Should juvenile killers get parole?

As a society, do we believe in redemption?

Or do we believe that some people -- even those under 18 -- can do things so horrific, so murderous and so torturous that they forever lose the right to a second chance?

And would offering redemption be so painful to those affected by the crimes that it's not worth it?

A new report, being released concurrently with new proposed legislation, poses those questions and its own answer -- advocating for the possibility of parole for juvenile murderers.

"One of the miracles of humanity is that some people manage to reform themselves despite the odds," said Randolph Stone, a clinical professor of law at the University of Chicago.

Stone doesn't contend most -- or even many -- of the 103 juvenile killers in Illinois should be paroled.

Yet, for those few who might be reformed, says Stone, an act committed before a person was fully aware of the repercussions should not condemn him or her to a life in prison.

Stone is a member of the Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children. Its report "Categorically Less Culpable" notes that only the United States and Israel allow juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without hope of parole.

The group wants the legislature to take up HB 4384, a bill currently in committee that would change sentencing regulations for juveniles.

In support of its stance, the group contends that brain research shows teenagers' brains are not fully developed and are inherently more susceptible to peer pressure and not anticipating consequences.

What's more, the group says, under accountability laws, a teen who was not the actual triggerman but served as a lookout can also receive life in prison.

Victims' rights advocates, however, don't buy it.

Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, for one, notes that arguing a lookout could face a life sentence doesn't take into account all the facts.

Of the 103 juvenile killers the group studied, Bishop-Jenkins contended, only two were found not to have an actual hand in the murders. And those two sentences have already been struck down by the courts as being excessive.

"From my point of view, the report did not find systemic problems," she said.

Bishop-Jenkins' sister and brother-in-law, Nancy and Richard Langert, were murdered in Winnetka by David Biro, then 16.

Biro waited for the Langerts to come home and then shot and killed Richard in front of Nancy. Nancy begged for her life and that of her unborn child. Biro shot her in her womb and let her bleed to death.

Most of the juveniles in question, Bishop-Jenkins said, are "a whole lot of really guilty mass murderers."

While Bishop-Jenkins doesn't say "absolutely not" to the potential changes in the sentencing laws for juveniles, she strongly objects to going back and re-opening the 103 juvenile murderers' sentences because of the pain it would cause victims' families.

After enduring the tragedy itself and years of ensuing trials, those people have been able to somewhat put their relatives' killers out of their mind, she said. Granting a possibility of parole would mean having to testify before a parole board every year and bringing all that pain back up.

One of those who would benefit from a retroactive change in the law is Sean Helgesen, who with Eric Robles stabbed Robles' parents to death in Bartlett in 1993. Both were 17.

Helgesen got life, as did Robles. But the courts ordered a new trial for Robles. In a trade, Robles pleaded guilty at the second trial in exchange for a 100-year sentence, meaning he could be eligible for parole when he turns 67. Helgesen will remain in prison until he dies.

At the time of Helgesen's conviction, he maintained he had been forced into the act by Robles.