Tried as an adult

Printable View

10-01-2002
kermi3

Tried as an adult

This is something that ticks me off, so you'll have to excuse me while I rant for a little while. I'm sorry.

Ok, now I can go....

It really upsets me to see 12, 13, 14, even 15 or 16 years old children tried as adults. These kids are so young that they still have a lot of growth to do, mentally and physically. Moreover most crimes that children that age are tried for adults in are horrible violent ones. When I child that age, especially the younger span of that group commits a violent act there are serious psychological problems. Rehabilitation is still a very viable option. It is for older people to but that's a diffrent issue.

But seriously, can you see putting a 13 year old child to death becuase they killed an abusive parent? Or even another child. Yes it is a hanous crime. But is also a massive red flag that something is wrong with that child, and just locking them up doesn't help anyone. All it does is keep our tax dollars supporting them until they are eligible of geriatric parole. That's a lot of money. Besides you are taking all of the years and years of life and potential that a young child like that has and destroying it. Yes that child did something to deserve it, and perhaps he/she was old enough to tell right from wrong, but there was somethign that drove them to do it, but often somethin in their life makes them think they must do something they know is wrong. It is just wrong.

[edit]
I guess i should note that I don't believe in death penalty period so...
[/edit]
10-01-2002
face_master

They shouldn't be let off, yet you dont want to punish them to the extreme. How do you come up with a sentence that fits the crime and offender?
10-01-2002
kermi3

I'm not saying let the off! But don't lock them away for ever. You put them in rehab programs wher they can get proper psychological help. You allow their record to be swept clean whe they're old enough, assuming they get the psychological ok you release them, not jsut onto the street, but into a "Head Start" program where they get help learning to live in society and to find a job. Not foever but for a year or so.
10-01-2002
Aran

that would be bad because they'd get all the chicks... :D:D:D:D:D
10-01-2002
kermi3

what? that's the stupid post I've ever seen....i really should delete it...maybe i will.
10-01-2002
MethodMan

Im sorry, I dont agree AT ALL. If a gang of 16 year olds plan an attack on someone and kill them (I saw something like this on tv), they should be charged like adults. They commited an offense that would have put an adult in jail, if they commit the same crime, they get the same time.

Those young adults from tv were deservedly put into jail. I dont care if they have problems, you make one mistake, it haunts you for life. Thats how society is, its hard to believe that they will not strike again, even if they are young, they can grow to be a real killer.
10-01-2002
face_master

yes, I think 14 and under, anyone over 14 should be able to have control over their own actions
10-01-2002
kermi3

I'm not saying hands down every case. 16 year old gangs are pushing it. However would you want to put a 12-even 14 or 15 year old away forever? There is something wrong with our society if we let someone that you slip through the cracks to the point that they kill, and destorying them for life isn't the answer.
10-01-2002
face_master

>> There is something wrong with our society if we let someone that you slip through the cracks to the point that they kill, and destorying them for life isn't the answer. <<

I agree
10-01-2002
kermi3

There's also something wrong with pointless one liners....elaborate if you wish...see http://www.cprogramming.com/cboard/s...&threadid=5168 for questions, or PM me.
10-01-2002
face_master

are you talking bout my last post?
// heres line #2
10-01-2002
OneStiffRod

Let 'em ROT in prison for the rest of their life. Anyone who commits a henious crime ought to pay for it with their life.

I saw a 14-yr old being profiled on a News show, he killed a 6-yr old by beating him and crushing his head in with a rock, he then stabbed and mutilated the body. The excuse was that the 14-yr old was abused and teased at school and took it out on the little boy. He was tried as an adult and FOOLISH ppl cried out that he should be serving time in a mental facility and not in court on murder charges. Justice will be served one way or the other, on the STREET or in the JAILS, if you let this murderer out he will not become a respectible citizen but most likely a drifter who will become a true serial killer.

Anyone who wants to see what life is really like - it's not the rose coloured glasses view that some of you have. Check out this site, www.*****.*** - you'll see the value of life and why murders should be murdered even if they are young killers.

