PDA

View Full Version : Tried as an adult



Pages : [1] 2

kermi3
10-01-2002, 07:58 PM
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.



I guess i should note that I don't believe in death penalty period so...

face_master
10-01-2002, 08:01 PM
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?

kermi3
10-01-2002, 08:04 PM
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.

Aran
10-01-2002, 08:09 PM
that would be bad because they'd get all the chicks... :D:D:D:D:D

kermi3
10-01-2002, 08:12 PM
what? that's the stupid post I've ever seen....i really should delete it...maybe i will.

MethodMan
10-01-2002, 08:29 PM
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.

face_master
10-01-2002, 08:31 PM
yes, I think 14 and under, anyone over 14 should be able to have control over their own actions

kermi3
10-01-2002, 08:38 PM
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.

face_master
10-01-2002, 08:52 PM
>> 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

kermi3
10-01-2002, 09:04 PM
There's also something wrong with pointless one liners....elaborate if you wish...see http://www.cprogramming.com/cboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5168 for questions, or PM me.

face_master
10-01-2002, 09:16 PM
are you talking bout my last post?
// heres line #2

OneStiffRod
10-01-2002, 09:18 PM
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

face_master
10-01-2002, 09:25 PM
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.

kermi3
10-01-2002, 09:48 PM
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?

Cshot
10-01-2002, 10:18 PM
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.

kermi3
10-01-2002, 10:21 PM
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."

OneStiffRod
10-01-2002, 10:26 PM
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.

kermi3
10-01-2002, 10:42 PM
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! :))

OneStiffRod
10-01-2002, 10:44 PM
POP...

goes the gun.

adrianxw
10-02-2002, 12:34 AM
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.

nvoigt
10-02-2002, 02:25 AM
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.

kermi3
10-02-2002, 02:27 AM
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

Govtcheez
10-02-2002, 06:30 AM
So, what should happen here?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/01/child.mob.ap/index.html

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

Sentaku senshi
10-02-2002, 08:49 AM
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.

Govtcheez
10-02-2002, 08:51 AM
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?

Sentaku senshi
10-02-2002, 09:11 AM
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.

Govtcheez
10-02-2002, 09:17 AM
> 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.

kermi3
10-02-2002, 09:48 AM
"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/father.killed.case/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.

Govtcheez
10-02-2002, 10:02 AM
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.

kermi3
10-02-2002, 10:04 AM
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?

Govtcheez
10-02-2002, 10:10 AM
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.

kermi3
10-02-2002, 10:11 AM
I agree totally, no contest.

adrianxw
10-02-2002, 12:27 PM
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.

BMJ
10-02-2002, 12:34 PM
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!

BMJ
10-02-2002, 12:41 PM
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:

salvelinus
10-02-2002, 01:42 PM
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.]

kermi3
10-02-2002, 01:53 PM
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.

salvelinus
10-02-2002, 02:13 PM
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.

red_baron
10-02-2002, 02:37 PM
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?

Betazep
10-02-2002, 02:51 PM
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.

Betazep
10-02-2002, 02:52 PM
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.

RoD
10-02-2002, 02:56 PM
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)

BMJ
10-02-2002, 02:58 PM
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.

red_baron
10-02-2002, 03:04 PM
its meant to be as an analogy, fine kill em and burn their corpse...

Betazep
10-02-2002, 03:06 PM
some can live through fire. ;) :D

salvelinus
10-02-2002, 03:07 PM
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.

Betazep
10-02-2002, 03:18 PM
"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.

MethodMan
10-02-2002, 03:45 PM
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.

BMJ
10-02-2002, 03:51 PM
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.

kermi3
10-02-2002, 05:02 PM
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