I’m with you here, Monty, but you’re gonna have a tough time convincing a 17 year old that a 14 year old should be tried as an adult.
So, a 17 year old is too young to make a judgement call on whether or not a 14 year old should stand trial as an adult, yet a 14 year old is old enough to stand trial as an adult?
Erek
Well, I just finished tearing mswas a new asshole in another thread, and here I am defending him.
Lighten up, people. Sure, what the kid did was wrong. Very wrong. But he was 14 years old, fer crissakes. He didn’t exactly shoot his teacher in the head, you know?
When I was a teenager, we heard about spiked brownies and spiked punch bowls on more than one occasion. Kids do stupid things. That’s why we don’t let them vote, and why Mom and Dad are given the right to restrict their freedom.
Hands up, all of you righteous folks who never did anything stupid when you were an adolescent. REALLY stupid things.
My cousin and I had great fun one night with some toy rockets that you shot with a rubber band. They had a parachute inside them with a rudimentary timer made up of a wound rubber band. You were supposed to shoot them in the air with a rubber launcher, and they’d go up maybe 100 ft, then the parachute would pop, and they would float down. Anyway, we thought it would be hilarious if we took the timer band off and shot them into the street so the parachute would pop open in front of a car.
This was incredibly stupid and dangerous, and when I look back now, I think “What the hell was I doing?” But apparently, I just didn’t have the judgement at the time to ‘get it’. But I was a good kid, a hard worker, got good grades, and turned out to be a pretty good member of society, if I do say so myself. Oh, and when we got caught (that was inevitable, because we were also too stupid to choose a spot other than right in front of my house to do this), my cousin got a killer spanking from his mom, and I was grounded for some time. End of lesson.
I’m sure glad you guys weren’t around then, because a prison term for a stupid stunt is grossly inappropriate.
So, what if a kid or teacher had gotten high on the brownies, had an accident, and was injured or killed? Well, THEN try the kid if you must. But throwing the book at him because of what MIGHT have happened is not consistent with the law. We don’t charge drunk drivers with manslaughter unless they actually kill someone.
Mmmkay, the kid was in posession of pot and distributed it. He knew it and was guilty of it. There’s charges right there. Poisoning other people’s food? That’s a charge.
It was harmless? Do ya feel the same way about someone slipping roofies in your drink?
Who said it was harmless? Anyone? Beuhler? Anyone?
It was dangerous and stupid. Kids often do dangerous and stupid things. Then they grow out of it, unless some militant asshole decides to make an example of him and throws him in jail where he’s surrounded by nasty people who set bad examples and fill his head with hatred and ideas for how to become a good criminal.
What the kid needs (and probably hasn’t got enough of), was some good parental punishment for screwing up.
But that’s just me talking. You know, I’m one of those old-fashioned people that thinks parents should be punishing their kids, and not the state.
Im with you Sam.
Is it so friggin hard for people to remember that we were all pretty damn stupid as kids. If we had all been thrown in prison for the crap we did, there would be far fewer posters here. Anytime you throw someone, especially a kid, in prison, you are pretty much ensuring that he will not have much of a future. That decision needs to be examined very closesly and not be a knee-jerk reaction. I’ve seen people I know go to prison and I didn’t recognize them when they got out. They have not been a positive contributor to society in any way since their return. Is that really what you want?
“One strike and you are out” is total bullshit and basically says that someone who screws up ONCE (even a 14 year old kid) has no chance to learn the error of his ways.
Some of y’all are missing (or ignoring) the fact that a minor in California who does get tried and convicted as an adult is sentenced to Juvenile Hall. IIRC, depending on the length of the sentence and one or two other criteria, the entire sentence may be served in Juvie.
It’s more than likely correct that it’s juvenile hall, rather than prison. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that JH is a vacation. Plenty of kids are molested in Juvie. Also, I would rather not have my kid housed with a bunch of other screw ups that will give him all kinds of advice on how to be a bigger screw-up than he already is. Juvenile Hall should be a last resort, when all other attempts to discipline have failed. But a first offense where no one was hurt? It just seems that there are so many more alternatives that don’t hold the negative potential that incarceration would provide.
Musicguy: someone was hurt.
I don’t recall hearing that anyone was physically hurt. Do you mean by ingesting marijuana? Everything reputable I have read states that pot is pretty much benign. It’s toxicity is less than baby aspirin (I’m looking for a cite). It would be far more harmful if someone had spiked a punchbowl with alcohol. And many teenagers have done this in the past, I just don’t recall any of them being incarcerated.
I will accept that there is a remote chance that someone could have had an allergic reaction, although I have never heard of that before, prior to this thread. And obviously, if someone had been driving and got into an accident, that would have much more serious implications. But they weren’t. But other than that, what long term effects are we talking here that would be the equivilant of “hurt”? Lowered sperm count for a few days?
