Trying Children As Adults....My Pet Peeve With This Country

If its 'true' then why don't all teens behave this way, this extremely?
You have a statement where the teen weighs the punishment of standing in a corner and then say they aren't capable of seeing consequence. Which is it?
The brain is NOT an exact science. I went through this first hand when speaking to my mothers doctors about the tumors she had in her brain. The science cannot tell you all of the factors involved so you can't use it as a blanket defense. Its not simplistic and naive because I don't have absolute faith in the latest findings. Ive seen too many new findings that were later proven incomplete. Its about having a standard. You must hold society to standards.There must be a benchmark to weigh against and from there have further checks along the way. These things MUST be decided in context of the viscousness of the crime and not just let it fall into the 'teen fighting' category. In this case you're saying SIX teens were unable to make a correlation that this was wrong? And then the one girl's mother is on NBC the other morning saying the victim was responsible too. Why the hell would you leave seven teenagers together unsupervised anyway?
I'm sorry you don't think it looked like much of a beating, but the girl lost consciousness. That means her brain was jostled hard enough inside her skull for her to lose consciousness. Its amazing she wasn't hurt worse. The fact that they didn't think about the consequences is irrelevant. If the girl died, would it make her parents feel better to know that her attackers didn't mean to do it? Would she be less dead?
Every teen is not being charged as an adult, only the most heinous. Only in cases where the degree of right and wrong is so blatantly apparent. This act was premeditated, planned and executed and filmed for entertainment purposes. That is far different than taking a car out for a joyride. They could see far enough into the future to set up their trap, but yet are incapable of seeing they could get in serious trouble?
As parents, we need to do what we can to prepare our kids for the world. We need to constantly remind them what happens and what could happen. You tell them right from wrong, you tell them what is serious, you tell them what happens if you hurt someone and you tell them over and over again. You check and find out where they are going and who they are going with. You ask about their friends and how they behave. You do as much as you possibly can to prepare and protect them but sooner or later they are on their own.
Its not a perfect system but the option for more serious charges has to be there because not all cases are the same. The jury is of their peers because every juror was a teenager. There is a judge who was once a teenager and there is an appeal system. And as far as understanding consequences, I bet there is no one in that school thinking how cool it would be to smack someone around for youtube right now.
And what about the case from West Palm Beach where ten teens forced their way into an apartment. All ten raped the woman, forced her preteen son at gunpoint to have sex with his own mother and poured numerous household chemicals into the boys eyes. Should they be tried as juveniles? Obviously they couldn't know the consequences of their actions because they can't use the frontal cortex. Kids will be kids, joyrides, trying drugs, gang rape, sodomy and attempted murder its all the same.
Two Teens Held In Gang-Rape Of Mother, Torture Of Son - West Palm Beach News Story - WPBF West Palm Beach
 
On May 20th 1998 a 15 year old boy by the name of Kip Kinkel was arrested in Springfield, Oregan for housing a stolen weapon in his locker at school. He apparantly had purchased the weapon from a friend. Kip was realesd from custody and expelled from school and his response to the expellsion was to murder his parents! Supposedly to save them from the emarassment. He must have been woefull for what he did because he moved the bodies to places in the house where they would be "hidden" covered them with white sheets (my belief as a sign of respect) and played a melancholy song repeatedly. The next morning he dressed himself in camoflouge and a trench coat armed himself and went back to the school he had been expelled from and opened fire in the hallway and cafeteria. He killed 2 students and wounded 25.

later his defense would be one of mental defect. My point here is that this "child" felt remorse after killing his parents but yet still thought out and executed additional crimes? Where is the "children think defrently than adults defense" here? All I see is a mentally insane kid who was angered that he got caught with a stolen weapon and got expelled.


read more here ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Kinkel

Prior to this two students in Arkansas killed four students and a falculty member and wounded nine others on march 24, 1998. Their names where Mitchel Johnson age 13! and Andrew Golden age 11!

Here are the details of their killings copied directly from wikipedia-----

When the boys got to Westside Middle School, Golden set off the fire alarm while Johnson took the weapons to the woods near the school. Golden then ran back to the woods where Johnson had taken the weapons. When children and teachers came out of the school, the two boys opened fire. 13 students and 2 teachers were hit, 5 of whom died. Afterwards they attempted to run back to the van and escape, but were apprehended by police.

