Seriously, though. When you kill someone with malice aforethought, you have committed murder, PERIOD. It’s your responsibility as a citizen to think about the penalties that you will suffer and the negative consequences for your society, and choose not to commit murder. When you fail to take those steps, and you go ahead and kill someone, you deserve to get the book thrown at you. I’m not a death penalty guy, but if that’s the penalty given to 18-year-olds who kill people for fun, that’s the penalty that should be applied to this 14-year-old who kills people for fun. I feel no sympathy for this kid or for any other murderer at any age.
I agree with the assessment (I left out the insult). The more I think about it the angrier I get. I will grant Lissa the idea that the story is a shock piece but we could argue “what if’s” indefinitely. We are commenting on what is known about the article. All that is necessary to discuss it is the use of qualifiers.
If the 14-year-old returned only once, and never actively struck the man, he is still 100% guilty of the crime.
You say this like I don’t care about the victim’s suffering. That’s not true. It tears at my heart to think of what that poor man went through-- all of the pain and terror he must have felt.
It’s a matter of equal respect for life-- even if every single horrible accusation against this boy is true, he is still a human being. You are not accorded human rights because you deserve them, but because we are a civilized society. This concept seems to offend some, but it’s one of those noble principles upon which this country is founded.
I was not asking that this boy be given a slap on the wrist. People seem to think I don’t want him to be punished at all. All that I’m advocating for is that this boy get the psychiatric help that he needs while he is incarcerated.
The fact that more teens were involved (one of the articles said it was up to twelve boys who took part) is another reason why it’s reasonable to expect that the youngest boy will be released from prison at some point. I will repeat from what I said in an earlier post: given that he will most likely be released, would you rather it be without any treatment, angry at the system, or would you rather we make at least some efforts to try to turn him into a productive citizen?
As I said, it’s highly likely he’ll be released. Attempting to rehabilitate him is the only wise course of action. Yes, some people are unreachable, but this boy is still a child. Perhaps we can stop him from getting to that point if we act now.
What about the other inmates and staff in the prison? Attempting to reach him through rehabilitation helps keep them safe.
Yet “societies” are made up of individuals, but it is the individual behavior of these people in adherence to some sort of moral code of mutually acceptable social behavior that makes a civilization, not the moral code itself.
The perpetrators of this crime, as individuals, have shown a wanton disregard (almost contempt) for that civilized code of behavior, which, I might add, is not set in concrete, uniform, nor even entirely mutually agreed upon.
I might also add that several of the “noble concepts” upon which this country was founded included slavery, an extremely limited franchise, and a ready acceptance of the death penalty for criminal offenses far less severe that what the perpetrators of the crime detailed in the OP committed, and upon younger offenders, too, on occasion
Well, we can play duelling experts, just as the defense and prosecution in this case are likely to do once it reaches trial; whom are we to believe? The defense head mechanics who say he’s just a confused boy who meant no harm and should walk free? Or the prosecution’s witch doctors who tell us he’s the next Hannibal Lecter?
What it boils down to many of us (including, I think, many of the jurors) is this: if he (and the others) go free, do we want them growing up and living next door to us?
Perhaps. Now decide: who goes without treatment because this boy is taking up a slot that may (or may not) be more effectively filled by someone else?
Instead of trying to fix the minds of murderous youths, why not allocate the resources into making sure other youths don’t come to his state of mind, or in helping the homeless?
As has been stated before, resources are not infinite; by helping people like these killers, we are by definition making a value judgement on the worth of their lives over others, by allocating finite resources to help these killers rather than expend those finite resources to help others in a manner more effectively beneficial to civilized society.
Dealing with the incarcerated scum, flotsam and jetsam of any society is by definition unsafe. If it can be made more safe, it is probably through better designed prisons coupled with an effective regimen of social programs designed to keep the less violent criminals out of prisons, and keep them as effective members of society.
For the extremely, wantonly violent who think beating a helpless man to death is a light afternoon’s entertainment, after the cost of the trial, I think the cost of a bullet, or several feet or rope, for each is the most effective means of keeping our prisons, and our society, safe.
Do you truly think that people who advocate rehabilitation for all as an ideal don’t care about the suffering of the victims of those whom they wish to rehabilitate?
Seriously–if you do, I’ll start putting in an “I feel sorry for the person that was [murdered/raped/beaten/robbed/whipped/forced to have intercourse with a cow], …” before all of my “pro-criminal” posts.
