The Axiom Of Responsibility
Individuals Demonstrate Valid Behavior
By Taking Responsibility
For Themselves And Their Children

A few days ago, we received a comment on an article we posted back in April, "Teens Who Commit Murder Don't Deserve A Second Chance." Our article focused on the case of Quantel Lotts who was convicted of first-degree murder at 14 for the stabbing death of his then 17-year-old stepbrother and is now serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Lotts came from an extremely abusive home with drug-addicted, negligent parents and believes that his punishment is too harsh: "'They locked me up and threw away the keys.' [. . .] 'They took away all hope for the future.'" ("Teens Locked Up For Life Without A Second Chance")

Lotts' case is one of many that prompt the question, "Should our society sentence juveniles, in particular those who came from bad homes, to life without parole?" To us, the only logical answer is, "If they commit murder, definitely." Yes, Lotts' parents contributed to his actions through their negligence and abuse, and they ought to be in prison for the way they treated him. Nevertheless, he still took away his stepbrother's life and must be held responsible for his crime. Our laws are meant not only to protect our society, but also to provide justice for victims and their loved ones, and there is no justice when we make excuses on a case by case basis for murderers who have taken away the life of another human being.

In light of this argument, the comment (which links to Feministing.com: "Sara Kruzan: Life Without Parole For Killing Her Pimp") asks how we would handle the case of Sara Kruzan, now 29, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole at 16 for killing "G.G.," the pimp who repeatedly raped her and forced her into prostitution when she was only 13 years old. Like Lotts, Sara came from an abusive home with a drug-addicted mother, and when she met G.G. at 11, she looked up to the 31-year-old as a "father figure." In just two short years, she went from making the Principal's Honor Roll to working the streets. Watch Sara tell her story in her own words:

To us, Sara's case is not really about whether or not our society should sentence juveniles who commit murder to life without parole; rather, it causes our society to examine the difference between murder and self-defense. Teens who commit murder deserve harsh sentences, but no one should be punished for acting in self-defense, even if these actions result in the perpetrator's death. (Note: Legally, self-defense is not premeditated or "vigilante justice.")

Did Sara murder G.G., or was she merely acting in self-defense? It is easy to imagine that after being raped and abused for three years, Sara felt trapped by G.G. and that she had no other way out. She was clearly without the monetary resources necessary to escape: As she said in her interview, "The girls would bring their money and give it to [G.G.]. [. . .] Everything was his." However, the judge called her actions "well thought-out" and claimed she "lacked moral scruples," ultimately sentencing her to life without parole. Without detailed facts of what actually transpired, we personally cannot support or condemn Sara's conviction or sentence.

What is tragic about both of these stories is that neither of these teens would have been in the position to commit murder if their parents had only done their jobs. It is incredible how destructive bad parents can be! Parents, please take responsibility for your children and treat them with the utmost respect: The quality of their futures depends on it.

Anna and Ellie Sherise
Creators of Magna Sententia
Authors of Magna Sententia: The Logical Cure for Our Society