The two youths were among the youngest ever charged with murder in American history. The Jonesboro prosecutor later stated that were it not for their ages, he would have sought a death sentence for the pair. In August 1998, they were both sentenced to confinement until they reached the age of 21, the maximum sentence available under Arkansas law. They would have served until only 18 had federal authorities not added additional confinement for weapons charges. Judge Ralph Wilson commented "this is a case where the punishment will not fit the crime." This case led to a wide public outcry for tougher sentencing laws pertaining to juvenile offenders. Since then, the laws regarding young offenders have changed in Arkansas. Had Johnson and Golden committed their crimes several years later, they could have both been charged as adults and imprisoned for life.

Mitchell Johnson was released from custody on August 11, 2005, his 21st birthday. Andrew Golden followed on May 25, 2007. Many members of the Jonesboro community have since expressed outrage, citing the facts that they will not be placed under any supervision and will be able to legally purchase firearms


________________________________________________________________

it is further noted directly on this website here --->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonesboro_massacreand others that Mitchel Johnson is in custody again! Furthermore the justice system clearly protected these "children" based upon age when the "children" CLEARLY planned and then executed MASS MURDER! How is this justice? And how is it fair that the younger more impressionalbe child spent more time in prison?

He spent more time because he was tried as a juvenille and he was younger so he could spend more time in the system. (which is often times why a child is tried as an adult especially at say 17! because they dont have any time left in the system which is based on age!) Yet the older one who comitted the same crime spent TWO YEARS less time and was probally the one who was responsible for most of the planning!

Irregardless both children recieved less than 10 years in prison! and would be able to LEGALLY purchase firearms all because their age was such that prosecuting them as adults was unheard of! I have a hard time believing that these two didn't "think" that the consequences of murder wouldnt be great?

Finally is the case of Eric harris and Dylan Klebold who killed 13 and injured and additional 24 on April 20th 1999. At Columbine High School. They were ages 17 and 18. Everyone who has heard of the Columbine shooting knows that this pair had been in trouble before, but had made such a good impression on authorities that they were let out of their respective "programs" early! That there were year long journals that carefully detailed the planning of the attack. That the two wanted to "go down in history" for mass murder. That they manafactured bombs and detailed the planning right down to the tee shirts they were wearing! This was not a teenage impulse problem. This wasnt even a fairy tale "oh well I will kill the people who pick on me and then I wont have to deal with it anymore" scenerio this was a we are gonna outdue the Oklahamo City Bomber PLAN! Had these two not pulled the gun on themselves would one possibly in their right mind argue that they were teens that didnt know any better?


I use the school shootings to show that often times kids aren't just victims of dumb decisions but to show how they plan and then execute the decision to kill! And to kill in mass quanities. These are not kids that can be rehabilitated these are felons that need to be locked away and never released to inflict more harm on society. My opinion is that you if you plan to kill and then do it you should be punished and that perhaps the punishmint for a malicious crime should be the same for child or adult. I would feel exactally the same if it was a six year old who planned a crime in this manor and then executed it.
 
If its 'true' then why don't all teens behave this way, this extremely?
You have a statement where the teen weighs the punishment of standing in a corner and then say they aren't capable of seeing consequence. Which is it?
Click to expand...

No, I have a statement where a 8 and 5 year old KNOW that the consequence for whacking each other is standing in the corner. It's not something they "weigh" before they smack. They just smack out of impulse. It happens enough times as they grow and by the time they're older, they know it.
I NEVER said, (in fact, I've said MANY TIMES now) that children CAN learn right from wrong. What I have also said is that they don't have the foresight to see ALL the consequences of an action like an adult does. As in my example of a boy sneaking out of his house. He sees some, not all. Children ALSO, come to a point where the "everyone else is doing it" and not getting in trouble. They also have a mentality that it won't happen to them. Adults say, "I don't want to risk it." Kids say, "It must be okay, I'll just be careful".

