So with the use of the word “family” instead of parents, are we to assume she also killed other family members like siblings or grandparents?
Yes, all of Canada is a good place to be a young criminal. And don’t the young folks know it.
What I’ve figured out so far: 12 year old Jasmine Richardson and her boyfriend, 23 year old Jeremy Steinke are both being held for the murders of Jasmine’s parents and 8 year old brother. Jeremy may also be charged for his relationship with Jasmine.
GingerOfTheNorth and featherlou, perhaps I’m misreading your tone, but you seem to dislike the Canadian practice of being more lenient against young offenders. I don’t want to start a debate, but I personally like this practice, as I think that young offenders benefit more from rehabilitation than from hard punishment, and I believe that there are studies that agree with this. Do you dislike this practice, and if so, why?
**featherlou, ** you may want to take a look at section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which provides as follows:
110. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply
(a) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received an adult sentence;
(b) subject to sections 65 (young person not liable to adult sentence) and 75 (youth sentence imposed despite presumptive offence), in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received a youth sentence for an offence set out in paragraph (a) of the definition “presumptive offence” in subsection 2(1), or an offence set out in paragraph (b) of that definition for which the Attorney General has given notice under subsection 64(2) (intention to seek adult sentence); and
© in a case where the publication of information is made in the course of the administration of justice, if it is not the purpose of the publication to make the information known in the community.
I dislike the idea that, if this girl has murdered her family, she’ll serve ten years in a Juvie and that’ll be it. Her records will be sealed. She will, for all intents and purposes, have no criminal record whatsoever. Do you think that’s fair for a convicted murderer?
Well, she’s 12 years old. Maybe she was completely aware of what she was doing and murdered her family in cold blood, but given her age I can’t say for sure. Maybe she was angry and reckless and did something she now deeply regrets (and not just because she’s been caught), maybe she was influenced by her boyfriend, etc. And even if it’s not the case, even if she decided to kill her parents while fully knowing what she was doing, there are many young offenders who can’t be said to be as responsible of their actions as adults would be. So we have to draw a line somewhere.
And ten years in prison, even a juvenile correction center, is a long sentence. As for sealing her criminal record, you probably know more about what it implies than I, but if I recall correctly (I think I last heard about his in high school), it doesn’t mean that they will completely purge it, rather than it won’t be accessible to regular people but it will still be there and accessible by the police if needed.
I believe in giving young people more chances to reform, even if they do really awful things.
That’s not quite how it works. The relevant provision is section 119. It’s long and cumbersome, but it boils down to this: if a young person is convicted of a criminal offence, the record is available to law enforcement, the Crown, etc., for the duration of the sentence, plus a subsequent set period of time, depending on the seriousness of the offence. If during that period of time the young person is convicted of another offence, that potentially extends the access period, if the subsequent offences have access periods that will last longer than the first access period.
So if a young person is convicted of first degree murder, they get a sentence of 10 years. The access period is the time of the sentence, plus five years (see 119(2)(h)), for a total access period of 15 years from the date of conviction. The record is available for law enforcement purposes throughout that period. As well, the access period gets extended if the young person is subsequently convicted of additional offences (see 119(2)(i) & (j)).
The approach here is based on the idea of redemption - if a young person keeps out of trouble for the entire access period, the record then gets sealed. But if the young person keeps getting in trouble, the access period for the record keeps getting extended.
I see what you’re saying, but I’m not saying anything here that hasn’t been published in millions of papers already. This cat is well and truly out of the bag.
severus, I also understand what you’re saying, but when people of any age commit serious crimes, there needs to be serious consequences. I do understand that a person as young as the alleged young offender might not fully be able to think through her actions, but we can’t just look at multiple homicides as a childish prank. The victims of crimes are just as victimized regardless of the age of the perpetrator, and that seems to have gotten overlooked in our zealousness to protect children from the consequences of their actions.
