From here:
Assuming that they do decide to prosecute the child, what usually happens in these “extremely rare” cases? Do they even reach trial, given the kid’s mental development? I mean, even a really bright five-year-old doesn’t really understand death, cause and effect, or even right and wrong.
On a related topic… how would one make a shiv from a Barbie Doll?
The girl hasn’t been charged with murder, they just said that she COULD be charged that way. Up to the prosecutor, who is waiting for the coroner’s report amongst other things.
That being said I think it’d be mighty tough to prosecute a little kid with that kind of crime. They just don’t have the same concepts of right/wrong, what hurting somebody means, death, etc. She may need a lot of supervision and therapy and whatnot, but I don’t see what putting her in prison will do.
Regarding the shiv question, heat the plastic over a flame until it’s soft, shape it into a sharp point, let it harden (dunk it in water), you’ve got a weapon.
I would figure the 16 year old could be charged with some rather large charges as well, right? Could she get involuntary manslaughter or at least criminal neglect?
WAG: She’d be charged in family court. If convicted she’d spend a year or so in in-patient therepy.
A friend of mine’s son was killed (shot in the head) by an 11 year old because he wouldn’t let her play his Nentendo game. She was an in-patient for 18 months and had to continue anger management classes for another couple years.
That’s a miscarriage of Justice. At the mildest she should have been stuffed in a padded room for a few decades.
Other news articles say that the 16-year-old is mentally disabled. What type of disability and how severe it is, I haven’t heard.
There’s quite a bit more information at the Kansas City Star:
There is a trial right now in Spain of a 19yo male who, upon encountering an alcohol control, panicked (the car was stolen and he did not have a license) and ran over one of the cops, killing him.
The other cops at the scene shot at the vehicle, wounding both occupants. The 25yo female who was the vehicle’s second occupant was hit on the upper spine and is now wheelchair-bound; the government has already paid her a compensation to the tune of 400K€.
The argument at the trial is whether the death constitutes murder or not: the fiscal (think DA) and the private accusation (think a DA but paid for by the wronged party and not by the government) say it bloody well was; the defense says it was manslaughter because the accused “didn’t intend to kill anybody”.
Maybe I’m mistaking my English legal terms, but what are the correct ones then? I thought that was the difference between murder and manslaughter in English, whether you had intent to kill or not? The 5yo, as per the reports, didn’t intend to shut up the 18mo forever; as Valgard said, it’s hard to see how could the prosecution claim that she even knew what murder is or understood death.
Seriously? For what purpose? How does that bring the kid back? And what happens after a few decades?
That’s pretty much the case - manslaughter usually means that the person did not intend to kill anyone. US law distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as well. The former is usually when the person has been provoked sufficiently that most people would be driven to such an act (probably stuff like learning that the soon-to-be victim previously raped a loved one of yours, etc.), the latter is through recklessness and the like.
I assume the defense in that case will say the driver was reckless and panicking, but only desperately wanted to get away, rather than to actually kill someone.
I was talking about the eleven year-old not the five year-old and I’m being moderate and fair here-it is not as if I advocated her being shot by firing squad or anything. Unless she is mentally retarded or insane, most eleven year olds know that killing is wrong. And seriously anger management classes? That’s if you say had a tamper tantrum in school or beat up another kid-not the murder of someone.
In the US, there is also the felony murder rule which could plausibly be used against such a defendant. Coincidentally enough, the Supremes just ruled that fleeing police in a vehicle can be a violent felony, which might come into play, depending upon the exact laws in the given jurisdiction.
There will be no prosecution. A year younger and the child would be considered unable to commit willful acts at all (or whatever the term is). I was going to mention something like this in the other thread about the youngest suicide, but I only have a few details from memory. It could have been more than 30 years ago when it happened, but the incident involved to very young boys in the 4-6 range. One of the boys said he wanted to die because of (I don’t recall, maybe the death of a parent). The other child pushed him down a flight of steps in an apartment building. The prosecutors in that case said that even if the law allowed prosecution, there was no way to serve society by doing so.
Haven’t you personally admitted to having anger management issues due to your condition? If I am mistaken, please correct me.
I thought that a child under 5 was presumed not to be able to commit NEGLIGENT acts. However, infancy is not a defense to intentional or willful acts.
Now, that is as far as a civil tort would go. I can imagine that the penal system (or hell, even the juvenile system) is equipped to deal with a 5 year old killer.
I’m not sure what the right term is, but I was under the impression that a child under 5 was considered unable to act willfully or intentionally as the law understands it. Unable to appreciate the consequence of actions I think. Maybe an attorney will drop by and clear this up.
Is this anything other than an irrelevant personal attack?
It’s not a personal attack, nor is it irrelevant. My motive for asking the question is none of your damn business nor do I owe you any kind of explanation.
[Moderating]
This is GQ. We are not interested here in your personal opinions about how this case should be handled, but in the legal principles that apply, and in any legal precedents. We are also not interested in other posters’ motivations for their remarks (from either side). If you want to debate the proper handling of the case, please take it to GD. If you want to discuss other posters’ motivations, please take it to the Pit or PM. If you have a problem with another poster’s remarks, report the post and let the moderators handle it.
This goes for everyone, not just those I quoted above.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Has anyone seen a clown and a gang of Losers? Seriously…that’s almost like the bit in IT where the five year old Patrick Hofsteader kills his baby brother! :eek:
So what? That is not the only criteria for detemining if someone should be charged as a adult.