And then the one girl's mother is on NBC the other morning saying the victim was responsible too. Why the hell would you leave seven teenagers together unsupervised anyway?
Click to expand...
I can think of MANY instances where teens are left unsupervised. Either for a few minutes and you "trust" them, or for the simple fact you don't know about it. Kids LIE. Parent's say they're leaving town for a weekend wedding, kid says he's going to the lock-in at the church and Bob's parents are driving you. Parent's leave, you're free as a bird.

Fine, the girl was beaten. On the other hand, EVERY DAY in America girls beat up other girls with the full intent of making them as bloody, bruised and broken as possible. Which was NOT what that video showed. YOUR the one that said the brain is not an exact science. The girl could have passed out for any reason...right? Granted, it probably was the fight, but that doesn't mean it wasn't stress!
And, yes, the girls probably DID know it was wrong. And if the BEATING is that appalling, try them for assault. Digging through the law for a crime they can fit to it to make the punishment harsher...like adult charges for kidnapping, is what I take issue with. The girls couldn't foresee that consequence and it's just a way to slap them with a bigger stick.

Kids who shoplift, drink, smoke, take drugs, rape, assault, have sex all know there are consequences.

As parents, we need to do what we can to prepare our kids for the world. We need to constantly remind them what happens and what could happen. You tell them right from wrong, you tell them what is serious, you tell them what happens if you hurt someone and you tell them over and over again. You check and find out where they are going and who they are going with. You ask about their friends and how they behave. You do as much as you possibly can to prepare and protect them but sooner or later they are on their own.
Click to expand...
While I agree with all of that, the naive part is thinking that will actually be able to stop everything. My father was EXTREMELY strict, and over-protective. My mother died in childbirth and he went a bit nutty with the protecting us from everything. On the other hand, I found ways around that. He'd check up, but not every time. When he'd "deem" a friend of mine, or their parents as unfit, I saw him as hateful and mean. Certainly, I wasn't going to tell him when that friend was going to be someplace. As long as I was where I was supposed to be MOST of the time, I could get away with not being there ALL of the time. And, he couldn't be at school. He couldn't follow me to school and home from school every day. Luckily, I was tiny, not prone to fighting and had a big group of friends who were all very nice. We kind of hung in the middle where we didn't get picked on. BUT, people on the outside of our circle WERE getting into trouble. They'd show up at parties with tons of food, only to tell us later is was bought with a credit card that was found in the grocery store where they worked. They'd break into people's cars and steal their wallets or checkbooks. They'd drink and drive. They'd get into fights. One girl, wrecked her Dad's car and then set up her house to look robbed and called the police to say someone broke in and stole the car and robbed the house. For the grace of God, I wasn't around that day. Luckily, no one ever filmed the fights and saw me in the background. Or showed up to say anyone eating the ill gotten food and not calling the police was guilty of credit card fraud.
And as far as understanding consequences, I bet there is no one in that school thinking how cool it would be to smack someone around for youtube right now.
Click to expand...
Maybe they aren't thinking putting the video on UTUBE is cool right now, but that doesn't mean they would stop beating up kids. So, which is really the crime? Putting the beating on the computer or the beating? What have we taught them? Only how to do the crime BETTER!

My computer won't pull up your link. But, on the info, I have, yes, the crime is evil. And, I've never said to pat them on the head and give them a cookie while we shake our heads and say, "Kids will be kids". You seem to be acting like the Juvenile Courts don't handle violence all the time. Like I said, if we NEED Juvenile Laws to be more harsh to keep up with the times, then we should be looking into that and voting on it.

You can't say you're not attacking me when you keep repeating that I think kids don't see ANY consequences. And, fine, throw out the brain scans and tests. None of that stops the facts the children have none of the benefits under the law BECAUSE they make poor judgements. Saying Jurors USED to be teenagers is also ridiculous. Teenagers aren't jurors because the argument that, "I beat her up because she was a skank" or "I killed my parents because they were trying to ruin my life" would be a reason for acquittal in the mind of many a teen juror. Whether she used to be a teen or not, those arguments doesn't hold water to a 35 year old housewife.

