He is saying that it only works one way, and because it only works one way it is wrong. I agree.
A kid can be tried as an adult because he knew what he was doing.
He can’t buy a beer at the bar by saying he’s mature and knows what he’s doing. He can’t sign a contract in his own name because he knows what he’s doing. He can’t go buy cigarettes because he knows what he’s doing. He can’t vote because he knows what he is doing.
Children under 18 have limited rights and responsibilities. The responsibilities should never be extended if the rights can’t be.
I can’t really add much but “I agree”. Different drinking and voting ages upset me, this kind of thing really gets me going. Let 11 year olds serve on juries, drive, drink and vote (yes at the same time so they’re equal with most other voters) or don’t treat them as adults.
The shotgun is not relevant to the crime. Whether it was a shotgun, sledge hammer, kitchen knife, poison, toaster in the shower, or an infinite number of other methods it doesn’t change the calculated nature of this murder. He calmly went on to school as if nothing happened. This, IMO, is the reason behind the decision to move it to an adult court. Placing him in an “18 and out” detention center does not address the psychopathic nature of the child.
Knowing that thou shalt not kill is a very basic rule of society. Dealing with being drunk, being responsible for long term finances, signing contracts, etc, do have the teeniest little bit of nuance more than not killing people.
I have argued very strongly many times for rights of minors. I think kids should be able to drink by at least 16, age of consent should easily be 14, and a few other things that make some think I put more faith in kids than they deserve. All of this, as fascinating as it is, is totally irrelevant.
You don’t kill people.
Now, because of the way our legal system is set up, we may have to jump through rhetorical hoops to say, “We’re trying him as an adult” when we should say, “We’re trying him for homicide.” Great. I will write my congressman tomorrow if this is all the disagreement is about.
But now you suggest that for some reason if I’m in for a penny, I’m in for a pound; sorry, but your slope isn’t so slippery.
Ok, I’m not an expert on the US legal system; but why is this? Is it impossible to try a child for homicide? Doesn’t the juveniale penal system allow a DA to prosecute underage murderers? My interpretation of trying a kid as an adult is that they use adult standards instead of the (probably less harsh) juvenile standards. This is what I don’t agree with.
From this article it looks like he’s been charged with criminal homicide and homicide of an unborn child.
I’m of mixed feelings about this though. I mean, obviously he knew what he was doing and knew it was wrong. That should definitely count against him and perhaps even justify trying him as an adult. But he’s also just a kid. Would putting him away for life do anything but worsen his mental state?
Your understanding is correct. I was responding to the idea that if I wanted to try a child as an adult I must grant him all other rights and eliminate the distinction that is being a minor, or eliminate it for at least this aspect of law.
How about we put this kid in prison and save the help and sympathy for the four year old and seven year old whose mother was just murdered. Jordan Brown is not the victim here - he’s the one who commited the crime. Kenzie Houk and her two daughters are the victims.
http://beehivestandardweekly.com/articles/156/1/Driving-Age-and-the-Brain-Development-Argument
We know brain development is on going during your teen years. We grant concessions to children due to the fact they are at various levels of development and their decisions are impaired. He is a kid. His view of reality is skewed.
You can not let him loose with no punishment but having his formative years spent in jail is not going to help him or society.
Impaired judgment would be closer to a crime of passion. This was calculated with no show of remorse. It goes beyond basic reasoning skills and is now in the realm of a psychopathic crime.
People under the age of 21 do not have all of the rights that people over the age of 21 have. Those rights are more significantly curtailed under the age of 18. All people, even those under 18 do still have rights, and still have responsibilities.
Not shooting a pregnant lady in cold blood is one of those responsibilities.
I prefer the way it is, without a drop dead date, before which you’re guaranteed juvenile treatment and after which you’re guaranteed adult treatment. It’s an arbitrary date anyway and doesn’t have any actual meaning or validity with respect to a person’s level of maturity and ability to accept responsibility for their actions.
But it seems to me that the nature of the crime might make a difference. A child who is not able to make reasonable judgments as to what’s reckless and what’s not may still be able to understand the wrongfulness of some set of crimes where deliberate intent and bad consequences are unequivocal.
Not everyone will accept that as a meaningful distinction, of course, but for those who do, this case certainly seems to fall into the latter category.
If a 10 year old commits a crime and is tried as an adult, then released at 15, shouldn’t he or she get to then legally drink, drive and vote? (Not all at once, of course.)
But for BOTH cases, isn’t trying a kid as an adult a scare tactic for both sides?
Your 11 year old keeps insisting he/she should kill someone. You explain that
they will be taken away from home and not allowed to come back should be enough,
but now you can tell these two stories, or shit, just show 'em the link. Let them look
at the crying faces of the victims families, friends…
On the other side, the justice system gets to set an example, proving
that their parents warnings aren’t made up.
The down side is putting these two boys in a juvenile corrections facility
until their 18 (maybe even longer in adult jail) and released… then what?
Now their 21, kill their cheating girlfriend and know how to get away with it this time?
Learning tips from fellow violent teens?
Sheesh. I don’t really know what’s better. Jail? Psych ward?
Well, they’re probably already brain damaged, so drinking might be okay.
Voting, again, brain damaged, so no problem there…
Driving? Nah, height restrictions.
Well apparently he’s being held in an adult facility. While I may be of mixed emotions about him being tried as an adult, this is definitely not ok in my mind. Apparently, according to the article, since he’s being tried as an adult he can’t be housed in juvie.
I’m completely against charging a minor as an adult, but perhaps not surprisingly, I’m also sick of the system currently in use
My objection is that a minor doesnt get adult rights no matter how mature he acts, so why should he be punished as an adult when the situation arises? There is a discrepancy in rights vs. punishment here that is inherently unfair. With children unable to vote on their own behalf, that compounds the injustice. As it stands right now, no child should ever be charged as an adult
However, as I said, I have issues with the law itself. From years of watching Judging Amy reruns on TNT, I know that one’s juvenile record is sealed and unless there is some kind of overwhelming need, or a case that would create a lot of good-for-tv drama, theres no chance of using the child’s minor record against them. I also know that with juvenile courts, the judge is less bound by precedent and can sentence kids to pretty much anything. I would like to see a change in the law that allows children’s records to be unsealed if an adult crime ties into their juvenile history. I would also like to see escalating penalties for worse crimes that extend past 21, so that a judge may not be able to put a kid in jail for life, but for a sufficiently heinous crime, they can be forced to be confined in a mental hospital for a number of years after their 21st birthday
There are simply some kids who should not be released. That is clear to me after that case in England where those two kids killed a younger kid in a horrible way and ditched his body somewhere. I forget the name of the case, but British law mandated they be released at 21, and given new identities to protect themselves from a rabid public