Note there was a site listed on this post but it does not in any way meet this sites requirements that all posings on this board be PG-13 therefore it has been removed by Kermi3, the poster may PM me if he has any questions
10-01-2002
face_master

That site must have been made by some really ****ed up people!! Have you seen the multimedia category? I just read the titles and I had to close the site.
10-01-2002
kermi3

OneStiffRod you are a fool. First of all for posting a site that blantly disreguards every conduct protocal of this board on a thread posted by the lead moderator. How long did you think that was going to stay up? I suggest you read the announcements and rules for this forum found on the top of every board.

Secondly for thinking that the actions of a 14 year old child are lucid. Do you remember what it was like to be 14? Everything is seen through strange eyes, and views change instantly. Moreover, as you said that child was abused. Do you think that he understood what he was doing? That was the way he was taught to take out extreme frustration. That was the "Internal Working Model" (if you've taken any psyc) that he developed due to his cirrcumstance and due to those who raised him and he is not yet old enough to seriously evaluate that IWM for himself. He's a child. With proper care and help that IWM can be changed, and he can be rehabbed in many cases. You want to just throw away another life? Society already let this boy get to the point where he took one, do you want to take another?
10-01-2002
Cshot

I think in certain cases you should try to get them in rehab and only release them if they are considered "safe". This is a difficult thing to do. For the younger children you are talking about, I think in some cases there may be hope for them.

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.
10-01-2002
kermi3

OneStiffRod - I went to far and came near "flaming" you on my previous post. I appologize. Even mods go too far. Though I still strongly stand by my opinion. And I hold even more strongly to the point that your link was totally and utterly innappropriate.

I retract my statement calling you a "fool."
10-01-2002
OneStiffRod

What do you mean?? That site was very very KID friendly...

Secondly, what do you mean 14 yr olds are not lucid - I have a 14yr old brother and he knows about everything. Right/wrong/drugs/alcohol - he knows whether something is going too far and is clear on most boundaries. In fact they did a very intelligent tests of kids to see their comprehension level. It showed that by age 8 most kids know explicitly that drugs are bad, stealing is wrong and brutal crimes such as murder are unacceptable under any circumstances. I don't expect for kids to be given life sentences for crimes that don't involve killing. But I draw the line at Murder and I can't beleive you don't.

anything btwn 8yrs and below should get a long but not life sentence if they commit unsolicitated murder.

9-11yrs life.

12-and above should get DEATH for Murder.

*not talking manslaughter but a deliberate and meditated killing*

We must face up to the facts that someone who has gone as far as murder is not worthy and is unable to be rehabilitated.
10-01-2002
kermi3

I fully believe that many, if not most, 14 year olds are fully lucide etc. And I know that even young kids can believe that drugs etc are wrong. However, a child who has not been raised properly is not going to be the same as your little brother. What they think of right and wrong are going to be diffrent. Moreover, what they think of right and wrong are going to be diffrent, and what they know society thinks, and what they think, and what justifies doing "wrong" are very diffrent.

I take the example of the menendez brothers, I'm a little rusty on this case but....their parents utterly abused them. What they had grown up knowing was that abuse wasn't wrong. And for that reason, and for self defense they killed their parents. Of course your argument to me is totally flawed sense I don't believe int he death penalty.

You say 9 year olds have full knowlage etc:

Ages 9-11:
Moral Development: Modeling and identification with adults' values.

- Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America - Assessment models in case planning

They are going to model themselves to the adults around them.

I'm not going to further this argument with you first because I don't think you'll ever agree with me and I certainly won't agree with you. You nor I have the right to say when a person should die. Whether they "deserve" to die or not prehaps we can say, though i refuse to, but whether they should or not is not up to us as people. What a kid tells you is diffrent from how he acts, and death is not suiting punishment for anyone, especially a child who can be changed.

And finally, if you can stand in front of a 12 year old child, even one guilty of raping and murdering someone, point a gun at them, and pull the trigger, you are one sick man in my opinion. One very sick man.

(Oh and the other reason I'm ending this argument is it's time for me to go to sleep! :))
10-01-2002
OneStiffRod

POP...

goes the gun.
10-02-2002
adrianxw

Kermi3:

I have no solutions of course, but I have some worries over these "head start" programs that counsel and educate these young thugs, help them get jobs and so forth.

The thing is, they are getting opportunities which are not available to the general public including their victims - they are seen by the law abiding sector as being rewarded for being criminals by receiving this preferential treatment.

I saw a documentary recently where one of these little sods was up for release from his "detention centre" and in the end was just about begging not to be released as he liked it their much more than the world outside.

