This guy is accused of clubbing a girl to death when he was a teenager. It’s now twenty-five years later.
The question is whether he should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult.
Can you provide more information, such as what sort of life he has lead since that time, does he have a criminal record, how young of a teenager was he when the crime was committed, whatever else you know?
If he was almost eighteen at the time of the crime and had been caught then, he may well have been tried as an adult. But if he was thirteen or fourteen, it gets a little more complex. It does sound like a heinous crime, which also sometimes tips the scales toward being tried as an adult, although it may have been an unpremeditated crime of passion (?).
Sorry. The case has been in the news since the guy is related to the Kennedys somehow or other, and I assumed people would know about it.
Here is the most recent article I saw; it has a slew of links providing more background.
As far as I know, the guy has not been involved in anything criminal since the alleged incident. He was 14 when the young lady was murdered.
Tried as a juvenile of course, we don’t prosecute people who violate laws before they exist.
Asmodean said:
Could you clarify this? I’m pretty sure that murder was against the law in the 70’s…
Adult. Being ‘only 15’ is hardly an excuse for leniency after you have clubbed someone to death.
This could be what Asmodean is talking about; you can’t be guilty of a crime if the law making it illegal is enacted after the deed was done. The juvenile code, according to the link APB9999 provided, was much more lenient in 1975, so had Shakel been tried at that time as a juvenile, the penalty would not be as severe as it would have been after 1975. But because of the brutality of the crime, he may have been tried as an adult anyway. Now that I have read the link, my feeling is that he should be tried as an adult, and should have been at that time, had he been caught.
He might have been a juvenile at the time, but he has been an adult for many, many years now, and HE HAS KNOWN HE DID IT ALL THESE YEARS. He has had plenty of time to confess and chose, as an adult, not too. I say, he fries.
Yeah, 15 year olds aren’t responsible enough to drive by themselves, vote, buy liquor, or work full time. But they can sure take adult responsibilities for their crimes. We can’t have it both ways.
Marc
You may be unaware that one of your rights is that you don’t have to incriminate yourself. Gotta love that pesky bill of rights.
Marc
From what I understand it would be perfectly legal to try Skakal as an adult. It was legal at the time of his crime just not put into practice. But I do not believe in trying juveniles as adults. Skakal is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t. For what we know he has never committed another violent crime. The only problem I have with this man is trying to understand how he lived with this terrible misdeed on his conscience all these years. Of course he looks a little worn out and worse for wear to me anyway. Perhaps it has taken it’s toll on him. He should see his day in court none the less. A young girl was cut down in a horribly violent way before her life even had a chance to really begin. This girl’s family has lived with the knowledge that her possible killer has walked around free. It’s time for this story to come to an end.
Needs2know
I’ve heard this argument before, and repetition still hasn’t convinced me that it makes sense. This all or nothing approach mystifies me. We can only hold them responsible for their actions if we give them every right we enjoy? Why? It’s a crock. We certainly can have it both ways. In fact, we do. Expecting a 15 year old to be able to drink responsibly is a few worlds away from expecting them to refrain from repeatedly bashing someone in the head with a blunt object, and equating the two is ridiculous.
It seems to me like there is very lousy evidence of the crime when, regardless of him being related to the Kennedy clan, it takes 25 years for the cops to put the case together.
Furthermore, if he did do it, he hasn’t killed anyone else since. Doesn’t seem like much of a danger to society to me.
He’ll get a slap on the hand if he doesn’t just get himself a halfway decent lawyer.
I mean if you are 5 and you kill someone, but they don’t figure out what happened until you are 20, do you get life in prison? You have to draw the line somewhere.
I had a buddy who did some unmentionable thing when he was 18 with a group of kids who were 17. Since he was the only one old enough to get nailed, he got the full brunt of the charges. The judge has mercy on him and gave him 8 years probation instead of 18 months in jail. But when he was 25 he got pulled over for drinking and driving (that is a sport in Texas and Boston both as best I can tell) which, of course, was a violation of his probation. So he went to prison for the original 18 months. He never was the same after that and managed to kill himself in a car wreck last year.
Every atom in your body is different after 8 years I’ve heard tell. I don’t think it is right to incarcerate an adult for something – anything – the person might have done as an irresponsible kid.
**
How can someone who isn’t responsible enough to hold down a full time job be responsible for something as weighty as murder? Well that’s not quite right. We recognize that children have limited responsibilities for their actions. I expect a 15 year old to be punished as a 15 year old not an adult.
Marc
The Skakal boys have always been the prime suspects in this case. But 23 years ago the local police, who were not used to dealing with such a horrendous crime, were intimidated by the wealth and power of the Skakal family. It has not taken them 23 years to make this determination, it has taken 23 years for enough public outcry to have them move on the evidence. The murder weapon came from their house. I’d say that would have been enough to convict some poor black kid today or even back then. Mark Furman is not the only person that has been interested in this case. Dominick Dunne modeled his best seller “A Season in Purgatory” after this case. He became interested years ago.
Let them try this man. If he’s found innocent then he’s found innocent, but all the evidence has pointed toward him from the beginning. It was just never investigated properly or brought to trial. It is as it should be, there should be no statute of limitations on murder. Would you say that it is wrong to procecute Ira Einhorn, or John List simply because 20 or 30 years have passed? I’d think not.
Needs2know
Fair enough. I happen to expect someone even at the tender age of 15, to understand the gravity and seriousness of murder. I am not saying he has the exact same appreciation of the situation as a 25 year-old, or a 50 year-old. I do, however, expect them to know that it is a) wrong, b) permanent, and c) punishable by society even to life imprisonment. The legal system that allows them to see murder as a) wrong, b) permanent, and c) punishable in Juvee Hall until I’m 18 is what I consider a travesty.
Ptahlis…you are somehow under the mistaken impression that juveniles always go free at 18 regardless of the crime. This is not true. I also do not believe that juveniles should be housed with adults, regardless of their crime. It is not unusual for them to be sent to a regular adult prison when they come of age to finish out their sentence. I firmly believe it is cruel and unusual punishment to send a 15 year old boy to prison with grown men. I realize that some 15 year olds are hardened by this age, but that is why it is so important for these cases to be judged on an individual basis.
Needs2know
No, I realize that they don’t always go free at 18. Sometimes it’s 21. Not much of a difference in my book when you are talking about murder. Perhaps I am misinformed, and there are lots of kids that serve sentences longer than this when tried as a juvenile, but I have never heard of it. Also, I never said they should be sent to an adult facility while still a child. That would be like tossing a steak in with piranha. I do advocate that teenaged murderers be tried as adults though, and that when they become an adult they be moved to the appropriate facility.
Perhaps neither of us are informed enough. I was under the impression that teenagers tried as adults were then housed with adults. I also did not believe that juvenile sentencing laws allowed someone to go free at 21 in every case. Naturally states will adopt their own policies, and it can vary. I’ll try to see if I can find some information on this subject when I get the chance. I’ll start with my state.
Needs2know