I only have a poster’s words to gauge what they place a greater “priority” on; the perpatrators or the victims. Lissa seems to come down predominantly on the side of the “rights and feelings” of the perpetrators. That’s fine. Somebody should. Like their attorneys in a court of law, or their family at sentencing.
If I’d been making Lissa’s argument, I simply would’ve responded to Parental Advisory’s comment with a roll eyes, which is actually more than it deserved.
Finally mentioning some sense of sympathy for the victim on page two, as a defense against a perceived attack, is a little late, and fairly pathetic, IMO. YMMV.
It seems strange to me that advocating for psychiatric help for a child accused of murder would be construed as callous disregard for the victim’s pain.
One thing that my husband’s work in corrections has taught me is that not everyone is familiar with what we would consider a normal code of behavior. Perhaps it was a lack of early childhood training, but they can sincerely not understand why they just can’t take what they want. They have no concept, whatsoever, of empathy.
I’ve told this story on this board a couple of times, but it seems apt here. My husband was brought an inmate who had just been in a fight. He sat the inmate down and asked him what the cause of the fight had been. The inmate said he’d caught another guy stealing his shoes. “And thieves deserve to get beat!” he added emphatically.
“Hmm,” said my husband. “Aren’t you in here for robbery?”
“Yeah. So?” the inmate replied.
“Well, should the people you robbed get to beat you?”
“No! Of course not!” the inmate seemed shocked by the very idea.
My husband talked to him for a long time and tried to get him to understand that the rage the inmate felt at having his shoes stolen was the same rage that the robbery victims had experienced. The inmate simply couldn’t grasp the connection.
This inmate will be released in a few years, and I’d bet the farm he’ll re-offend. However, if the time and effort were expended, he might start getting a grasp of empathy and what society’s rules mean.
Understand that for some people, prison is their first introduction to a place of concrete rules which have consequences if broken. It seems mean and arbitrary to them, and sadly, it sometimes makes them even more bitter towards a societal system they just don’t understand.
These are the people we need to reach-- those whose socialization has been stunted. Some of them have a chance. Some of them don’t. But for Christ’s sake we need to try. Not for the inmates, but for their potential future victims.
Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? We’re continually going though a refinement, shaking off unenlightened views,
My bet is that the jury will err on the side of caution. Sending a little boy to prison is distasteful, especially if his conduct can be blamed on others.
But they will. I’m sure if you did a search, you’d find all sorts of ex-inmates and other sundry unsavory folk who live near your home or workplace. Everyone cries Not In My Back Yard, but ex-cons gotta live somewhere.
It’s not a matter of “bumping” someone. They will find a place for him. If this boy is put in a proper institution, there won’t be any real problems with getting him the treatment he needs.
Do prisons need more staff and funding to run truly effective programs? Hell yes. But they try to do the best they can with what they have. Could it be better? Hell yes. Will the taxpayers pay for it? Fuck no. They would rather live with an endless cycle of crime that they can blame on the latest boogeyman than actually do something which might reduce recidivism.
Dear God . . . . why don’t we just solve world hunger while we’re at it. There’s a thousand social issues and problems surrounding each one of those suggestions, including some changes which society would never be willing to make. Rather than trying to tackle an enormous, complex issue we focus on the individuals.
How does keeping non-violent offenders out of prison keep the place safer?
Secondly, unless our economy has another boom, you’re not going to see a round of building “better designed prisons.” The one in which my husband works is at about 250% capacity with yet more inmates coming because they’re closing a prison to try to save money.
I think that lynch mobs were part of the less attractive aspects of our history, and I’m glad we’ve moved on from that.
Lissa, I have to say, I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but I’m impressed by the way you’ve defended an unpopular position and stuck to your guns.
That it should be cheaper to keep a human alive for 60 years than to kill him is silly if true (which I assume it is.) But I know of no point in the constitution nor bill of rights which would necessitate such. Most likely these are mostly bonus charges added on by anti-death penaltiers over the years.
And housing a prisoner also includes the salaries of the guards, building the prisons for all of them, electricity, water, medical procedures, transportation, and such as well.
No. If he wasn’t an adult when he wanted to apply for a driver’s license, or tried to buy cigarettes, then he isn’t an adult when he gets caught committing a crime, no matter how horrible it is. There is no crime so heinous that committing it automatically turns a boy into a man.
