Charging minors as adults

A boy aged 11 has been charged with the murder of his father’s pregnant girlfriend in Pennsylvania.

The article says that there were ‘issues with jealousy’. Apparently. I’ve heard that children can have such issues when a parent is ‘replaced’ or a new child is born.

I remember when I was eleven. I was a goofy kid who liked riding my bike and skateboard, building models, reading scary stories, and playing with my friends. I never wanted to kill anyone. If I had wanted to, and did, I don’t think I could have made the decision within the parameters of ‘adult’ thinking. It seems to me that the reason we have a juvenile justice system and an adult justice system is that children cannot reasonably be expected to behave as adults.

And yet I often hear of minors being charged as adults. Legally a person is a minor through the day before his 18th birthday. I can certainly understand why a 17-year-old could be charged and tried as an adult. By the letter of the law I think that a minor should be charged as a minor. But I also think there are variables that would indicate that a legal minor should be charged as an adult. How ‘mature’ is a minor? (I’ve heard that some studies have shown that humans are often not ‘mature’ until the age of 25. Sorry, no cite.) When I was 17 I was a very responsible person, though a minor. Other 17-year-olds are goofs. Suffice it to say, I think that minors on the verge of adulthood may be charged as adults under circumstances.

An 11-year-old? I have a harder time with that. An 11-year-old is not on the verge of adulthood. The crime may be an adult one, but I don’t think an 11-year-old can reasonably be said to think like an adult.

So here’s the question: How young is too young to be charged and tried as an adult? Wouldn’t a given age be arbitrary? That is, could a 16-year-old literally ‘get away with murder’ while a 17-year-old can’t? (Not to say that he wouldn’t be punished; but that the punishment would be less than that for an adult.) What about a 15-year-old? Where do you draw the line?

FWIW I first read about this at another message board. Of the eight responses calling for this particular 11-year-old to be ‘removed from society forever’, three recommend execution. IMO that’s as sad a commentary on our society as the crime itself.

Knowing that one should not kill another person is something a child of eleven should easily know. I can see a child of eleven being negligent and doing something that inadvertantly got someone killed, but homicide?

In a perfect world I think you’d have to do it on a case by case basis. If it can be shown that the person is of sound mind, capable of making adult decisions, has a firm understanding of the difference between right and wrong then that is someone who should be charged as an adult.

But I guess on a fundamental level most of us feel that at a certain age, no one should be found capable of those things. Even if there is 1 in a million 8 year olds who are capable of making adult decisions I don’t know that I’d ever be comfortable with an 8 year old being charged with a murder as an adult no matter how many expert witnesses the prosecution had lined up to testify that this was a smart kid who knew what he was doing.

Eleven is a weird age, keep in mind that development is both cultural and biological. If you go back not too far in history around age twelve is when young men started to make important decisions and attained many of the important cultural rights and responsibilities of adulthood. If you go back to pre-history then I wouldn’t be surprised if by the age of fourteen or so young humans were more or less responsible for themselves.

To take it back to the thread, the problem with doing things on a case by case basis seems to be that prosecutors just push the age lower and lower, maybe we do just need a hard and fast age limit to these sort of prosecutions.

Knowing whether or not you should avoid homicide is not what I would characterize as “an adult decision.” Knowing that certain behavior is reckless and that a reasonable person should avoid such behavior may easily be outside the range of an eleven year old. I cannot fathom charging an eleven year old with, say, criminal negligence. Ordinary adult reasoning may easily be outside the range of an eleven-year old child. Knowing you shouldn’t kill a person is a tad less ambiguous.

Which would seem to recommend against trying an 11 year old murder suspect as an adult.

-FrL-

I guess my meaning in that particular sentence, void of the rest of the context, made that unclear. I mean that it takes no magical adult powers to see that killing people is wrong.

Would an 11-year-old really understand all of the ramifications of his actions? He might know that it’s wrong, but he might think along these lines: ‘If I shoot her in the head, then she’ll be gone. I’ll tell the police I didn’t do it.’ He might not think about what ‘death’ really is, that there might possibly be other avenues to explore to remedy his problem, and so on.

I’m sorry but no, what you describe is how a 5 year old would think not an 11 year old.

I was hoping to find something in the article explaining why this kid was charged as an adult, but couldn’t. Since the default is to keep them as juveniles, I’d say that it should be, and is, done on a case by case basis. I’d think that a history of adult-like planning of a crime might count, and being a lot closer to 18 than this kid is.
I’d hope that any reasonable judge would kick this back to juvenile court right away. I’d also hope that once the defense attorney sees the physical evidence that there would be no trial, and this kid gets the help he obviously needs.

BTW - shotguns designed for kids? Clearly not locked up? Just great.

I don’t know that you can slap an age on it and say ‘this is where we don’t cross into adult court.’ If all that’s really necessary for a murder conviction is ‘did you do it, despite knowing it was wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt?’*, then one could argue a six year old of average intelligence could be convicted of murder. If motivation is important to judge whether someone is mature enough for an adult-level guilty, then who’s to say ‘I didn’t like that she took daddy’s attention from me’ is any less valid of a reason than ‘She/he cheated on me’?

Is it possible that juvenile court is the insanity plea of the younger set? That when you have a case of a child that genuinely didn’t know what they were doing, or were suffering from a significant mental illness or abuse, that it’s easier to justify ‘only’ putting them away for a couple of years? But that when you come across a situation where there aren’t m/any mitigating factors, it’s not quite so easy to say 'Well, they are immature after all, maybe a year-long probation will be enough…"

There are some situations (I think this will be one of them) where the heinousness of the crime means that the juvenile system simply isn’t capable of handing out a sentence that fits; therefore the minor is tried as an adult so we don’t run into a situation where a ‘slap on the wrist’ is given. Theoretically, yes, a 15/16yo could get away with murder- if you consider ‘juvvie hall until you’re 18/21’ as getting away with something… but that 15/16yo had better have a damn good reason for their behavior.