I'm not sure why you keep acting like I'm saying kids will be kids and deserve no punishment for what they do. Or that they can't see consequences AT ALL. It's like you skip over all those points and keep driving at the same points over and over. I AM saying, kids commit crimes all the time. It's a bad thing. It's rampant, and with more drugs, more freedom, and the parents claiming "their kid can do no wrong" it's only going to get worse. But, that doesn't make them POWs in a Nazi War Camp. It doesn't make them diabolical masterminds. It doesn't mean that when we're upset we can say, "Hmmmm....Juvenile Assault charges seem a little pale, let's browse through the law books until we can find a loophole that means we can try them as adults for kidnapping and send them away for life." And it DOESN'T change the fact that as a country, we say kids make stupid, ill thought out, impulsive choices...which is why they can't drop out of school, get an apartment, drink, drive, vote, get married. We KNOW that, and yet are SHOCKED when they do it? SO SHOCKED we feel the need to punish them like the adults we knew they weren't just a week before. THAT is naive....and oddly, not much less of an impulsive, knee jerk reaction we're telling, expecting them NOT to do.
 
EDIT: I wrote this in response to Vicariously.

^^ If that's the case... if there are certain crimes, like premeditated murder, for which we think kids and adults should be held equally accountable, then perhaps we need to update the juvenile system so that they are still tried as minors, but so that those punishments are available and so that is known up front. That's a lot fairer than changing the rules at indictment.

This isn't about how horrendous the crime is. This is about whether children and adults are the same in the eyes of the court. If you're going to try children as adults, then you need to consider giving children the same rights as adults, too. It makes no sense to say that children and adults are not legally the same, ever -- *except* when kids do this one thing that we don't like. We are horrified by it, so suddenly the kid takes on all of the responsibility of an adult without taking on any of the same rights. You make juvenile crime penalties tougher by making them tougher, not by denying kids fair trials or by throwing the legal definitions of "adult" and "minor" out the window whenever it suits you.

Consider: as adults, we know that we are innocent until proven guilty. We know that we are entitled to a trial by an impartial and unbiased jury of our peers. We know that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that we are protected by the standard of reasonable doubt. What if that was taken away? What if we created a “horrible crimes” system in which, at indictment, the grand jury could find the alleged crime so heinous that it didn’t want to take a chance on a reasonable doubt or on 12 strangers who might, upon hearing all of the evidence, be more sympathetic? What if, instead, the grand jury decided to change the rules on your case and bump you up to the harsher system in which the nature of the *alleged* crime lessened the burden of proof, allowed the jury to be partial and biased, and made no allowances for reasonable doubt – all of this so that they could punish you more harshly when (not if) it got to the sentencing phase? That leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn’t it? That’s not a fair trial, is it? You may as well be at Gitmo, huh? Well, that’s exactly what we’re doing to kids when we remove their rights at indictment so that we can pursue a harsher punishment later. We’re taking away their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We’re making it easier to prove them guilty. We’re holding them to a higher standard of accountability without giving them even so much as equal rights. That’s wrong. That’s not how the justice system should work in a free society -- with the deck stacked against the accused from the get-go.
 
Vicariously

Believe me, I am just as upset by school shootings as everyone else. And, I'm worried about the crime in this country getting younger and younger and more and more heinous. But, for every crime that makes it to CNN there are hundreds that aren't.

What have WE as adults done as far as hearing why Columbine happened? I've seen people cry. I've seen people worry. I've seen people point fingers at their parents. But, the BOYS said it was about the bullying in school. And, of course, we all know bullying goes on in school. We know our education system STINKS in comparison to other countries. We know our schools are too big.
So, we put up metal detectors? And yet, school shootings are happening more and more. If anything, they are learning this is a viable way to deal with this. You see school shootings all the time. How often do we see grown adults shooting up their offices because they feel like it? Maybe the occasional person after they're fired, but it's not that often. Because it's not the most logical way to deal with the problem.

When do we say....HEY! Before we vote on whether a not the gay and lesbian sect can marry, before we decide that by law all TVs need to broadcast in digital, before we decide the people of Iraq are our top priority...let's find a way to deal with this issue.

