Debate On Saving Society's Lost By Don Terry Summary

In the article, “Prison for Young Killers Renews Debate on Saving Society’s Lost” by Don Terry, Terry talks about the debate on how to treat a twelve year old and a thirteen year old that had dropped a five year old child out a 14-story window. Both boys, whose names were not given, had lived in a dangerous neighborhood and had all the adults in their lives fail them. Also, both of their IQs fall below the average IQ of a normal person. Each state had called for a harsh punishment for the boys. The age for being put into a maximum security juvenile prison had been lowered to a ten years of age. This meant both boys were eligible of being imprisoned; however, there were people like Dr. Perry, David Hirschbock, Jack O’Malley and Michelle Kaplan

Terry goes upon many sources that say statements and give background information that call for sympathy for the young boys. For example, he brings up that the boys were, “Ignored, neglected and failed for most of their lives by parents, teachers and social workers,” [Terry]. This is, in a way, a guilt trip into having the reader feel bad for the boys because they had horrible upbringing. Terry connects his main point to the background information of the boys because it sheds light as to why the boys turned out the way they are. Also, the majority of the article was about the side of the argument that fought for giving the boys treatment rather than imprisonment. Another thing is that he pushes the reader's’ nerves and heart when he quotes Michelle Kaplan when she says, “‘they want to throw him away. They’re children. They’re not animals,” [Terry]. He brings up a direct, heart wrenching quote that makes people take a double take on their stance on the argument. It makes the reader question if the boys should really get imprisonment and simply “throw them away” as if they were

The direct quotes that Terry had utilized made the points crystal clear. The boys shouldn’t be imprisoned because they turned out like that due to their poor upbringing and unhealthy environment. I agree that the boys should be given appropriate psychiatric care before any sort of harsh punishment, but I believe that they should be given some sort of sentence for a crime they committed. Regardless of their age or background, they were still in a state of mind where they could decide whether or not to drop another person at a ridiculously high place like a 14 story window. The other side of the argument was more difficult to understand. When Terry talks about how in Illinois lowering the age limit for maximum juvenile imprisonment, it was unclear as to if Illinois lowered the age because of the boys or if it was a recent change. Also, not many sources were used to explain why the boys should be imprisoned. Dr. Perry and Jay Hoffman were sources that had said the boys need to be punished to teach them a better sense of right or wrong, but there was no support as to if that punishment is really the correct solution or as to why should go that route. Jay Hoffman also did not provide a valid reason other than that it’s his “sense of what the public very much wants” for why children who commit an adult crime should simply be punished like an adult. I disagree with the idea of just