It may be that in some cases, a juvenile is tried as an adult in order to keep them incarcerated for a longer period of time. I think in CA, a juvenile can only be held until age 25 maximum, regardless of their crime.
It’s true that some jurisdictions probably abuse their ability to make the decision of whether to charge a juvenile as an adult. In one notorious CA county, all juveniles charged with murder are tried as adults. ALL of them.
If the kid had entered into a sexual relationship with his teacher, instead of murdering his father’s girlfriend, would the teacher have been charged with statutory rape?
Why is the kid adult enough to murder, but not adult enough to have sex?
the charge of rape is against the teacher and the age of the child infers that an adult who should know better coerced a child into sex. Being coerced into something that feels good cannot be compared to the act of premeditated murder. This does not preclude a defense strategy of coercion or other outside influences if they exist.
Yeah, a lot happens between 11 and 18. Still, this crime is looking like a classic
pre-meditated murder. Waits till the girlfriend’s asleep, gets his own gun, kills her,
goes to school. Now how old does a kid have to be until they understand the impact of their actions?
I think they should be charged on basis of the crime. This boy ain’t right, but how about this, (and just for this case…) Juvie or institution until he’s 18,
then a long probation (possibly life-long probation) where previous charges and convictions COULD be used as evidence against him in another violent altercation?
Meaning, he’s 58, gets in a fight at a bar, and might spend 10-15.
His brain and attitude will change dramatically in the years from 11-18
as many of you have said…
Both situations require that the child make a decision. Coercion doesn’t enter into it- he made the decision. If he’s adult enough to make the decision to murder, then he’s adult enough to make the decision to have sex.
Either hold him responsible for his decisions, or judge him as a child. It shouldn’t be legal to do both.
Adult enough to murder? I don’t know what the laws are where you’re at but I’m 47 and I haven’t reached the age where it’s legal to commit murder yet.
No, that’s simply wrong. Having sex with an adult is something that a child can be inticed to do (“candy little boy”). It’s along the lines of Marijuana use and cannot be compared to premeditated murder. One is a minor lapse in personal judgment and the other is an extreme abuse of another person.
So, in this case for example, the kid was adult enough to be held responsible for killing his father’s girlfriend because he’s not getting enough attention… but he wouldn’t be adult enough to enter into a sexual relationship?
If the kid can be enticed into having sex, he’s a minor and can’t be held responsible, and so therefore his partner would get into trouble.
But if the kid thinks that killing his father’s girlfriend because she’s getting too much attention from his father is a good idea, suddenly he’s an adult?
One of these decisions is an adult decision and has adult motivations, and it’s not the decision to murder.
Sense. This makes none.
Best of luck in law school.
The murder never looked that way to me. It seemed as if the boy needed attention from his father who was probably preoccupied with his pregnant girlfriend. The boy, in turn, felt the sting of jealously and did the most primal thing: remove the object of his father’s affection. I’d be very curious to see the psychiatric evaluation of the boy.
As an aside:
Can someone explain how does an 11 year old kid have access to a gun? I mean, seriously, there isn’t a gun law that says something like “If the child isn’t using a firearm under the supervision of a guardian, then the firearm has to be locked away where a child may not easily access it.” When the father left in the morning, all of those firearms should have been stowed in a safe and secure location.
Just my opinion though.
Again, the gun belonged to the child; it was specifically designed for use by a child, and he apparently used it routinely for hunting. In many states, guns of a certain type don’t have to be registered (the .22 rifle that my father-in-law gave my then-10yo stepson, for instance, or the pistol-grip shotgun that sits by my husband’s side of the bed now), so there’s no law precluding a child owning/operating it. One would hope, certainly, that common sense would rule and the gun would be kept secured when the child was not in the presence of a responsible adult, but this was clearly not one of those cases.
And Lightnin’, you are missing the point that others are trying to make (whether you disagree with it or not is different). A child cannot comprehend ‘level of risk’-type scenarios; it’s why sitting on your bike at the top of a 30 degree incline feels amazing as a kid, but scary as hell to an adult. Kids don’t understand that if you swing a gun in a circle around your finger like the guys in the old Westerns, it might go off and kill someone. They don’t understand that if you flip someone onto a table like on their favorite wrestling show, that person could be seriously injured. They don’t understand that it’s not really good for them psychologically to let Ms. Smith give you a blowjob, no matter how hot she is. Every day during the summer we tell the kids at work not to dive in the shallow end of the pool, but almost every day someone does it (thankfully we’ve only had one ‘significant’ injury). There are also adults who can’t understand these concepts, whether through injury or an accident of birth, which is why we can make allowances for them in legal procedings (ie, a severly cognitively impaired individual isn’t likely to wind up on death row, unless they’re in Texas).