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.
10-02-2002
nvoigt

I don't know exactly how other countries handle this, so I'll give a short description of german law and procedures. From 0 to 12 people are tried as minors. From 12 to 20 people will see a psychologist who then advises the judge on which law to apply. This does not depend on the actual age ( adult is 18 here, with 18 you are allowed to drive, drink, vote and sign contracts ) but on the psychologists view. If the offender knew right from wrong at the time of the crime, he is tried as an adult, if not, he is tried as a minor. Note that even though the offender may technically be an adult at 19, he can still go to school and live at home, safe and sheltered from reality and can be tried as a minor if the psychologist approves. I guess that's pretty fair.

However, I do think that the death sentence is neccessary. We don't have it here, but I would support it. Someone who commited first degree murder, a planned violation of civilizations most basic law, should be put to death. How can a community trust him again ? Theoretically everyone deserves a second chance. But I will not agree on a second chance if that means putting innocent members of the community at risk. Who can guarantee that the offender won't kill again ? If we put him away for life, he might kill a guard to escape. If we give him help and release him after ten years, he might find another victim. I agree that a harsher punishment won't stop them doing it the first time. No one plans to get caught. But I'm pretty sure putting them to death will make sure they do not kill again.

Case from the news headlines yesterday:

Day 1: An 11 year old bankers son gets kidnapped.
Day 2: Family pays 1.000.000$.
Day 3: Son remains missing.
Day 4: Police catches kidnapper. Kidnapper confesses he killed the poor boy on day one.

This is no madeup theory, or tv serial case. This is reality. How can a community take the risk and release this guy ever again ? How can a community pay for him for the rest of his life ? If a dog kills a human, we put it to death. If a human kills a human, without those animal instincts, knowing fully well that it's wrong, how can we let him live ? We can't even make sure the dog won't do it again.
10-02-2002
kermi3

The line of thought here is that many criminals like this do not have families that are reliable supporting homes for them. Or atleast ones that they trust. If they have such familes and homes this is a non-issue. But if they don't have such homes, you've just taken someone, spent money raising them and rehabiiting them essentially, and put them out on the street with no money, no food, no job, maybe a high school education. Now what? There's little else to do but return to life of crime. As you pointed out some have been in the justice system so long that it is home to them, and htey may eve ncommit crimes just to get back there. You can't just thrust them back onto the street.

While i agree that others should have all the same oppertunities, theoretically they would get them from their own families. When I say skills I mean things as simple as how to use a washing machinem how to cook dinner, how to hold an appartment and be somoene's nieghbor if they don't know. Nessicarry skills but something that someone who's spent their intire adolescence in programs won't know.

I certainly agree that it's a crappy system...but I offer no real solutions either but...I think it gives everyone the best shot here.

hmm nv, i like that system, ours is slightly diffrent (US), but it's 4:30 am and i should be asleep....i'll get back to ya....:o
10-02-2002
Govtcheez

So, what should happen here?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/1....ap/index.html

The kids are 10-18, it's apparently random; it wasn't premeditated.
10-02-2002
Sentaku senshi

Charlie Young Jr over reacted when the egg was thrown at him, he had no right to chase after a 10 year old that he is not in charge of. At the age of 36, he knew that he should of not resorted to violance.
10-02-2002
Govtcheez

He had every right to chase the kid - you don't even know what he would have done, had he gotten a chance to catch him - he probably shouldn't have punched the other kid, but they sure as hell were out of line in killing him, for pete's sake!

What would you have done in the same situation, SS? Just kept walking?
10-02-2002
Sentaku senshi

No he didn't nor would you, most other people, and I have the right to pursade someone who is not going an intermedite threat to sociaty. No throwing an egg is not something that will threaten the livily hood of someone.

Oh and for what would have happend is Young would have beat the 10 year old up.
10-02-2002
Govtcheez

> what would have happend is Young would have beat the 10 year old up.

You know that for sure, huh? Well, let's go ask him. OH WAIT! WE CAN'T! Because a group of kids KILLED HIM!

> pursade someone who is not going an intermedite threat to sociaty. No throwing an egg is not something that will threaten the livily hood of someone.