I would have to say I probably have a bad attitude about young offenders because I have had so many encounter with them here in Calgary. I have lost count of how many times I’ve had my car broken into; I’ve had my apartment broken into twice, and I’m currently living in a neighbourhood where somebody felt the need to burn down all the garages last summer (and it’s not a particularly bad neighbourhood). Of course there have been no convictions for any of this, so I don’t actually know that it’s young offenders doing all these crimes, but chances are pretty good.
I overheard a young guy on the bus one day telling his buddy that he was turning 18, so he’d have to stop doing crimes now. Young people who are doing these crimes aren’t afraid of the Young Offenders Act; it’s no deterrent at all to them. It would not surprise me if the alleged young offender did the crimes herself, rather than her boyfriend, because they both knew that she would receive very light sentencing compared to what he would have gotten. And they could always pull out the Karla Homolka defence, anyway.
Okay, I sent a notice to the mods regarding deleting the name of the young offender from this thread. I don’t know if it should be deleted or not; I’ll leave that judgement in their capable hands.
Heh. I’m lovin’ these links. Check out the accuracy:
“We know the nature of their relationship, but we can’t say right now - only that they’re acquaintances,” said Sergeant Dave Townsend." – from the OP’s link.
“We don’t know the relationship between the two. We believe they are acquaintances,” said Sgt. Dave Townsend of the Medicine Hat Police Service. – from Northern Piper’s second link.
Also, many links name the adult as James, not Jeremy.
There is a germ of truth in Northern Piper’s first link, though: “Kids entering their teen years often want to give the impression they are older than they really are — the girl repeatedly says she’s 15 — and the Internet provides a way to get into situations they may not be ready to handle, experts say.”
Childhood experts need to print out that line and frame it on their wall.
Was that when she was just missing, before she was charged? Publication restrictions only kick in once a young person is charged.
Because the boyfriend is still alive, and her family isn’t… oh wait. That isn’t what you ment is it? Carry on.
-Otanx
Yes - it was when she was just “missing”
Thanks featherlou for confirming that the Sun had run the picture and name, I was starting to think I was losing it.
The media started being very careful regarding the publication ban just as soon as it was clear she was a suspect, but it really isn’t hard to put two and two together.
Okay, sorry about the delay in addressing this. (And we definitely appreciate everyone who alerted us to this thread.) We’re talking this over, but my initial impression is that, based on a Google news search alone, the kiddo’s name is already being published. Plus, of course, there’s the usual back-and-forth about what do when a non-U.S. law is (possibly) violated. We’ll get back with a decision later today; in the meantime, because of her name already being released, I’m gonna leave everything in place for now.
Bumped for an update: J.R., who stabbed family to death with boyfriend at age 12, is free after 10-year sentence
But I think the judge on the case is bonkers:
Here was the second thread on the case: Update to a Depressing Headline: 12 Year Old Girl Charged with Murder
Anybody here remember being 12? At that age you don’t have a fully formed conscience and can easily be manipulated. It’s one of the reasons 12-year-olds don’t have the legal power to make responsible decisions.
It might be instructive to read about Caril Ann Fugate, who at age 13 began a term of 17 years incarceration for a case that has many similarities.
Left to their own devices, it is extremely unlikely that Fugate and the Alberta girl would have done grievous harm to another human being. But even adults can be and often are quickly brainwashed to do the most heinous of deeds. War would be impossible without it.
The girl is probably an ordinary teenager, caught up in ordinary teen-age passions and chance bad company, and moving to the brink of desperation by her circumstances.
yes. I don’t remember stabbing my parents or siblings to death. I’m pretty sure I didn’t either, since they’re all still here.
Well, I remember not being a danger to myself or others when I was 12. 'Never stole a car and went drag racing down the highway, 'never broke my own arms to hear what the “snap” sounded like, always did my chores, etc. Didn’t know how to fill out a 1040, though.
That’s probably because I was “young,” not a mindless animal, a mental patient, or even a self-absorbed hooligan.