First of all, the majority of criminal cases are plea-bargained. This is extremely important, because if every single criminal defendant wanted a trial, the system would quickly grind to a halt. Death penalty cases are, almost without exception, trial cases.
Next, you have to have different types of lawyers for death penalty cases. Your average public defender will not do-- it has to be a lawyer experienced (and believe there’s also a certification process) in these kinds of cases. You also (IIRC) have to have several to defend the accused.
The trial itself is longer, and then there are automatic appeals. This is why inmates condemned to death often spend years on Death Row. This adds up to thousands of billable hours for attorneys.
These are not “bonus charges” but an essential part of the death penalty process. After all, we never want to execute an innocent man, nor, even though some see it as very frustrating, do we want to execute if there are technical flaws in the trial process. The Constitution requires “due process” and this has been determined by our court system to have certain requirements. (At least when we’re killing a man, we can pat ourselvs on the backs that we did it by the book.)
Death Row itself is more expensive as well. Condemned inmates are not housed in general population. (In many prisons, inmates are not kept in cells, but in dormitary-type housing-- picture hundreds of beds in a gymnasium, and you’ve got a good idea.) Death Row inmates are more closely guarded, and they generally have their own cells. This means less inmates can be housed in one area, and special guards have to be assigned.
Those estimates are somewhat unfair, because those costs would already exist.
The prison would still have to operate even if we executed every single person convicted of murder. The majority of inmates are theives, rapists, drug offenders and the like. You would still have to pay the guards, heat the building, feed them, dispense medical care, etc. Those costs don’t really increase by any appreciable amount with more inmates. Conversely, they wouldn’t reduce by much if the prison population was reduced by the relatively small number of murderers.
As I said before, the prison in which my husband works is at about 250% capacity. They haven’t hired more guards, or built new housing because of the increase in inmate population. Setting aside the costs for food and clothng, their real costs have pretty much only increased by natural inflation.
We still have a bunch of swampy, fever-filled “Protectorates,” don’t we? Several habitable atolls and island that have probably cooled down from their use as atomic test sites in the 50s?
There will always be a fixed percentage of the population who just don’t get it. These kids are prime examples. Since no one wants to executes a 14-year old…
well, since most people don’t want to, anyway, and everyone feels that something harsh is needed to drive the point home, I propose we go back to the tried-and-true practice of transport.
Don’t see the need for a social compact, or don’t think it applies to you? Here’s a hand trowel, some Burpee seeds, and a barell of SPF 6000 skin creme. You and some like-minded buddies are going to learn first-hand why we have rules, and why it’s so important that EVERYONE follow them. Get with the program, and you’ll have yourself a tropical paradise. The alternative is, you end up like Piggy in “Lord of The Flies.” It’s your choice.
When people are incarcerated, they become wards of the state, meaning that the state is responsible for their well-being. We must provide food, shelter, and medical care, as well as keeping them physically safe from other inmates.
It would be impossible to fulfill these duties if we banished people to an island. Not to mention that we would have to guard the island to make sure that no one sent ships to resuce inmates.
Must? The operating manual for human behavior says you must not beat defenseless people to death. In many states, if you cross this barrier, the state gets to kill you. Not exactly what I’d call being responsible for their well-being is it? Seems to me that this would be a more human approach to dealing with those whose cannot/will not abide by the most fundamental tenets of society. If they won’t observe society’s most basic concepts, then remove them from society. They turn their backs on us, we turn our backs on them.
True, but, what with satellite imaging, it would be easy to monitor, track, and intercept any aircraft/boat which approaches the island (short of a submarine), at a fraction of the cost.
And for any sense of justice to be done, the sentence of death should be carried out by the peers of the victim with the same implements and time frame used.
Oh wait… that would be INHUMANE and they could be rehabilitated.
This “child” killed a man in cold blood for amusement. He. Should. Die.
This monster is 14 years old, and not quite wise to the ways of the world or his ability to wreak havoc in it. Think about how dangerous he will be once he realizes how powerful he can be. Simply put, he’s bad, throw him back.
Yes, must. Why? Because we are better than they are-- at least we should be. We are not so barbaric that we would cast people to the wolves, leaving them without certain food, medical care or protection from other inmates.
It’s not a matter that they deserve protection, it’s that we as a society are decent. We say to them, “You may have done something reprehensible, but we are not low enough to respond in kind. You cannot make us act like that. Regardless of how disgusting your acts are, we are going to remain civilized.”