I have absolutely no proof to offer whatsoever, but IMO many of the people calling for leniency because “everyone does stupid shit” would be foaming-at-the-mouth upset if they found out they just ate a brownie made from pot without their knowledge. Or a piece of my mythical “Dogshit double-fudge”. I think if you can put yourself in the place of someone who has been served tainted food and/or drink, you will feel like the situation is perhaps more serious. And who gets to decide what is “harmful” or not? To me, any drug that could make my judgement change is harmful to me - it’s why I avoid painkillers and agents that make me drowsy - I don’t want to have an insulin reaction and not realize what is happening. And yes, Ex-Lax is actually something that can hurt me, as it would change greatly my digestion and cause a drop in blood sugar. If I even have normal…err…intestinal problems it causes me serious hurt sometimes, as my blood sugar falls in multiple troughs.
You know, I realized something from an earlier post I missed. I am subject to random drug testing, should I be selected to work on certain projects in my company. What would happen, I wonder, to my career should I test positive because someone gave me drugs without my knowledge? Given the draconian way in which employers view failed drug tests, especially my employer, thanks to the “War on Drugs”, I am certain I would be fired. Would this kid be able to replace my salary and benefits for the next 30 years? What would his response be? “Sorry?”
Well, in this case, you would probably have been named in the newspaper story and could have shown that to your employer. I would doubt you would have been fired. And don’t even get me started on the war on drugs!
But, You raise many good points, especially about ingesting a drug that affects your judgement. I wasn’t trying to say that it was no big deal. My beef is with those that think he should be incarcerated. I woudn’t be against a year of weekends picking up trash, relocation to a different school, maybe even postpone his drivers license until he is 18. All major inconveniences that give him plenty of time to think about what he did. Also, I would give him probation (with drug tests) until he is 18. I wouldn’t slap his wrist. But I really really think we need to pay attention as to who we incarcerate and what for. The jails are full, mostly of drug offences and we have to consider the lifelong effect of this punishment. We need to save it for the most serious of offenses, rape, murder, etc…
AMEN
Cartooniverse, you are a lying fucking weasel.
Lie number one:
Oh yeah, cunt? So what the fuck is this
What the fuck is that but for wishing for the drug rape of my daughter, you coniving turd? You dislike my viewpoint on how a kid should be punished, so you say “I’d love” this sexual abuse scenario to happen. Then you try to deny it. What a cowardly fuck.
Lie number two(to quote Rickjay, whose points I notice no-one seems keen to answer)
I noticed you hadn’t reacted to Rickjay’s question before, so I’ll repeat it. Please quote anything I’d said, prior to your comments about sexual abuse, where I’m outraged at other peoples opinion.
Lie number three:
Oh really, then fucking quote one distortion of mine from this thread? Go on, fucking find one.
Oh, and speaking of distortions, here’s one from you:
Absolutely right, sherlock. But this isn’t murder, rape or arson - is it? If it was murder, rape or arson then I don’t think a police sergeant working on the case would have said:
Now you little scrote, here’s something for you to deal with. You tell me where I say this kid shouldn’t be punished hard? You tell me where I’ve used your “Duuuude” logic? You tell me a single thing I’ve said to provoke your fucking bullshit. Failing that, take your Fucko the Clown logic and shove it up your favourite orifice for talking out of.
Ah, the illiteratti have arrived.
Yo, spaced. Fetch yourself a dictionary (even one with pictures might do) and consider the following:
[ul][li]Think of something to which you are allergic.[/li][li]Think of someone spiking your food or drink with that.[/li][li]Think now of being on a field trip and possibly well away from instant medical care.[/ul][/li]
So, now that you have considered this, are you still as fucking stupid as your comment above shows?
Maybe, I’m missing something but if I run a red light, I could kill someone. However, being that I didn’t, I get a ticket. If I drive drunk, I could kill people but if I don’t, I get punished severly but I don’t go to jail for a first offense and I don’t get charged with manslaughter. If I bring a gun to school but I don’t shoot anyone, I get expelled but I don’t get charged with murder. The point is, this kid didn’t cause ANY lasting damage to anyone. He “could have”. He should be punished but not incarcerated. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Exactly. Nobody disuputes that.
Nor that.
[quote]
If I drive drunk, I could kill people but if I don’t, I get punished severly but I don’t go to jail for a first offense and I don’t get charged with manslaughter.[/qutoe]
IIRC, depends on the jurisdiction. Some places require a mandatory minimum of a couple of nights in the local slammer.
But you do get charged with the appropriate crime.
Except for those traumatized by the event. Now, you might say that’s their problem and not his since you might say that he’s not responsible for someone else’s mental state.
I say differently because he’s the one who decided to screw with said mental states without the victims’ knowledge.
And why is it so hard for you to understand that an intentional drugging or poisoning of someone is not a light little prank?