I can tell you one thing, there were fights in the BIG highschool I went to all the time. It was in the upper-middle class part of town. There was bullying, fighting, drugs, sex in the bathrooms, drugs, everything. When I moved to the smaller highschool it was TOTALLY different. The classes were tiny. I went from 1000 people in my class to 50. There was no fights. No bullying. There were people from many backgrounds from insanely rich to extremely poor. But, all of us being in such a small group, meant there was more understanding and accepting of the differences. It's EASY to bully and pick on people when you don't know them. When you just see them in the hall you can deem them as "weird". When you deal with them face to face every day, it's MUCH harder to do.
Why haven't we DEMANDED they put more money into building more schools? Making them MUCH smaller so that our children aren't lost in a sea of discrimination? We can rationalize that's safer. We know kids learn better in smaller classes. And yet....it's easier to point fingers and say, "Nope, those kids aren't the norm even though it getting more and more normal. We're doing what's right it's THOSE kids and THOSE parents doing what's wrong".

We claim there is nothing more important than our children. And yet, we sit on our hands and do nothing to change what the children doing this SAY is the problem. Our schools are no different from prisons, over crowded, violent, and cruel. But, they don't get to watch cable. Then we wonder why they aren't learning and why they strike back like criminals do. We're SHOCKED they have no compassion.

If we want things to change, we have to actually CHANGE something. Change the Juvenile laws, change the schools, and not just plod along reacting to rather common issues as if they are SO SHOCKING we never saw it coming. We ARE the adults and we have the rights to vote and march and demand things. It's just easier to point fingers...and nothing changes.
 
PV hun they are "tried" as an adult. Not deemed guilty before the get go. How does a man up for trial where the people are asking for a life sentence or worse any diffrent at indictment?

I agree though that their should be harsher penelaties within the juvenille system but see that is the actual problem. The reason they are tried as an adult versus a minor is because a life sentence does not exist for in the juvenille system. I hope you see my point there. They should impose a life sentence to the juvenille system in my opinion. and just move the defendant when they reach the age of adulthood to an adult prison. Much like they do when they issue a life sentence to a minor who's been tried and convicted as an "adult" basically the "adult" title is just saying that the crime was viewed a haneous enough to recieve a larger sentence than that of the system that is intended for juvenilles. The intet for the juvenille system is that these young kids can eventually be rehabilitated and given a second chance becasue they a younger and shouldnt be AS accountable for their actions. I agree that a kid that breaks into a house or experiments with drugs or soemthing should be given the chance to rehabilitate and be succesful in their adult life (hence records sealed). I also agree that children and adult offenders hsould be housed seperatly. But I dont think someone who clearly knows what they are doing is wrong be given a break just because they are younger. I dont believe that a person who plans to take a life and then executes it deserves the same privalages as law abiding citizens once they reach adult hood just because they are a child. My three year old apologizes and geniunaly feels bad if he accidently hurts someone you cant tell me that kids dont know that beating a girl to a bloody pulp is wrong...that killing is ok because kids are just naturally "selfish" and the kill gets them what they want. How could one justify that but a women who kills her husband for money not be held to the same standards of oh she's just selfish....it doesnt make sense.

and in response to giving kids adult rights...just to try them as adults and making things fair. ummm I see what you are saying..and thats why I think that they should implent harsher punishments in the juvenille system. But it still doesnt change the fact that I wish to see violent youth offenders prosecuted in a manor that true justice can take place. In the one case I mentioned above about the young boys released at 21 I believe certainly that justice was NOT served instead the boys were issued a slap on the wrist...7 years worth but still just a slap on the wrist and I have no doubt that they will kill again.
 
My position is this: When a particularly heinous crime is committed by an adolescent 16 or 17 years old and even younger in even more rare cases, where the planning and execution of the crime are of the nature one would expect from an adult, then they should be tried as an adult. Especially if the sentence allowed by the juvenile system is too lenient.
My compassion is reserved for the victim.
So let me ask you, what do you think should be done?
Lets use the case from West Palm Beach. Ten teens, rape and sodomize a woman and her young son for hours, pour chemicals into his eyes and put a gun to his head and force him to perform intercourse on his own mother.
Should they go into juvenile detention and be released when they turn 18?
What do we do with them?
 
I do see your point, Vicariously. You are saying they are tried as adults so that harsher punishments can be pursued for harsher crimes, not because the law sees them as adults in any other capacity. You think the punishment should fit the crime and you see that the juvenile system sometimes fails in that area, so you are looking for a way to correct it. I understand your line of reasoning. I really do. It only seems fair to want to punish murderers harshly, no matter what the age. Heinous crimes to deserve heinous sentences. When a guilty party finds and exploits a loophole in the system, it is truly a shame.