No, it's not an immediate threat. It's annoying as hell, though. Is someone threw an egg at me, you can bet I'd chase them. Sure, it doesn't threaten my livelihood(sp?), but that wouldn't stop me from dragging the little .......... back to his parents.
10-02-2002
kermi3

Quote:

"It was unhuman what they did," the victim's brother, Keith Young, told WTMJ-TV.

Hmmm well I hate to disagree with gov...:) but it wasn't very "adult" to chase after a ten year old kid. Nor was it very smart to do so at night. And there is never a time when it is ok to hit a child, except in self defense. There was no further threat to Young.

Quote:

You know that for sure, huh? Well, let's go ask him. OH WAIT! WE CAN'T! Because a group of kids KILLED HIM!

I feel pretty confitdent that he would have harmed the ten year old in some way. He did after old punch out a 14 year old who stood in his way.

I'm not saying the children were justified in killing him. Not by any means. However I don't think that Young was very smart either. They are kids. If they were a real threat do you think it would be an egg that came flying?

Now as what should be done to the kids? Well I think the older ones should be tried. Depending on their age diffrent things of course. The older ones, i understand there are those who are 17-18 could be tried for manslaughter, or aiding etc.

The ten year old? Nothing. Well prehaps tried with a suspended sentance. I don't know the kid, or his past history but getting "egged" (sry) into committing a prank? We've all had that happen. The rest of them? (And probably the 10 yr old too i have to admit) should be tried as juveniles. These children saw what they were doing i bet as defending themselves. There is a good chance that violence is an exceptable punishment in their family enviroment. There are many factors.

How about this one, breaks my heart.... http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/09/fa...ase/index.html

oh and nv...my understanding of US system:

Under a certain age, that varies between 15-18 i think (mostly 16-18) depending on crime and state tried as children, and I assum psyc evaluation too, if guilty sent to juvinile prison system. For captial violent crimes prosecutors can ask that they be tried as an adult at what age i don't know, depends on state.
10-02-2002
Govtcheez

I think the older ones (we'll pick an arbitrary age... 16 and older'll work) should get tried for 2nd degree murder. I'm not totally sure what I'd do witht the younger ones.

My stance is, you do the crime, you do the time (ahh, cliches). Seriously - I wasn't exactly bright at that age, but I sure knew that it was wrong to kill someone.
10-02-2002
kermi3

Do you think they were justified in intially "attacking" him. Not the egg, teh standing in front of him to shield the 10 year old, and then fighting back when he punched out the 14 year old?
10-02-2002
Govtcheez

Yeah, I do. I feel there's some times when a fight's appropriate. This is probably one of them. But what happened later is totally ridiculous. They beat him so badly he tried to escape into a house, and they dragged him out just to keep going. It's insane. Anything less than a murder trial for at least some of these kids would be disgusting.
10-02-2002
kermi3

I agree totally, no contest.
10-02-2002
adrianxw

The thing is, when I was 10, or 12 or "......." , (add age here), I would not have dreamt of breaking the law because there was the danger I would be caught and punished. Now, the kids know damn well if they are caught, nothing will happen to them. Sorry if it offends but this is plain and simply wrong.

Then, you would have chased after a young thug and frog marched him back to his parents house where they would have given him a good hiding and apologised profusely for their spawns actions.

Now try the same thing and you are wrong.
10-02-2002
BMJ

Quote:

Originally posted by adrianxw
The thing is, when I was 10, or 12 or "......." , (add age here), I would not have dreamt of breaking the law because there was the danger I would be caught and punished. Now, the kids know damn well if they are caught, nothing will happen to them. Sorry if it offends but this is plain and simply wrong.

Yes! The level of fear for the law that once was is long gone. Kids don't fear the law nearly as much as they used to. They know that if they get caught doing something legally wrong, we have a verbose legal system that will spawn arguments like this where we can't even agree how they should be tried!
10-02-2002
BMJ

I don't think the justice system even works anymore... it doesn't deter anyone from breaking the law, especially capital punishment; Who does that benefit?

The way I see it, if I 100% absolutly knew that when I break the law, I would be punished with no question, exceptions, or hope of getting out of it, and would be punished for what I had done fairly no matter what I say, I would probably never break the law.

