Thread: Tried as an adult

Originally posted by red_baron
if a person gets infected by a new virus, should they be killed so that others do not get it? or should they help try to find a cure?

These folks do not have a virus. There is no foreign object in their body compelling this behavior. They are making bad choices, but it is their choice. If a 30 year old with the same upbringing breaks into your house, rapes you, rapes your kids, kills your wife and kids, almost kills you, what should society do with such a person?

How does it make a difference if they're 13? 14? 15? The same arguments applied for leniency on the 13 year old can be, and are, made for the 30 year old. Reaching the age of 18, 21, or whatever, doesn't mean a sudden change in their understanding. The fact is, they do understand. They just attach different values to the actions they commit.

True mental illness is one thing, and should be treated differently. But having wrong values, for whatever reason, is not a mental illness. If it was, I'd think all Christian fundamentalists and NASCAR fans are mentally ill. Thinking they are leads to a Clockwork Orange scenario, where violence, or wrong thought, is a disease to be cured. No. Violence is a behavior to be stopped, and thoughts are your own business.

Think what you want, but behave in a civilized manner.

"Think what you want, but behave in a civilized manner... " or be destroyed.

I agree... it seems like a simple formula.

For every villain that commits a horrible act against humanity, there are a thousand people that never have and never will.

You show me an image of a 'changed' man who killed twenty people and ate them in his early teens, and I wouldn't care the least... except I would believe he should have died in his early teens.

I do not have the kindness that Kermi3 has. I cannot forgive such a person in any way, even if that person is close to me.

If my son was a mass murderer as a child... 'sorry son, may god have mercy on your soul.' It is a sad and bitter thing for me to face and a very difficult decision to make... but my beliefs are my own, and I am past the point where they will change much.

I do not let weeds grow in my yard, they kill all the other plants... they kill eachother... they kill themselves.

I was going to read the whole thread, but I got near the end of page two, and didnt want to waste my time anymore. A few comments:

>>I think before you start cuddling the criminals, the victims should be considered. The victims these days seem to be forgotten about in the headlong rush to "help" the criminals.

People due to tend to forget about the victims. If someone tried to kill you, and is let out of jail, would you not be afraid for your life again, or even other people?

>>However, I do think that the death sentence is neccessary. We don't have it here, but I would support it

I agree, but there is always a chance that he didnt commit the crime. There has to be substantial proof, such as DNA, even though that can be planted so some degree. How would you feel if you sent someone to get killed, and five years down the road you find out they didnt do it?

I think that those people who commit such crimes have either real mental problems, or they were not brought up right. I think that is tha major factor. They have no respect for anyone.

Well kermi... I have been around for a quite a long while now, and I have never seen you act like this. Calling people names, striking people down from your high horse... not at all like you.

This is still a community if I remember correctly. Mr. Stiff has an opinion that differs from yours and was incorrect in putting up a link that may offend our community members and certainly breaks the board rules.

But to outright attack him does not show the prowess of a super moderator in any way.

My two cents... take em how ever you want. You are bigger than this.

Thank you for your vote of condidence...I was wrong...though you should've seen the site....every attrocity that can be committed by may kind was on there in picture and video.

Nevermind... I like you again.

Awww shucks *blush*....moving on to read discussion...

How does it make a difference if they're 13? 14? 15? The same arguments applied for leniency on the 13 year old can be, and are, made for the 30 year old. Reaching the age of 18, 21, or whatever, doesn't mean a sudden change in their understanding. The fact is, they do understand. They just attach different values to the actions they commit.

There is a big diffrence. Your body isn't the only thing that grows as you grow up. Your mental, moral, cognative, and logical abilities grow as well. Children, especially pre-early adolescents are very diffrent mentally than adults. Even older (15-16 yr olds) are diffrent. I can look up exact diffrences for you if you'd like (book on the shelf) but if you'll take my word for it i won't . Some of them are listed by me higher on this thread.

True mental illness is one thing, and should be treated differently. But having wrong values, for whatever reason, is not a mental illness. If it was, I'd think all Christian fundamentalists and NASCAR fans are mentally ill...No. Violence is a behavior to be stopped, and thoughts are your own business.

I totally agree however there is a fine line here that most of society understands. Most of us have been taught that there is that line between your thoughts and carrying them out. As you get older you start to understand this line. Many of these children may not have been taught the line exsisted.

People due to tend to forget about the victims. If someone tried to kill you, and is let out of jail, would you not be afraid for your life again, or even other people?

I am not a vengeful person. Nor am i nessicarily a fan of letting someone out jsut because they turned 18. I think a middle ground should be found where they are tried as teens. At 18 they under go a psyciatric evelation. If they are found to be "better", then all's well. If not, let them serve a sentance that was "suspended" pending results of such tests. I don't see the point in ruining two lives if one is already ruined and the "person" who did the origanal killing is no longer who they once were. It helps no one. The victum is already dead, society is paying this guys room, board, and medical bills for 70 years, and the criminal isn't contributing anything to society.

