No matter where an individual is from, crime will always exist. Unfortunately that is the world we live in. Some crimes are committed because the person who commits them has dangerous qualities, and other times there are extenuating circumstances to those crimes. I believe this is the case for Alonza. This video portrays him as a teenage boy who seemed to have issues with authority as many teenagers do. Though there is no excuse for the crime he committed, I believe his punishment was harsher that he was due. Several instances takes place in the video that show Alonza suffered irreparable damage both mentally and physically being punished as an adult and spending thirteen years in an adult prison.
Alonza was a sixteen year old boy who, …show more content…
I believe that, when a person commits a crime, they should endure a punishment that fits the crime they committed. A thirteen year sentence for a crime that was not even completed seems outrageous to me. This boy had issues, and could have spent some time in a juvenile facility, which I believe would have gotten his attention. Then he would have been able to continue moving forward with his life. Thirteen years stole this young man’s youth, not allowing him to experience things during his adolescence that he should have. In his interviews he showed several different ticks that could be a result of trauma from prison, or even side effects of the different medications he has been …show more content…
The issue presented is that the punishment he received did not fit the crime. He was basically a child who was put in a cage alongside dozens of other grown men, and was allowed out of that cage one hour a day. Watching how Alonza interacts with others, and hearing testimony from people who knew him well, he was just a teenage boy who made a mistake. He was not a danger to society. Proposition 21’s purpose was to keep “dangerous” teens off the streets and hopefully make them better when they were released. Alonza’s defender said it best when he stated that a disservice was done to Alonza, and that he is worse off now having gone to an adult prison that he would have been had he
Alonza was a sixteen year old boy who, …show more content…
I believe that, when a person commits a crime, they should endure a punishment that fits the crime they committed. A thirteen year sentence for a crime that was not even completed seems outrageous to me. This boy had issues, and could have spent some time in a juvenile facility, which I believe would have gotten his attention. Then he would have been able to continue moving forward with his life. Thirteen years stole this young man’s youth, not allowing him to experience things during his adolescence that he should have. In his interviews he showed several different ticks that could be a result of trauma from prison, or even side effects of the different medications he has been …show more content…
The issue presented is that the punishment he received did not fit the crime. He was basically a child who was put in a cage alongside dozens of other grown men, and was allowed out of that cage one hour a day. Watching how Alonza interacts with others, and hearing testimony from people who knew him well, he was just a teenage boy who made a mistake. He was not a danger to society. Proposition 21’s purpose was to keep “dangerous” teens off the streets and hopefully make them better when they were released. Alonza’s defender said it best when he stated that a disservice was done to Alonza, and that he is worse off now having gone to an adult prison that he would have been had he