I was reading a book a couple weeks ago. In one scene the main character was visiting a nation of people as a dignitary. The leader of one of the clans, who spoke for his people, betrayed their sacred law of hospitality and tried to inconspicuously have the hero killed (yeah, apparently assassination is not good hospitality, take note). In punishment the rest of the clan leaders decided to banish not only that evil leader, but the entire clan from the rest of the nation. They completely ignored them. They did not exist and would not hear them if they spoke. It was kind of an eerie point in the book where the main character realizes just how intense the punishment is and feels a pang of pity for someone who is doomed to complete and utter exile.

Today I read an article about teenager criminals and how some of them, depending on their crime and state of residence, are sentenced to life in prison. Of those, some are not given a chance at parole. One sentence stood out to me. "They argued that judges give certain criminals, regardless of their age, life sentences because the crimes are so abhorrent."

Abhorrent.

I had never really thought about us as a society deciding that some crimes were so bad as to lock someone away for life with no chance at being released later. The debate has always been to keep the death sentence or not. But this is modern day banishment. If you're 13 or 14 years old, that is heavy. I don't agree that a minor should given a sentence for life with no parole. Exiled for a lifetime before you even turn 18 or 21? Wow. No, I don't think that's right. Think on that.