# Adults tried as Juveniles?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2000, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adults-tried-as-juveniles/17303 "2000-01-23T04:42:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2000, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adults-tried-as-juveniles/17303/21 "2000-01-23T22:37:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Monty: > **Bricker: you do realize that Black’s Law Dicitonary merely provides a definition of the thing the Constitution is prohibiting?** Yes. I was responding to Banks’ “But I believe that refers to people already accused or convicted of a crime. Not a person that commited it earler.” By quoting the definition of ‘ex post facto’, I hoped to show Banks that it applied to this case. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2000, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adults-tried-as-juveniles/17303/22 "2000-01-23T23:31:00Z")
**Surgoshan** asked: > [@](#): > > I don’t know the legality of it, but is there any mitigation in him turning himself in? No one has suggested that there should be. **Sage** responded: > [@](#): > > Turning himself in when there was a warrant out for his arrest? They should go easy on him for that? If he’s found guilty, he should do an extra year for each of the 25 yrs since the murder, IMO. and when called on the outrageousness of this “opinion”, tells me to lighten up. Interesting debate style; throw out a piece of crap & whine that you’re being misunderstood when someone calls you on it. Even when offering an opinion, one should either offer some rationale to support it at the time, or be prepared to do so when asked. But Sage answers: > [@](#): > > My comment/question was in answer to someone who said he should get handled differently for having turned himself in. > Why? This isn’t running a red light! This is MURDER OF A CHILD! Reread my post and the one it was responding to. OK, Sage, I’ve re-read (and quoted so as not to be accused of paraphrasing) Surgoshan’s post & yours. 1. No one SAID [Skakel] should get handled differently for having turned himself in. Surgoshan asked. Note the “?” at the end of the sentence. That makes it a question, not a statement. Sheesh. 2. I don’t believe anyone in this thread compared the alleged murder to running a red light. I don’t believe anyone said a 4 year sentence would be appropriate in the event Mr. Skakel is convicted. I DID say that since the alleged crime was committed when he was 15, and a majority of crimes committed by 15 year olds in 1975 were tried in juvenile court, the unusual circumstance of his indictment occurring 25 years after the fact should not lead to a harsher penalty. While I feel that 4 years seems light for the taking of a life, I also feel a life sentence for a crime of passion committed at age 15 seems unduly harsh. I would like to hear other opinions on this if you disagree. Sage adds in another post: > [@](#): > > You are right, I don’t think he should get better treatment from the court for his having turned himself in rather than being led away in handcuffs. If you think he should, fine. Present your reasoning. I don’t think he should get special consideration for having turned himself in. He is a public figure, and easy to find. He spared the State of Connecticut the hassles of filing for extradition, and himself the humiliation of newspaper photos of being shoved into the back seat of a police cruiser. Not mitigating, not exacerbating. Neutral. OK? Then Sage adds: > [@](#): > > Note particularly the “If he’s found guilty” and the “IMO” (in my opinion). I did not purport that this is even a possible legality, simply my opinion of what should happen to a murderer who goes about his life after committing such a heinous act. > Note particularly the “If he’s found guilty” and the “IMO” (in my opinion). I did not purport that this is even a possible legality, simply my opinion of what should happen to a murderer who goes about his life after committing such a heinous act. Yes, Sage, you are free to offer us your opinion. And when your opinion is so far out of the realm of anything provided for by law, you should expect others to disagree with your opinion. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, you had better back it up with some pretty solid reasoning. Or you should be prepared for other people to tell you your opinion isn’t worth the time it takes to read. In this country, the burden of proof in on the prosecution. No proof, no indictment, no trial, no conviction. A suspect is under no legal obligation whatsoever to provide information that would assist the police & prosecutors in obtaining an indictment or conviction. In fact, if he is not advised of his right to remain silent, nothing he says is admissable as evidence. While a debate on the morality of walking away from a crime scot-free vs. the legality of not confessing would be interesting, it would also best be served as a separate thread, as it is really far afield from the OP’s question about trying this case in juvenile court. **Bricker** restated your red light running comment as: > [@](#): > > and an observation that this was a serious crime. You objected to this characterization: > [@](#): > > Further, my “observation” (?) is not that it’s a “serious crime.” It is a fact however, that it is murder. Now I’m really puzzled. Murder is NOT a serious crime? Your opinion is that a man should spend an extra 25 years in jail for something that is not a serious crime? I think I’ve spent more than enough time trying to understand the “rational” basis for THIS opinion. * * * Sue from El Paso Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adults-tried-as-juveniles/17303/23 "2000-01-24T03:21:00Z")
RobRoy, I would like to make a couple of observations if I may. > [@](#): > > Quote - “The purpose of a separate juvenile system is to recognize in increased rehab potential of young, first-time offenders. It would seem that Mr. Skakel has rehabilitated himself, and has lived cleanly since the murder.” > > Pretty easy to do when you are let free to go to college instead of serving 4 years in prison with pretty baby blue eyes … If this is true, then it portrays the failure of our current system to provide for any rehabilitation. I tend to agree with the implication that our prison system is very good at increasing criminal activity. > [@](#): > > The estimate of a human being’s potential is hard to make, and is often a self fulfilling profecy.(sic) I completely agree with this statement, especially when coupled with the opportunities the individual may or may not have. > [@](#): > > I think justice should be administered evenly with mandatory minimum sentences based on the crime committed. This would be an incredible deterrent to crime. While I certainly agree with equal justice, I cannot concur that mandatory minimum sentences are good or necessarily deter crime. There are many cases where mandatory minimums are in effect now, and I know of no evidence linking it with a reduced crime rate. _I_ think that it takes away from a judge’s discretionary power and doesn’t allow for the infinite possibilities of each new case. But I don’t work in the legal system – perhaps some of the lawyers on this thread could render an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adults-tried-as-juveniles/17303/24 "2000-01-24T05:32:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by hightechburrito: > Since Satan isn’t here to play devil’s advocate I guess I could. > > As Bricker said, it is unconstitutional to punish to make a law that punishes past events. So unless 15 year olds were commonly tried as adults 25 years ago, Skakel will argue that he should be tried as an adult. > > Not that it is my opinion, I believe **the only right a convicted murderer has is the right to a bullet in the head.** > > P.S. If this case goes any higher than district court **I am going to kill somebody** , it would just be absurd. And you won’t hear me whinning about my rights if that happens!! (bolding added by me) Well, my first instinct was to think that this was too asinine to deserve any response at all. Then I caught the irony of the juxtaposition of the bolded phrases. I hope you still believe in the first statement after you are yourself convicted, burrito. * * * Sue from El Paso Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted. ---
**Author:** ![RobRoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ba0ec/32.png) [@RobRoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobRoy)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2000, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adults-tried-as-juveniles/17303/25 "2000-01-24T06:09:00Z")
Sue - he would squeal like a stuck pig if a bullet was put in his head - or even if his rights were violated. It is those who are the least sympathetic to other’s rights that complain the most, as they feel previous to their own fall that they are above the law…and are dismayed to find out that they are not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adults-tried-as-juveniles/17303.md?page=1)