Our system has loopholes, though, because we think it is more important to protect the innocent from wrongful imprisonment on trumped up charges than it is to impose harsh sentences on legitimate charges. To pursue a certain sentence to the point of trying a minor as an adult is putting the sentencing ahead of the trial! Rather than charging the defendant with the charge that most closely fits the alleged crime, you're choosing the charge and the age-based system to match the desired sentence! How is that presuming innocence? How is that a fair trial? You don't shop for the charge that suits the punishment that you want to hand out; in a fair trial, you determine the punishment only if and after a crime has been proven. To do otherwise is, in my opinion, an even greater shame, as it jeopardizes the potentially innocent as well as the integrity of the justice system.

Our system isn't perfect. It has a lot of flaws. Those flaws are designed to err in favor of the accused for a reason: to maintain a free society in which people are not terrified of facing false imprisonment on trumped up charges. We know our system is not perfect, and so we created a system with the intent that when errors occur, more guilty go free than innocent face incarceration. The law is supposed to be fair and impartial. Defendants are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. A trial is NOT fair and impartial and defendants are NOT presumed innocent if, at indictment, the jury is already considering punishment and tailoring the charges to match!

I get why you want to do that, I just think that preserving the integrity of our justice system is a lot more important than really throwing the book at some kids.





Many people feel as you do, RogueHunter. Their compassion is reserved for the victim.

A criminal trial does not belong to the victim, though; it belongs to the accused. It gives the accused to chance to defend himself or herself, with the burden of proof being laid at the feet of the prosecution. YOUR compassion may be reserved for the victim, but the legal system errs on the side of the accused. It does that to protect all of us.
 
palabravampiress said:
I do see your point, Vicariously. You are saying they are tried as adults so that harsher punishments can be pursued for harsher crimes, not because the law sees them as adults in any other capacity. You think the punishment should fit the crime and you see that the juvenile system sometimes fails in that area, so you are looking for a way to correct it. I understand your line of reasoning. I really do. It only seems fair to want to punish murderers harshly, no matter what the age. Heinous crimes to deserve heinous sentences. When a guilty party finds and exploits a loophole in the system, it is truly a shame.

Our system has loopholes, though, because we think it is more important to protect the innocent from wrongful imprisonment on trumped up charges than it is to impose harsh sentences on legitimate charges. To pursue a certain sentence to the point of trying a minor as an adult is putting the sentencing ahead of the trial! Rather than charging the defendant with the charge that most closely fits the alleged crime, you're choosing the charge and the age-based system to match the desired sentence! How is that presuming innocence? How is that a fair trial? You don't shop for the charge that suits the punishment that you want to hand out; in a fair trial, you determine the punishment only if and after a crime has been proven. To do otherwise is, in my opinion, an even greater shame, as it jeopardizes the potentially innocent as well as the integrity of the justice system.

Our system isn't perfect. It has a lot of flaws. Those flaws are designed to err in favor of the accused for a reason: to maintain a free society in which people are not terrified of facing false imprisonment on trumped up charges. We know our system is not perfect, and so we created a system with the intent that when errors occur, more guilty go free than innocent face incarceration. The law is supposed to be fair and impartial. Defendants are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. A trial is NOT fair and impartial and defendants are NOT presumed innocent if, at indictment, the jury is already considering punishment and tailoring the charges to match!

I get why you want to do that, I just think that preserving the integrity of our justice system is a lot more important than really throwing the book at some kids.





Many people feel as you do, RogueHunter. Their compassion is reserved for the victim.

A criminal trial does not belong to the victim, though; it belongs to the accused. It gives the accused to chance to defend himself or herself, with the burden of proof being laid at the feet of the prosecution. YOUR compassion may be reserved for the victim, but the legal system errs on the side of the accused. It does that to protect all of us.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your seeing my point of View PV and I in turn aknowledge yours and I do see what your saying...because my way of thinking is that the punishment should fit the crime and often times the Juvenille System doesnt have a harsh enough punishment...you see my reasoning and that in the judicial system that is sometimes like mine, to be seeking punishment before the defendant can prove themself innocent. In any crime though you face trial to knowing that there are punishments you could face. In that light the expression "going for the max" or "seeking death" is borderline on the same thing...but I might add that it is a request from the prosecuters that that be a possible sentence, a request and suggestion...its up to the judge and the jury to decide...just as it is also a request to the courts that a minor defendant be tried as an adult...they still do get a trial. Please dont forget that.