Hokay. Just to clear up some legal misconceptions:
It is absolutely untrue to say that the criminal code concerns itself only with what you actually did, as if “no harm, no foul.” You can also get into trouble for what you tried to do – that’s the whole concept of “attempt.” So if you tried to do something that amounted to a crime – tried to kill someone, tried to assault someone, tried to rape someone – that more than likely would itself be a crime. The fact that you didn’t really do it cuts no ice.
The problem in this case is that it is not at all clear what crime this young man would be charged with. The California Penal Code defines “assault” as “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” Section 240. It defines “battery” as “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Section 242. Since this incident did not involve the use of violence, it seems that it would not amount to either an assault or a battery under California law. I can find no indication that California has a separate law criminalizing the drugging of someone’s food or drink, when such action was not violent and did not intend to produce injury. (I have not done an exhaustive search, however.) It obviously opens the person up to a huge and costly civil suit, but I’m not sure any crime has been committed.
That said, it seems necessary to point out that the decision to try a juvenile as an adult should turn on the kid’s maturity and his or her ability to appreciate the consequences of his or her actions, as opposed to the perceived severity or reprehensibleness of the crime. It is impossible from the linked article to assess the maturity of this 14 year old, just as it is impossible to glean whether he was in fact charged with any crime at all.
That said, I am at a loss to understand those who dismiss this as mere stupidity of a type reasonably expectable of a 14 year old, or indeed of any person of any age. To drug someone else’s food or drink without their consent . . . the seriousness and potential danger of such an action seems to me on its face overcome such “boys will be boys” dismissiveness. I was stupid and reckless and pissy as a teenager as well, but I would never have dreamed of violating the rights of others – including a teacher – to the extent of attempting to get them stoned without their knowledge.
I hope the school expels him. I hope his parents punish him severely. I hope the victims sue him. If his actions are criminal, I hope he’s charged with a crime and punished appropriately, which IMO and assuming the general level of responsibility of a 14 y.o., would not include trying him as an adult.
My $.02.
A little more legal info –
It appears that California courts have held in the past that drugging someone’s drink to the extent that their will to resist is overcome (Rohipnol cases) itself constitutes a “use of force” sufficient to charge such attackers with forcible rape.
It seems to me that the way to deal with the new realities of assaults under the influence of drugs is to redefine “assault” to include such things, not to redefine “force” to include something that is not, in fact, forcible, but since the legistlature has apparently not done the former, the courts have done the latter. So the drugging of the brownies might be considered an assault, if you equate the giving of drugs without consent with the use of force. Seems pretty tortured to me, but that’s the way it looks like it would shake out under California law, if they wanted to charge the kid.
Who said it was a ‘light little prank’? The point is that the damage done to people is not necessarily that obvious to a 14-year old, who thinks marijuana is ‘cool’.
The punishment should not only fit the crime, but for minors it should be meted out with the intention of rehabilitating the kid. In the case of a simple error in judgement from an otherwise good kid, I don’t see that a whole lot of ‘rehabilitation’ is necessary in the first place, other than for his parents to punish him royally.
Once again, hands up all of you who didn’t do something stupid as a kid that might have hurt people, perhaps badly.
Since the statute of limitations on my childhood is long over, let me fill you in on something else I did - on the last day of school in grade seven, a couple of friends and I thought it would be absolutely HILARIOUS if we snuck down to the boiler room in the school and dumped some sulphur into the heating system. So we did, and for the rest of the day the school absolutely REEKED of rotten eggs.
Now, at that age I had absolutely no clue about the long-term effects of sulpher inhalation, or whether it would cause a massive and expensive cleanup, or whether people could be injured by what I was doing. I just knew that sulpher smelled really bad when burned, and it would be a ‘cool’ prank.
Another time at about the same age, my friends and I had a whole bunch of illegal firecrackers, and we were out one evening shooting them off all over the place. I came over a hill in the park in which we were doing this, only to stare down the barrel of a police handgun. It seems that residents had reported gunshots in the area, and a number of police cars came out and were scouring the neighborhood. Do you know what happened to us? The cops took our firecrackers, gave us a stern lecture, and sent us home. Sure, one of us could have accidentally been shot. Sure, we put the cops in a very bad and scary situation. Sure, we terrified the neighbors who called the cops. It was stupid, it was dangerous.
But hey, we were KIDS, doing what KIDS do sometimes. We lacked judgement. So the cops put a scare into us and sent us home.
I’m sure glad that none of you law and order types were there that day, or I might have been expelled from school and spent time in Juvie hall or something. And I have no way of knowing how that would have affected me, but it wouldn’t have been good.
BTW, of the kids that were there that night doing this stuff (and they were largely the same group that did the sulphur prank with me), one is a lawyer, one is a college teacher, one became an engineer in the Coast Guard, one is an electronics technologist, and I’m a software developer. We were all good, smart kids who got grades in the top of our classes. But damnit, we were KIDS. We made some mistakes.
It dismays me to see that kids are no longer allowed to make mistakes. This zero-tolerance, militant crackdown on children disturbs me greatly.