Another scare tactic to use. “Son or daughter, do you want to live there with no toys
and no mommy, daddy and friends? You’ll be there for months before they move you further away!”
If it’s not enough, maybe they belong there or mental ward 'em.
Maybe people want this. I don’t have a cite, but I do remember a lot of editorials
and online comments years ago about this when we had the Columbine boys to deal with. (Anyone??) Parents can’t be around all the time, so maybe these rules were implemented to reassure the public that even when no one’s watching, kids will KNOW they will be in major trouble.
12 year olds can rape. Why should the ability to rape be where we draw the line? If a swarm of children ages 8-12 overpower someone, pin them down, and a 12 year old rapes their victim, should only the ones capable of erections be charged as adults? What if they don’t have someone capable of intercourse that day and just strip their victim naked, and then shove sticks in their victim’s orifices until the recess bell rings? Do we use the age of the youngest rapist we catch as a guide for all crimes, or do we test each perp to see how he should be charged. How do we determine the age to charge girls as adults?
One reason we have the try-as-adult option is that if we did not, there are those who would use their status as a minor to commit crimes and not face the full consequences. We have seen that in “honor killings” and in gangs, where a younger members are selected to perform crimes for just this reason. I assume we also fear that individuals might do this as well.
I don’t think our best interests are served by refusing to use judgment and setting up a one-size-fits-all rule.
I think what this discussion comes down to is a desire to rehabilitate kids who screw up. Everybody wants that. but we also have a situation where the crime crosses a line of social behavior that transcends “youthful stupid”. It would be nice if we could dedicate a team of 20 health care workers to this kid but that isn’t going to happen in juvinile detention.
Agreed. “Youthful stupid” is reserved for things like panty raids
or teepeeing a house (and getting caught, of course).
Those things you can seal a record for, no prob.
But murder… okay, decided. Jail the little freak. The boy who shot his father and friend in AZ, he and other kids in this situation don’t even have to allocute.
THIS kid in PA (Jordan??) knew his dad’s pregnant girlfriend was asleep, got his own gun, placed it to the back of her head and killed her. Then he goes to school, might even be part of an alibi he planned.
It’s not the “tried as an adult” is a problem here at all.
It will be the sentencing. PA at least won’t seek death!
Actually, I don’t think the likeliness of rehabilitation is dependent on the seriousness of the crime. More important is the context of the crime. Even when adults kill, we look at the circumstances surrounding the killing some of which are mitigating and some of which are aggravating. Was the person defending themself or another? What the killing for monetary gain? In some cases deliberately killing another is not a crime.
I would want to know what was going on in the family that led to this. Some had said he feared being replaced. That could represent a selfishness and lack of human feeling, or it could represent a real fear, perhaps even justified, that he would be pretty much discarded when the child was born. I knew children who became non-entities in their own home when step-siblings were born. I knew one person that was thrust into the role of a servant when her step-sister was born. I have read news stories and case studies of horrific abuse of step-children which began when the first child of the new marriage was born. I think that we have a responsibility to look at the situation and try to find out what this boy was thinking and not rely on a blanket rule.
There is no blanket rule now - it’s a matter of discretion. But it sounds like what you want a blanket rule. If you argue that this kid didn’t commit a serious adult crime, what would you consider a case that qualifies?
As for the argument about the home situation - again I ask, what do you consider an adequate excuse? Do you really think the home situation was so bad that Brown was justified in shooting Houk? Explain what Houk could have theoretically been doing that would justify this? Her kids always got the bigger slice of cake and they always got to ride in the front seat?
My understanding is that science knows that an adolescent’s brain isn’t the same as an adult’s brain. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a straight A student or a ne’r do well. They have physiological differences that cause them to process thoughts and reason and all that stuff differently than an adult does.
Even though there is a no right to commit a crime, there should be a right to be judged according to your age and circumstances. Otherwise, its pointless to even have the adult/minor divide. We know that children’s brains are physically different than adult’s brains, so even if they commit the same crime, they do not approach it from the same way. Thus, if we want to deter future crimes from the individual, we should punish them according to how they best absorb it. In children, that should overwhelmingly point to rehab
The Bulger case though…I’m just glad I wasnt the judge on that
I’m not looking to excuse his conduct, I am looking to comprehend it. I am looking for clues that will tell me the person who killed this woman can become a contributing member of society or will tell me that they are likely to always turn to killing or violence.
You mock this with trivial slights, but the monstrous things that some do to children in their care that they do not want can be appalling beyond all comprehension.
Not to disagree with what you’ve said but I would add that simply using the term “child” as a demarcation point does not fully address the situation. 18 is not the same as 15 which is not the same as 10 which is not the same as 5.
It’s important to understand the underlying conditions behind the crime but it’s equally important that a mentally imbalanced child isn’t reintroduced into society as an imbalanced adult for no reason behind having been given a mulligan for being young.
And if we were discussing a boating accident, I would be all over anyone seeking to charge an eleven-year old with criminal negligence. But instead we are dealing with the wholly unambiguous murder of a woman in her bed.
I don’t think it can be explained. I’ve worked with violent criminals for decades and I still don’t understand why they do some of the things they do. But it’s not a factor of age. An eleven year old who commits murder is as inexplicable as a twenty year old that commits murder. A desire to plan out and follow through on killing somebody is not a natural behavior for a child or an adult. Somebody like Brown isn’t going to just grow out of this - this isn’t a phase he’s going through. Whatever is wrong with him now will still be wrong with him thirty years from now.
No, I don’t think so. People don’t have to stay the way they were when they were 11 years old, and many don’t. I don’t think there is something so magical about killing someone that it freezes their personality and character. If if did, isn’t it damn foolish of the law to look at mitigating factor when a homicide is committed and assign different names and severity to the crime depending on circumstances and even frame of mind of the killer?
Homicide is not always inexplicable. The easiest example of this is murder in self defense.
People don’t stay the way they were when they were eleven. But like I wrote before, premeditated murder isn’t just a phase some pre-teens go through. That’s a sign that you’ve made a sharp left turn and you’re heading off in a different direction than everyone else.
And I did specify premeditated murder in my post, which is what all the evidence indicates is the case here.
Then maybe we should eliminate the automatic age restrictions we have on sentencing? I personally would like to see some adults get light sentences and their records sealed for non-violent offenses like pot smoking or shoplifting
Battered spouse defense has been used as a defense for premeditated murders for which no remorse has been expressed. I don’t think it is beyond all reason to think that the courts may expand the defense to certain other domestic homicides.