Execution is obviously a ridiculous suggestion, regardless of how cold and calculated the murder was, but quite frankly there are some kids that are just wired incorrectly, and all the therapy in the world isn’t going to help them. We had a kid come through work several years ago who had killed a baby; no one (well, that is, no one who hadn’t read his full file) knew until the kid casually mentioned it one day. To hear this 10yo making an off-the-cuff remark about killing a baby was creepy as hell, and yikes was it a slap-in-the-face reminder about the kind of kids we treat. He was charged, but never ‘served’ any time for it (he was in the mental health system for other reasons), and if I was the parent of that baby I would be haunted by that fact forever. Think of how you might feel in this case, as the father of the slain woman. I could see how it would be easy to not want your daughter’s killer to be let out in a year or two, regardless of his age.

Going just by this case and the facts we have so far, I can also see how the prosecution might make a case for the boy being charged as an adult:

  • The boy had his own, child-sized shotgun that was kept unsecured in his bedroom, and allegedly he enjoyed hunting and target shooting with his dad. One cannot, therefore, argue that he wouldn’t know what can/does happen when something is shot.
  • One also cannot argue that he wasn’t considered responsible enough to handle a weapon- dad obviously thought the boy knew something of gun safety and responsibility, if he let the boy both own and keep** a shotgun in a household that appeared to include a 7 and 4 year old. And it doesn’t appear that the girlfriend had much of a problem with it, considering they were her 7 and 4 year olds.
  • This was not a horrible accident, where the girlfriend was hanging clothes on a line while wearing white mittens during deer season, or stepped in the way of a plinking session. The boy (allegedly) went into the room where she was sleeping, put the gun to the back of her head, and pulled the trigger. Then he went to school like nothing had happened.
  • This doesn’t seem to be a situation of abuse or extreme mental illness. The police hadn’t been called out to the house every day to deal with domestic issues, the school hadn’t had a meeting to complain about the drawings the boy was doing of his future stepmother with a butcher knife in her head, and with the exception of fourth-party hearsay, there didn’t seem to be any indication that the problems in the home were severe enough to end like this.
  • He knew what he did was wrong- when questioned, he lied and sent the police off chasing a false lead.

Laying the facts out thusly, and recognizing that we don’t have ALL the facts at this point, I could support a decision to try the boy as an adult. I don’t expect an 11yo to understand the subtle nuances of social behavior or what is/isn’t considered reckless behavior (take a look at any of the ‘What stupid things did you do as a kid’ threads for plenty of anecdotes to show kids are not good judges of what is/isn’t ‘safe’), but I damn sure expect an 11yo with this child’s history to know it’s probably not the best idea to put a shotgun against someone’s head and pull the trigger- there’s no way he couldn’t know what the result would be.

I wonder if they’ll charge him with the unborn baby’s death as well?

  • This is obviously a gross exaggeration.

** I make a distinction between owning and keeping because it’s possible for a child to be given their own gun for hunting/target shooting, but not be allowed to keep it by themselves. For instance, my stepson was given a .22 rifle by his grandfather when he turned 10 as part of a familial rite of passage, but owing to stepson’s impulsivity and lack of maturity, Mr. Kitty was entirely responsible for cleaning and storing the gun, as well as the conditions under which stepson was given access to it.

No, your meaning came through loud and clear, and I didn’t mean to be interpreted as ignoring it.

I would think that if it makes any sense at all to try a minor as an adult, it only makes sense if the crime is such that only someone with an adult intellect could commit it. As you have argued, murder is something anyone might do, adult intellect or not.

-FrL-

Ah, I see, interesting.

My understanding is that trying a minor as an adult is a discretionary decison. The case is reviewed and a judge decides if this particular minor should stand trial as an adult for this particular crime. I think this is a better system than imposing some arbitrary cut-off age on all cases.

If kids can be tried as adults, I don’t see the point in having a juvenile criminal distinction. Except maybe in the rare case that the minor has declared independence.

I don’t understand any of these arguments for trying non-adults as adults. If you decide to have different systems for adults and kids (and thus draw a line at 18), you have a reason for this and should be consistent. If you are eleven and drive around a defense of saying that you are really mature won’t help.

If you - as a nation - believe that some crimes are so terrible that offenders should always be tried as adults, you should make this clear in the law. If the defense can then show that the child didn’t know what he was doing he should be aqquited on that basis.

Saying you prosecute minors differently only to overturn it when the DA (and judge) deems it appropriate leads a to random and unfair justice system.

There have been some case around here where <15yo have overpowered and raped some women (in their 20s). As far as I’m concerned, if you are old enough to rape then you are old enough to be tried as an adult.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Random? Are they flipping coins?

But we allow adults to plead insanity, and we make concessions for individuals with low IQ, which may lead to decreased sentencing or even acquittals; if we prosecute different ‘classes’ of adults differently, why not different ‘classes’ of juveniles?

  1. Because there aren’t different juvenile classes, there’s just putting someone into an already existing class that violates the very reason the other class was created for in the first place.
  2. Your other examples are creations of class that allow for less penalty, not more.
  3. Even if certain juveniles could be considered worthy of adult sentences, there’s no way they should be in the same facilities.

Dave Chappelle says it better than I ever could.

They need to decide on an age of majority and stick to it, not ignore it when its politically convenient or the crimes are deemed particularly heinous.

If the kid is old enough to know how bad his crimes are, then why isn’t he old enough to sign a contract with the cell phone company?