There are flaws to the legal system...but it is also a good one. We cant disregard that the law and justice is often served. Not always to our liking but it is done. Ultimatley though in my opinion true "court" happens after death...man is never perfect and neither can a mans court room.
 
PV hun they are "tried" as an adult. Not deemed guilty before the get go. How does a man up for trial where the people are asking for a life sentence or worse any diffrent at indictment?
Click to expand...

Vicariously-Try this scenerio...grown man, driving down the road in a neighborhood on his way home from work. Distracted by something, phone ringing, work issues, bee in the car, whatever. Kid runs out in the road, he hits kid and gets killed. Let's suppose man was going 35 instead of the posted 30. Let's suppose he's techincally, at fault. The general term for this crime is 2nd degree vehicular manslaughter with a punishment of a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.
BUT, once it hits the news people are outraged! They're sick of people speeding through residential areas and in response to this, the DA goes to the grand jury on a charge of 2nd Degree Murder.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Click to expand...
because going 5 miles over the speed limit and being distracted when he should know there are children present in residental areas. And the punishment is life in prison.

That's not justice. Sure, the kid is dead and nothing will bring him back. But, that doesn't make this guy's accident a MURDER. Nor does it make him a cold blooded murderer. YES, it can be bent and twisted to fit the crime and thus get a harsher punishment. But, that doesn't make it right.


My position is this: When a particularly heinous crime is committed by an adolescent 16 or 17 years old and even younger in even more rare cases, where the planning and execution of the crime are of the nature one would expect from an adult, then they should be tried as an adult. Especially if the sentence allowed by the juvenile system is too lenient.
My compassion is reserved for the victim.
So let me ask you, what do you think should be done?
Lets use the case from West Palm Beach. Ten teens, rape and sodomize a woman and her young son for hours, pour chemicals into his eyes and put a gun to his head and force him to perform intercourse on his own mother.
Should they go into juvenile detention and be released when they turn 18?
What do we do with them?
Click to expand...
As for that...the term "even younger in rare occasions" is the problem. It's the part where things are done on a case by case basis.

What do I think should be done? I think that if 18 is not age we feel it's okay to release someone who's committed a heinous crime, then we need to AMMEND that. I don't think those boys in WPB should get a slap on the wrist. But, I ALSO think they're deemed children in the eyes of America for everything else and that should INCLUDE being tried as adults.



I think if the crimes are getting worse, the punishments should get worse. Maybe what happens INSIDE needs to get better. Perhaps some actual thought needs to be put into it.
In an ideal world, I think there should be laws in place already for boys like this. I think in order to be released at 18, you MUST finish your education and have good behavior inside. I think the idea of sealing Juvenile Records, in most cases, causes trouble later. The shouldn't be allowed to have weapons at 18 when they get out, they should have those parole violations that every other adult has when getting out of jail. And at 18, they're adults. I don't think they all SHOULD be released at 18. Personally, I think 21-25 makes more sense. But, if they must, there's no reason they shouldn't have unsealed records and strict parole and not just free as a bird. There is no reason they can't have 15 years parole and community service afterward and at the first sign of not doing that be tossed back in jail.

With no laws like that in place, perhaps they should PUT them in place in regards to that case.
I have no trouble with kids getting in trouble for the stuff they do wrong. I DO take issue with after the crime is committed saying, "Well once again, we have no viable punishment for children who do this and the public is outraged, so we'll treat them like adults" when the week before they were stupid kids.
MAKE A VIABLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE JUVENILE COURTS! If locking them up until they're 18 and tossing them back out with sealed records and all the rights of adults isn't working...change it. Instead of having us vote on things like whether gay people have the right to file a joint tax return and share insurance....let's vote on how we make the Juvenile system more effective.
Let's make 1st, 2nd and third degree murder charges for them with punishments to go with them. Same for rape and assault and all the other crimes being committed. Not just look for loopholes later to try them for harsher crimes because the ones we currently have stink.