But that ain't the case these days is it?
:rolleyes:
10-02-2002
salvelinus

Quote:

Originally posted by BMJ

The way I see it, if I 100% absolutly knew that when I break the law, I would be punished with no question, exceptions, or hope of getting out of it, and would be punished for what I had done fairly no matter what I say, I would probably never break the law.
:rolleyes:

Well, who would? People who break the law are either:
1. Not aware of the law (not usually the case for violent crime)
2. Aware of the law but don't care if they're caught.
3. Don't think they'll be caught (the vast majority)

I'm against the death penalty, but if minors are tried as adults, that's ok. I'd make 10 or 11, maybe 12, the cutoff. If you're 13 you know what's right/wrong, or at least allowed/not allowed. If you don't, you probably never will.
I don't hold much hope for rehabilitation. It's got a bad success rate. For most crimes besides murder or heinously violent rape, a minor sentenced as an adult will be out in their twenties or at worst early thirties. If they've straightened out their head, fine If not, let the fear of the consequences stop them from assaulting the rest of us.
For violent criminals, the movie Escape From New York had the right idea. Put 'em on some remote island they can't leave, and leave 'em there. Worked for Australia.

[Just kidding about Australia. But not the rest.]
10-02-2002
kermi3

There's a very big diffrence between knowing what everyone else sees right and wrong as and being able to act that way. What these children know is right or wrong isn't what the rest of us know. They learn by example of parents, and peers. If their parents were abusive, teh children are often abusive. If parents are unfair an punish children for no reason, or frivolus reasons, that child from a young age is going to learn that they are going to be punished no matter what they do. Therefore right and wrong might exsist in the abstract sense, if they are mentally deveopled enough to be think that way, but in practicallity they have no meaning. Punishment comes no matter what? So who cares? And what's the only way that these children learn to deal with problems? The same way that their parents delt with them, violence.
10-02-2002
salvelinus

Well, then the same rationale should apply to them when they commit violent crimes as adults. What's the difference?
I'll agree they likely had a poor upbringing (although not always), but what of it? Lots of people have had poor upbringings but don't commit crimes.
Unless they're truly mentally ill, they understand the idea of consequences and what's allowed and not allowed, even if not right and wrong. 14 year old gangbangers, for instance, don't go violent on the 25 year old gangleader. They rape the elderly lady, shoot the kid they think "dis's" them, maul and beat senseless the jogger in a public park who just happens to be there. They lure kids away at the mall then kill them on railroad tracks.
Do I care that they had a bad upbringing? Sure. It's too bad. So what? The fact is they're a danger to others and need to be kept away from the rest of us.
10-02-2002
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?
10-02-2002
Betazep

Quote:

Originally posted by kermi3
OneStiffRod you are a fool. First of all for posting a site that blantly disreguards every conduct protocal of this board on a thread posted by the lead moderator. How long did you think that was going to stay up? I suggest you read the announcements and rules for this forum found on the top of every board.

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.
10-02-2002
Betazep

Quote:

Originally posted by kermi3
OneStiffRod - I went to far and came near "flaming" you on my previous post. I appologize. Even mods go too far. Though I still strongly stand by my opinion. And I hold even more strongly to the point that your link was totally and utterly innappropriate.

I retract my statement calling you a "fool."

Nevermind... I like you again.
10-02-2002
RoD

I think i will voice my opinion here, as per my recent happening. I am lucky i didn't go to jail and get charged as an adult int he recent abusive b/f fiasco, so it kinda hits close to home.

I feel that charging as an adult is completely appropriate when the kids :

A) Older then 16

B) Knew what he was doing

C) Pre meditated

and

D) Is mentally stable.

I do, however, feel that any action to help the kid should have presedence(sp)
10-02-2002
BMJ

Quote:

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?

Killing someone with a new virus doesn't prevent anyone from catching it as it could reside on the corpse for some time infecting others.
10-02-2002
red_baron

its meant to be as an analogy, fine kill em and burn their corpse...
10-02-2002
Betazep

some can live through fire. ;) :D
10-02-2002
salvelinus

Quote:

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.
10-02-2002
Betazep

"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.
10-02-2002
MethodMan

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.
10-02-2002
BMJ

Quote:

Originally posted by MethodMan
How would you feel if you sent someone to get killed, and five years down the road you find out they didnt do it?

Hey, it's happened before. It's a double-whammy: the real murderer goes free, and an innocent (or semi-innocent) person dies.

