The main argument expressed in the article "Greg Ousley is Sorry for Killing His Parents. is that Enough?" is that juveniles/kids should not be sentenced to prison for long term, even if they commit severe crimes, and they have the ability to rehabilitate themselves, so they should not serve this long term sentences when they are showing improvement. An example that gives the author is the case of Greg Ousley, a teen who killed his parents at the age of 14, and that now with a age of 33 years he still serving the 60 years sentence. The author Scott Anderson interviewed Greg during a few sessions. When Anderson interviewed Greg, he saw a completely mature man with wishes to work with young people, to teach them what can go wrong by using his life as an …show more content…
is that Enough?"). Many people who know Greg in prison have said that he have improved and that he might be an example for other juvenile. Greg’s casework manager, Dennis Hood, said that "He’s just a great worker," and that he's "enthusiastic, solves problems on his own, never complains. I have no doubt he’ll succeed in whatever he puts his mind to when he’s released." (Page 5, "Greg Ousley is Sorry for Killing His Parents. is that Enough?"). And the same people who know him, wants him to be set free early from prison because he has "grown" enough, and because what they are going to gain by keeping a person who shows total improvement in prison?. Cindy Estes, his former work supervisor, said that “This kid has jumped through every hoop the state has put in front of him,” and she finally states that “He deserves to come out. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained by keeping him in there for another 10 years.” (Page 5, "Greg Ousley is Sorry for Killing His Parents. is that Enough?"). After all, Greg Ousley as like the 95 percent of other prison inmates, are going to come out