So if a 9 year old goes into Wal Mart and stuffs 5 packs of Pokemon cards in his pants and walks out the front door would you support prosecuting him as an adult? He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong and there would be punishment if he got caught otherwise he would not have hidden the cards in his pants and would have just walked out the front door with them in his hands instead.
Again, I don’t think the severity of the crime should be a determining factor in deciding if the perpetrator is an adult or not. Why do you think differently?
This is the same kind of unthinking stupidity that leads people to say things like “a sin against God is infinite and therefore merits infinite punishment.”
There’s some pretty good evidence here in the fact that they didn’t seem to give any thought to the fact that they could get caught and punished. At least from this article, there doesn’t appear to be any sign at all that they were anything but oblivious to the long term consequences of what they did. That’s evidence, at least, that they don’t have an adult-level understanding of what they did.
(Of course by that token, lots of adults also don’t have an adult level understanding of what they’ve done but the presumption is that a child will grow into that understanding, someone who is already an adult is probably “stuck in their ways.”)
Why not try him as an adult? What do you think that entails for petty theft? What is the difference in this case?
If I, an adult first offender, stole Pokemon cards from Wal mart, what do you think my adult punishment would be? Five years in pound-me-in-the-ass prison? No, more likely a fine and maybe 30 days in county, suspended. What do you think a 9 year old would get? Remanded to his parents, maybe. Plus restitution. Big difference there, huh?
Where did you see that I was equating attempted murder with stealing Pokemon cards? I was illustrating that a child knowing that something is wrong and that they will be punished if caught doesn’t make them an adult in and of itself, which seems to be what was said a few posts up.
My point was that someone is either an adult or they aren’t, it’s not situational. Why do you think that it is? Why have a juvenile/adult distinction? If you think there shouldn’t be then thats a different discussion, but right now there IS a distinction.
I don’t know if they should be tried as adults, but this is a false dichotomy.
I’m guessing there aren’t very many cases that are exactly like this one, but does anyone know how well “treatment” (whatever that includes) works for these sorts of crimes? I’ve always had the impression that rehabilitation for pre-meditated violent crimes wasn’t something we really knew how to do.
I’m with Rachellogram, trying the kids as adults is wrong. They are juveniles. To all of you who are OK with therm being tried as an adult: do you think we should just dispense entirely with our juvenile justice system?
Granted, the juvenile justice system sometimes leads to travesties, such as the sentences of 30 and 90 days (to be served on weekends) in a juvenile justice facility for the three kids who raped Audrie Potts and then posted pictures of her online, causing her to commit suicide. Be a shame in every respect if these girls got a similar wrist slapping for a crime that would net them years in prison as adults. So I understand the reluctance of some to consider treating them as juveniles. But the Potts case points to better sentencing guidelines (and more competent judges) in the juvenile justice system rather than trashing it entirely, which is kinda what trying 12 year olds as adults is all about.
I suspect that at least one of the girls is a sociopath/psychopath, however. Medical care for both of them in the form of extensive psychological counseling would probably be a very good idea, along with a lengthy stay in juvenile prison and a probation program that would put the girls in adult prison if they so much as glare at someone once they are released.
You’ve not addressed my question at all. If a twelve year old knows the difference between right and wrong then every crime they commit should see them treated as adults yes? if not why not? why should only the very bad crimes see them treated as adults?
Utter non-sequitur. I ask why the enormity of the crime changes how the judicial system should treats juveniles and no-one seems willing to explain why.
Your post is just hand-waving. Address the point rather than whining about it. Tell me your logic, why do think what I’ve said is stupid? What thinking have you put into your own comments?
It’s not unusual to charge juveniles as adults for murder or attempted murder.
My state changed the law after 2 teensshot up an elementary school playground(with multiple fatalities). Little bastards are already out thanks to the juvenile system. New law means that won’t happen again.
These kids thought Slenderman was real. When they were arrested, they were on their way, on foot, to a national forest 300 miles away to visit Slenderman’s “mansion.”
All of this “it’s a serious adult crime, let’s try them as adults” talk sounds like recreational outrage to me.
The juvenile system really isn’t set up to handle a likely sociopath who would plan and commit a crime like this. Neither is the adult system the best place for these children. It’s not recreational outrage - it’s what’s the least bad solution to a dangerous child.
The girls planned this for weeks. It’s hard for me to believe there weren’t warning signs. I grew up reading horror stories and watching horror movies. I never once thought about sacrificing one of my friends to a mythical villain because my parents taught me the difference between fantasy and reality. Now I’m not saying that mental illness might not be a factor, but there again, something the parents should have noticed.