But even still I support capital punishment.
10-02-2002
kermi3

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Nevermind... I like you again.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

>>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
10-02-2002
TechWins

Giving someone who has already committed a murder another chance under any circumstance to have the ability to commit another murder again is absurd, IMO. It's not worth saving a murder's life, no matter what his/her situation was, and risking the life of a completely innocent person. That person's life is pretty much already destroyed, and I don't see why you would want to risk the chance of it happening to another person. However, I still believe you try to rehabiliate the child, but you should not release the person from jail at any age for the reasons I've already stated.
10-02-2002
salvelinus

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.
10-02-2002
kermi3

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.
10-02-2002
RoD

Each case needs to be looked at differently, trying to measure them all by one standerd isn't going to end up accurate.
10-02-2002
kermi3

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.
10-02-2002
RoD

I agree, they want the publicity, i say they shove it and do the moral things.
10-02-2002
harryP

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
10-03-2002
adrianxw

>>> 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.
10-03-2002
nvoigt

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.
10-03-2002
kermi3

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
10-03-2002
Cshot

Dunno if this has been posted yet but they have a poll about the killing on www.cnn.com

I'm surprised. I haven't seen this big of a lopsided result in awhile. Truly a sad case with no winners.
10-03-2002
kermi3

I'm not, the media hasn't been stressing the diffrent ages of the kids. The 17-18 year olds should be tried as adults.
10-04-2002
nvoigt

Quote:

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.

Because last year a prisoner escaped by killing a guard, murdered a grandma to get her car, choked a girl ( just because he felt like it ) and seriously wounded two officers when he was caught. Is there any reason not to put him to death ? He killed once, he escaped taking another 3 lives and all he got was back to jail ? This is not monopoly. You kill, you pay. And I'll support anyone who will make damned sure this guy will never kill again. No matter how.
10-04-2002
salvelinus

Well, that's an argument for more secure prisons, not the death penalty. By the same rationale, since innocent people are inevitably killed under the death penalty, the death penalty should be abolished.
I've got no problem locking violent criminals away, but killing people who aren't a threat (locked up means they can't hurt you) is wrong and no better than the criminals.
10-04-2002
kermi3

Granted it is possible that prisonre's can espcape. But in the US I haven't heard of a violent criminal esacping in a while...
10-04-2002
BMJ

... our prisons are so comfy/cozy, why would some of these people want to break out? Prison life for them is better than what awaits them outside the walls.
10-04-2002
salvelinus

Well, if you believe that, try a vacation there.
10-04-2002
BMJ

I'm not saying it's better than my life... but there are those in poverty who would have a better life in prison; So why break out?
10-04-2002
minesweeper

This subject, I feel is extremely important. How should we treat our criminals?! What I would like to see, is not a death penalty, but a reversable removal from society. I would enamour the day when civilised society took it's worst prisoners and made them suffer the consequenses, and I mean CONSEQUENCES of their actions.

This is my '2 cents'. Lets, have prisons that take those disgusting lifeforms which run our streets, deprive our people of the freedom they deserve and lets put them in a cell indefinitely. And I mean indefinitely!! Callous butchers who have no regard for the sanctity of human life, themselves have no right to enjoy the fruits of our freedom. These people must be removed in order to protect every man, woman and child who strives to lead a decent, caring and considerate excistence. I, in my country, would welcome the introduction of 'ultimate inprisonment' where those convicted, by a fair trial, of murder, would be imprisoned 24 hours a day for the rest of their entire life. They simply do not deserve, and should not be awarded the wonderful life that we, in the civilised west are afforded.

Now lets move to minors. Minors are influenced by us. If we allow Eminem to spew foul language, obsenities and stories of rape and murder then what can we expect of our future population? Young people subconciously absorb everything that goes on around them and respond accordingly, that is why we owe them a decent example.

I just got back from a club. Inside was played Eminem. It may seem like I focus on him too much but lets be frank, he influences poeple in a way that simply, is wrong. It is time to stop this education of fear and harm, such as eminem preaches and begin real education. Not education about money and power, but education about respect and consideration for other people.

Don't get me wrong, I feel extremly angry when I hear that the Bulger killers are to be released at 18 years old as if nothing ever happened, but I believe that prevention is far better than cure.