However, children can understand the very, very basic concept of “don’t kill someone” and can certainly be raised from a young age to understand that putting a shotgun against the back of someone’s head and pulling the trigger is probably going to violate that rule. Every day kids have gun-related accidents and are not/minimally charged. But every now and then, we come across a special situation- just like the adults, but in reverse- that calls for a harsher stance.
You’re saying it can’t be both ways (responsibility vs rights), but I’d say it would be dangerous as hell to have it one way or the other, mostly for the point that Magiver brings up. It has to be both ways, just to allow for cases like this that are SO out-of-the norm that a one-size-fits-all ruling is inadequate.
So are you going to let him walk free with maybe some counselling on not to do things like that because they’re wrong?
He murdered a pregnant mother because he was jealous of an unborn child.
What next?
Go on a gun rampage at school because a teacher told him off?
Or perhaps hold him in some sort of secure school for the next few years and then let him loose on society as an adult who has learned that the worst extreme of human evil doesn’t carry any real punishment.
If thats the case then you can live next door to him cos I wont be.
Sorry to double post but if we’re going to use the argument that a child doesn’t have the judgement in ordinary life to know that its wrong to steal let alone kill someone in cold blood then in that case every single child should not be allowed out in public unless escorted by an adult at all times .
Ridiculous?
No more then the argument that children of that age have no conception of the right or wrong of their actions.
When I was much younger then that I and my schoolfriends knew the difference.
Kids even from a very young age “know” the difference between right and wrong - in an abstract sense. But it takes time (and proper education) to get an actual visceral feel for the consequences and nature of these crimes. And, more importantly, to have the maturity and self control needed to act responsibly when dealing with emotionally difficult situations that can lead some down the path of certain actions. What’s ridiculous is that you don’t know the difference between “knowing” in the abstract sense and “knowing” in the viscerally aware of the nature of consequences and able to maturely handle difficult emotional scenarios sense.
That dosn’t even relate to what he is saying. He is saying that if he is old enough to be treated as an adult for killing a person he should be old enough to be treated as an adult for having sex with a person.
I can’t agree with your first part. A primal reaction would be to shoot her in front of witnesses. Instead, he waited until she was asleep and his dad was gone, got close enough to put the barrel to the back of her head and squeeze. Then goes to school. Talk to his friends. See if he got any schoolyard advice, maybe. Posed the question to other kids.
How an 11-year-old kid has access to a gun is frightening, just because accidents happen often, and good ol’ murders. So I’m with you there. My question is, if the kid had NO access to the gun, would he have used something else? My guess is no.
I think access to the gun is the clincher in this case. No gun, then no murder.
Maybe he just would’ve ran away.
I guess we need to know how much the kid hated this situation to understand.
I didn’t say a child has no conception of right and wrong. I said that children generally don’t think like adults.
Maybe the question should be about whether the kid realizes the long-term, permanent consequences of his actions, rather than merely “is it right or wrong.” Is the knowledge that our actions can have broad, permanent repercussions a developmental milestone?
I sure hope the answer is yes.
So are you suggesting that judges should NOT have the discretion to try juveniles as adults, EVER? If so, I completely disagree.
There are certain crimes for which society is better served if a juvenile offender is treated like an adult. Here is an example: suppose a 17 year old rapes and sodomizes a 4 year old boy. At 18, should the perpetrator’s record be wiped clean so he can get a fresh start? Not imo. This type of predatory behavior needs to be identified and dealt with…not wished away, even if the perp is too young to buy a beer. If the 17 y.o. in this scenario is not tried as an adult, then he has no need to register as a sex offender since he has no record. IMO the community is done a horrible disservice if a predatory sex offender, regardless of his age, does not have to register.
For most juvenile crimes…such as shoplifting, shooting bb guns at cars, and other such childish pranks…I agree that trying them as children and expunging the record at 18 is appropriate. But there are certain crimes, notably capital murder and sexual assault, for which the adult system should be used, even for minors.