Thread: Tried as an adult

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."

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.

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! )

POP...

goes the gun.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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?

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.

> 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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?