Executing someone for murder is justifiable in a society such as ours but would it not be better to prevent it from happening in the first place? Let's learn from our mistakes, those mistakes created by pure greed and selfishness. Why is the playstation more important in our society than love for one's siblings, or the consideration for our neighbours?

Numnerous cases of teenage violence have been argued in the above thread but ultimately children are influenced by everyone. That means the parents, the film stars, the WWF wrestlers......everyone!! And until society sets a superb example to it's offspring then we really are in no position to complain about their behaviour!!
10-04-2002
Aran

people forget how stupid and impressionable the average teenager actually is.

I have some close friends and we are really reasonable people with realistic goals and a no BS approach to life.

There are many stupid teenagers that were brought up wrong that just plague society from the day that they enter school up to the day they get tossed in jail for doing something wrong and getting caught.
10-05-2002
minesweeper

Wow, I just read my last post. I was battered last night when I wrote that!! About 8 pints worth......boy am I hungover this morning though!!!!
10-05-2002
salvelinus

Quote:

Originally posted by BMJ
I'm not saying it's better than my life... but there are those in poverty who would have a better life in prison; So why break out?

Well, find some poor people (shouldn't be too hard) and ask them if they'd rather be in prison. If you were poor, would you rather be there? Not me.
10-05-2002
eats only heads

actually some people do start riots when they are about to be realeased so they will have more time in their, when people have spent years in prision it is the only way they no how to live, if they are freed then will likly just go on commiting crimes untill they are caught angain and they don't even care. The fact is, improsionment makes people more likly to commit another crime so really the only good it does is keep them out of socities hair for a short time. About the death penalty, it really is imposible to determine who "deserves it" and who doesn't, although it is not a big deal, to give someone 6 weeks in prison when they deserved 5, giving someone death when the deserved it is horibly wrong and irreversible. There have been a number of people who are inosent who were put to death and because of that the death penalty should be outlawed. About being children being tried as adults, I think their age should be taken into consideration just like anything else, your brain does not fully develope untill 25 and until then there still is chance for rehab. Remember that the US is one of the few countries that refused to outlaw the child death penalty. Personally I belive that the reason that many people belive in such harsh criminal "justice" is that they don't care if inosents are killed because they belive it will lower the odds of them being killed which is all that matters to them. They figure they are over 18 anyway so the law doesn't benifit them so why keep it. Not that I am saying all of you are like that but I think many may be.
10-05-2002
icarus

Quote:

The fact is, improsionment makes people more likly to commit another crime so really the only good it does is keep them out of socities hair for a short time.

That's interesting. I would like to see some data on that...

Quote:

About the death penalty, it really is imposible to determine who "deserves it" and who doesn't, although it is not a big deal, to give someone 6 weeks in prison when they deserved 5, giving someone death when the deserved it is horibly wrong and irreversible

It is impossible to determine anything with 100% accuracy, isnt't it? You are right, it is horrible to execute an innocent person; and our justice is designed so that the number of innocents punished is minimized, at a cost of increasing the number of guilty persons that go free. But are you seriously suggesting reforming the system so that it is utterly impossible that any innocents are punished?

Quote:

Personally I belive that the reason that many people belive in such harsh criminal "justice" is that they don't care if inosents are killed because they belive it will lower the odds of them being killed which is all that matters to them.

That is ridiculous. Almost everybody cares if "inosents are killed"-the people who don't are psychotics. So are you blaming people who are want to make it less likely that they or their sons or daughters will be killed? Yeah, I admit it, something is wrong with those people...why do YOU want dangerous criminals to be locked up? Is the main reason abstract ideals such as justice, or is it so you and your kin and your community won't be damaged?

Call me an old-fashioned religious nut, but I think this conversation demonstrates some of the reasons that Western civilization is decaying. Above, I used the word psychotic reflexively. Our society is so incredibly fixated on evading blame. We use "egoist" instead of vain, etc. It's not anybody's fault. It's their father's, or society's. We're turning into a nation of victims (I think that's a book, in fact). We're gradually abandoning old values and institutions that have been venerated for thousands of years, such as the family and the moral order. I'll be surprised if I'm not mocked for this.
10-05-2002
Nick

Quote:

I can't argue with this. I think all options should be open for those 14 and 15 year olds especially.

Just look at our school system. We shut doors on a
huge segment of our population.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:06 AM.