I’m posing this question in the Pit because of the potentially elevated temperature this topic might inspire. A young Florida man is back in custody after committing a felony while on probation . . . for murder. The question is, should he have been punished as an adult at 16 for a killing, or given “help” and put on probation back then? And would that have prevented his continuing criminal behavior?
Personally, I’m inclined to lock up juvinile offenders and throw away the key, because if they are that mean that young it’s unlikely that they can be turned around. Sixteen is old enough to appreciate the diference between right and wrong, in my opinion, and old enough to suffer the consequences of criminal acts.
No doubt there is a debate on this issue, however, as many people’s mileage may vary. What say you?
I read the article you linked to, DesertGeezer, and the following seems to contradict your 'lock ‘em up forever’ stance:
I recently watched a documentary on the mentally ill in prison and one expert in the field said something that really struck me- namely that 98% of those behind bars today will eventually be released.
Perhaps we should focus more on treatment and less on punishment-especially in the case of juvenile offenders.
He was 12 when convicted. I was thinking 16, but that is when his sentence was overturned. But think back. Do you think you could have committed murder at the age of 12? Could you have stomped a six-year-old to death, and had enough understanding of what you had done to make up two stories about what happened? Most 12-year-olds pull pranks, but they don’t viciously murder little kids. So yes, I think a 12-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong. And some are big enough to be a danger even to adults. If they get psychological treatment in prison, so much the better, but they should pay for the crime. I honestly don’t know how old a person has to be before s/he is cognizent of what constitutes criminal behavior. I submit that you don’t either and neither does any psychiatrist. People mature at different rates.
Strikes me as a better reason to have “no parole” sentencing than to let some shrink turn dangerous people loose on the public.
How many crimes are committed by people declared “safe” by “experts” and released? Anybody know? The fact is we never know when any individual might crack. Why should we take chances with ones we already know to be dangerous?
And you do have some evidence to back up this policy decision, right? Because you wouldn’t be advocating a social policy that’s going to effictively destroy peoples lives based on your personal inclinations, right?
Policy decision? I don’t make policy decisions, I just expressed an opinion. Do I advocate a policy? Sure. I advocate what I think is right . . . just like you. I think that if a jury, after listening to experts on both sides, determines that a 12-year-old is a murderer who might do it again, they are closer to the evidence, the criminal and the victim than you are and probably made the right decision. Have you ever served on a jury? If so you know how serious jurors are about doing the right thing. I’m simply not second guessing them on the case of this killer. And the fact that he resorted to violent crime again after being released on probation proves to me that the jury was right in the first place.
It might have something to do with his living environment for the past 8 years.
[quote=DG]
I honestly don’t know how old a person has to be before s/he is cognizent of what constitutes criminal behavior. I submit that you don’t either and neither does any psychiatrist. People mature at different rates. [/qoute]
Agreed. But I don’t feel that the average 12 year old is mature enough to be held accountable as an adult. You feel differently. At least for now american society is on my side on this one. You are entitled to your opinion though.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
It might have something to do with his living environment for the past 8 years.
That’s all it is, askeptic, an opinion. I’ve been trying to remember a case a few years ago of an older person who was judged by psychiatrists to be no longer a threat. Several famous people went to bat for the guy, and he got out of prison . . . and murdered someone else. Can somebody help me resurrect that memory? The old gray cells ain’t percolatin’ like they used to.
It won’t prove or disprove the current case, except to show that dangerous people in a controlled environment can convince psychiatrists that they are now “safe” to be released. Anybody remember the case I’m talking about?
Is this the case where the little girl was killed by the boy imitating wrestling moves on her?
If so, a very good plea arrangement was offered in which the young man would have been put in a juvenile corrections program. But his Mom was so sure her angel would be exonerated that she let him go to trial. Oops!
And I’m not really a professional theologian. I just play one on the Net.
BUT yeah, I did lapse into snarkiness. I just remember the actual case too well. A big hulking twelve year old boy who did fatal wrestling moves on a little six-year old girl, and his Mom who kept turning down offers for plea bargains just did not inspire a great deal of sympathy from me.
OK, I just read the OP link (I’d seen the story on MSNBC this morning & it didn’t say if it was the same case… it was.)
Also from the link
*One of Tate’s supporters, the Rev. Dennis Grant, said Tate told his lawyers he was innocent and had been “set up” because of his notoriety.
“He has denied that he did what he’s accused of,” said Grant, who spoke with Tate’s attorneys. “I think we need to just wait a little while.”
Grant said he had offered to provide Tate with housing in a new neighborhood, counseling, church-based programs and other help, but his mother had refused.*
