freed, deemed fit to reenter society on probation because they are viewed to no longer be the individuals they were when they committed their crimes.
3
The documentary does a good job of showing both sides of the issue, giving air time to those who oppose the Court decision to allow teen offenders to be eligible for parole even though they have been given life sentences. The victims’ families give their opinion that this is unfair and that their son or brother or so on is dead and not coming back so why should this person get a second chance? But the documentary tends to fall on the side of mercy and clemency, as it ends on a tone of optimism that the criminal justice system is finally moving in the right direction by allowing these individuals to be paroled. If there is any bias in the documentary it would be in this regard. However, the filmmakers also given concluding remarks to the other side, which notes that it is upsetting to the families of victims to have to go through this all. The two sides are given closing remarks at the end of the film. This indicates that bias is minimal, but one could argue that since the final remarks are given to the side that supports parole that the filmmakers ultimately side with them.
But what of the types of arguments that are made? On the side of those who are against parole, the arguments tend to be emotional rather than logical. Those objecting are bitter and angry that their loved ones have been lost. They may say that they forgive the offender but they cannot forget and since they cannot forget they do not want that person to be paroled. They are not addressing any of the issues brought up by the other side; they do not even consider them. They are simply shown to be nursing a continual grudge. On the other side, arguments are made that the offenders are victims of abuse from childhood or that they have come from broken homes and that they never had any real guidance in life. They argue that these people are reformed and that they are not the same as they were when they committed the crimes. They use logic and evidence from the people themselves to make this case. Their side is depicted as being both more rational and more humane than the other side. The other side is depicted mainly as harboring prejudice against the offenders. This is not made explicit but an objective observer can pick up on the fact that the two sides of the debate are basically portrayed in these lights. That suggests that a bias in favor of parole also exists on the part of the filmmakers.
4
My personal assessment of the documentary is that it was well-made and convincing. I like the documentary because it gave real-life interviews with the offenders and caught up with them after their release to show what kind of people they really were. It was good to see that these individuals did appear to be reformed. What I didn’t like about the documentary was that it is made for dramatic purposes: it creates tension by cutting between the two sides of the issue throughout and keeping the viewer focused on the crimes of the offenders. Instead of stating a premise at the beginning and acknowledging the bias or position of the filmmakers, the documentary wants the viewer to experience something cathartic. It is not really made as an informative documentary but rather as an experiential documentary. The filmmakers want the viewer to have an emotional reaction to the issue. That said, there are things to be learned from the documentary: for instance, the filmmakers do provide arguments in favor of parole and do show that giving these people an opportunity for parole is human, merciful and good, considering all the facts. What I learned that I did not know before watching the documentary was that this was even an issue at all. I did not know that teen murderers could be locked away for life, and I did not know that the Court finally ruled that they had to be given an opportunity for parole. This whole issue was unknown to me.
One thing that I heard in the film that was unconvincing for me was the argument of those opposed to parole. I did not feel their outrage or sorrow to be that compelling. Instead, I felt that they were harboring something bitter that was just as corrosive to themselves and to society as the murders that the offenders committed. While murder is an unfortunate crime, the fact remains that a Christian society cannot exist without the virtue of mercy and forgiveness. That virtue seems to be lacking among some, and it is hard to see how their argument makes sense. The film did not change my mind about any aspect of the subject that it presented because I had no prior opinion on any of it. However, it did help me to agree with the side in favor of parole. The interviews with the offenders helped me to see that.
5
First off, I would recommend the film to others because I felt it did a good job of making its point, even if it did so indirectly and without coming straight out and admitting up front that the filmmakers were supporting the side of those in favor of parole. Secondly, I would not make any recommendations about how the film could be improved because I thought it worked well as it was made. The only recommendation I could think of that might make it more fair and balanced would be for the filmmakers to give rational arguments to the side opposed to parole. But perhaps there are no rational arguments on that side. Perhaps it is simply the fact that those opposed to parole are opposed because of an emotional unwillingness to accept that people make tragic mistakes and can be deserving of a second chance. It takes a lot to forgive and allow a person that second chance, but it seems like one should be possible for those who truly repent and make an effort to be better. I think of Hawthorne’s novel The Scarlet Letter and I feel like those who are against forgiveness are like the Puritans in that novel who condemn Hestor and treat her like a pariah. There is nothing good about what they do, yet that is our history and really our culture. It is shameful because that is the culture that often passes as Christian, when in reality it is a deviation from true Christian principles and virtue. I think it would have been interesting for the filmmakers to broach this topic as well. That perhaps would have deepened the philosophical angle of the film.