>>However, I do think that the death sentence is neccessary. We don't have it here, but I would support it

I agree, but there is always a chance that he didnt commit the crime. There has to be substantial proof, such as DNA, even though that can be planted so some degree. How would you feel if you sent someone to get killed, and five years down the road you find out they didnt do it?

No. heh....First of all under the US system it is usually more expensive to sentance someone to death than to keep them in life in prison. Appeals etc. Second of all what gives us the right to take a life? Just because they did? Even if they killed a memeber of my family it is not my place (or a jury's) to say that that person should die. I'm not a religious person, but it is not my place to take the most sacred thing we have, life.

I'm not going to argue death pentalty anymore because my thoughts aren't collected...but if it's pushed I suppose I'll have to...


Kermi3

Kermi, maybe I'll answer when I'm less emotional about it.
The first duty of any society is to protect its members from harm.
After that it can worry about why people want to harm its members. Not before.
But when society cares more about the perpetrators of violence than the victims, maybe that society is done for.

I understand...I'm very emotional about everything having to do with children. A weakness of mine if you will. Put a gun to my head and a child's and give me the choice...I would seriously consider reaching up pulling the trigger myself.

Don't think I'm saying that anyone under 18 should be giving a free ride...but children under 14, sometimes 15, case by case, I think can be productive members of society. To destroy their life forever just doesn't seem right. Prehaps the child is beyond help, but I don't think most are.

Absolutly.....what really ticks me off is whenever there is a high profile case the child is almost always tried as an adult, seemingly because it is just high profile.

I just stumbled upon this and decided to voice my opinion. One, I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't think you can justify death with death. I also feel that the US judicial system needs some major reformation. My view before was that if the person is put away for life then it's all good. But people can get out of jail just for being good, did you know that? For being a model prisoner, you can get out of jail. That's just messed up. As for the whole children being tried as adults thing, I suppose it depends on the case and the circumstances. I don't think there can be a set way to deal with cases because every case is different, because every person is different and all the circumstances are different. In the case of those 2 kids murdering their father, I can't honestly answer. I didn't read the article very thouroughly. If there was abuse involved, then those kids were messed up psychologically and need serious help. Putting them away will solve nothing. If there was not abuse involved, or any other psychologically-detrimental variables in effect, then they need to be tried as adults because that's just plain wrong. I mean, we had a family incident go on over the summer where one of my uncles was abusing my Grandma, seriosuly. He wasn't feeding her, he wasn't keeping the house clean (he lived with her), and he'd burst out into these fits of rage and beat her. My 79 year old grandma. I felt sick after hearing about it. But my uncle is a mentally-ill person, and he needs help. I don't want to see him locked away where he'd never have a chance again, he needs help. So you see, it always varies.

Brendan

>>> To destroy their life forever just doesn't seem right.

There you go again - what about their victims whose lives they have destroyed forever or taken away completely?

Whilst I would probably agree that there is a lot wrong with the system - I will continue to state that the innocents in the street deserve more protection than the criminals that prey on them.

We will not agree.

The death sentence is not about vengeance or justice. It's about protecting the innocent members before protecting the killer. Society should not have to decide who has to die and who has to live. Ideally all should live. However, the killer made society face a hard decision: kill the killer or risk another death. And in my oppinion, the killers life is not worth the risk of another innocent victim.

what about their victims whose lives they have destroyed forever or taken away completely?

I feel very bad for the vitctims. Much worse than the criminal in 90% of cases (there are always the mutal fights, and abuses). However we're talking five+ years down the line, after psyciatric evaluation. The victims have already died. I know that's harsh but....And even if they haven't, that's what psyc evaluations are for.

Some would argue that once you kill once you're capable of it again. But these are 12 and 13 year olds. Come on, how much did you change from when you were 12 to when you were 20? A lot I bet. A whole lot. I'm not saying everyone should be set free. I'm saying people who committed their crime at extremely young ages, particuarly in extenuating circumstances. The victims are gone. The Killers are changed drastically. The only thing keeping them behind bars is revenge.

The death sentence is not about vengeance or justice. It's about protecting the innocent members before protecting the killer...However, the killer made society face a hard decision: kill the killer or risk another death. And in my oppinion, the killers life is not worth the risk of another innocent victim.

If you're talking about the young then I won't even touch this. Once again the thought of killing a 12-14, hell even 16 year old for something is just insame....But no matter who you're talking about I don't understand why they must be killed to ensure the saftey of everyone else. Why not life? Society is just as safe if the person soends their life in prison, and it is cheaper.

However, the killer made society face a hard decision: kill the killer or risk another death. And in my oppinion, the killers life is not worth the risk of another innocent victim.

I don't think they do. They do however, have the right to say who does and does not have the right to exsist in society, and who has lost that right and can sit in jail for the rest of their natural lives.

I do believe in trying minors as an adult though. I think the policy has deterred a lot of crime. Kids in the 14-17 year old range do know what's right from wrong. Especially the ones that were coerced by the older group to commit crimes, knowing they can get away with it.

I can't argue with this. I think all options should be open for those 14 and 15 year olds especially. They should be taken case for case, with both options depending on the mindset and ability for teh person to kil again.