This isn’t a case of “teens will be teens, dumb/impulsive/etc.”. I think the crime was depraved enough to justify him never being a part of society again. Whether they’d put him down (which won’t happen) or if he never leaves prison I’d be fine with either.
So we have at least one poster who thinks 10 yo are responsible enough to be tried as adults.
How low can we go? 7 yo? 4 yo?
ETA : in fact, apparently we have two such posters. So, for these two : what’s the lowest conceivable age at which a kid can possibly be tried as an adult?
As someone already mentioned - it’s not just about the age. It’s a combination of the age AND the nature of the crime. In this particular case I believe this kid should be charged as an adult because of the nature of his crime combined with his age. If he were a 17 year-old who killed someone in a heated fight, I’d say not to charge him as an adult.
Forcible institutionalization isn’t a sentence. It’s a reaction to the mental health problems of an individual endangering society.
When the lifelong duration of forcible institution is a foregone conclusion, it becomes a sentence. If it were only a reaction of the patient’s mental health, you would have to reassess the patient from time to time in order to see whether his health has improved.
And how do you know that he is “fucked up”? Is applied common sense really enough here? I am not denying that those young felons may pose a danger to society. Some certainly do. But how do you tell?
You argue that it is sufficient to look at the crime, and if it is bad enough, the offender will always be a threat. Can that claim somehow be substantiated? Do young offenders, who commit severe crimes such at this one have a higher relapse rate than those, who commit more “forgivable” crimes?
It is true that Jon Venables has commited another crime after his release. It is also true that Robert Thompson has not. Neither has Mary Bell, who committed two murders when she was eleven and was released in 1980. She is now a grandmother. Sure, you could have “put her down” as you like to phrase it. That would probably have satisfied many a citizen’s sense of justice. But it would not have done anything to protect society, because as it turns out she was not a threat any more.
If the child is capable of deliberating choosing to murder another human being for pleasure (not some sort of screwed up accident or prank gone bad), I think the child is damaged and dangerous enough that he or she should be removed from the human race for the protection of others. Whether this occurs through execution or confinement I do not care.
So you would have had no qualms putting 11 year old Mary Bell on the electric chair for what she had done. And how would that have protected society?
Qualms? I would consider it a sane decision for the protection of others. It protects society because a dead 11 year old Mary Bell doesn’t grow up and victimize anyone else.
If the science is well-established that an individual’s brain continues to form through their twenties, I propose that murderers who are children be confined until age 30, if that’s to be a compromise between releasing them at 18 (when they might still be dangerous) and killing or permanently imprisoning them.
The UK made a different call. They released her after 12 years. That was 35 years ago. She has not vicimized anyone since. Still you think it was wrong not to kill her when she was eleven?
Alternative suggestion: I would hand out a penalty based on the severity of the crime. The maximum penalty for a youth should be 10 years. After that they should undergo a psychological evaluation to determine whether they are still dangerous. If they are, they should remain in custody with further evaluations happening at regular intervals.