Whatever happens to those boys in WPB, there are rapes in schools and at parties every day. The ones who are tried in Juvenile Court are no less rapists than the boys in your example. Their victims are no less victimized and traumatized. Do we just tell THOSE victims that because it didn't hit the national news that their victimization doesn't count as much or wasn't "as bad". It is to THEM.
Does that mean if another girl gets beaten up but it's NOT on UTUBE and their beaters get tried in Juvenile Court that the victim don't countbecause it wasn't heinous enough? That's INSANE! If the Juvenile System is too lenient then it needs to be revised. Picking and choosing what is deemed "heinous" isn't justice for the perpetrators OR the victims. And picking out indictments just to get a harsher sentence for well publicized cases isn't justice either. For anyone.
 
well I think we are finally all on agreement on something! being that the Juvenille System needs to implent harsher punishments. Therefor erasing the whole minors tried as adults thing. But Dlou hun, just as you gave the man who accidently killed a child due to distraction scenario the same could happen with kids if they due put in harsher punishments. And that part sux! That part is not justice because it was an accident...and in that case I do feel like the individual responsible face repracusions but I think that even the family of the child would acknowedge that it was an accident. In that case there is remorse it is not a deliberate attempt to take a life. Unfortanetly sometimes harsher sentences are enforced to set an example and not fairly. In that respect the legal system is flawed. The legal system will never be perfect. My thing was that I felt that it needed to be acknowledged that especially haneous crimes be delt with accordingly so that the kids or anyone comitting them cannot become repeat offenders.
 
well I think we are finally all on agreement on something! being that the Juvenille System needs to implent harsher punishments. Therefor erasing the whole minors tried as adults thing. But Dlou hun, just as you gave the man who accidently killed a child due to distraction scenario the same could happen with kids if they due put in harsher punishments. And that part sux! That part is not justice because it was an accident...and in that case I do feel like the individual responsible face repracusions but I think that even the family of the child would acknowedge that it was an accident. In that case there is remorse it is not a deliberate attempt to take a life. Unfortanetly sometimes harsher sentences are enforced to set an example and not fairly. In that respect the legal system is flawed. The legal system will never be perfect. My thing was that I felt that it needed to be acknowledged that especially haneous crimes be delt with accordingly so that the kids or anyone comitting them cannot become repeat offenders.
Click to expand...

Well, true. And one of the flaws of the system is that we can't stop repeat offenders, no matter how hard we try. People instinctively do what they know and sadly, there are people who are raised to know nothing but crime.

My scenerio, however, is just an example of slamming someone with a harder punishment after the crime to prove a point. That's what they ARE doing now. Especially with the kidnapping charges on the girls. Sure, it can be bent to fit the crime, but they aren't doing it because they REALLY equate them with everyday kidnappers, they're only doing it to get a harsher sentence. It would appear that Juvenile Assault charges don't get a harsh enough punishment to cover the outrage for the crime.

I do realize this will always happen. But, it hits home more when the person in question we would have said (and DO say by our laws about minors, and studies that have been done...whether we choose to accept them or not) wasn't capable of making a decision yesterday and today IS. We also don't deem Alzheimers patients capable of making informed decisions and the country would be in an OUTRAGE if we started slamming them with the harshest problems we could find. I'm not saying kids and Alzheimers patients are THE SAME. But, I am saying that as a society, we deem both groups of not making good decisions. It's just with children, we change our minds when they do horrible things.

I'm sure it will never be perfect. But, it would be nice if we tried to focus on the problem.
 
I would love to see the juvenile system get tougher, but I don't know how realistic that is just because of what a touchy political issue it would be. I see and hear so much of this stuff day after day. I teach Police and Corrections officers. My brother's wife was a counselor at a juvenile detention facility for ten years. My wife's sister is a probation officer (four of which was juvenile) and my father in law works for the Sheriff's department in the county jail and they all say the same thing, that once they get in, they just keep coming back.
Deep inside most people is a desire to not give up on kids and to think that there are no kids beyond redemption. Finding a politician that would take a stance like that is going to be tough. Especially with the ACLU always looking out for criminals rights.
 
Which is why you express outrage at trying children as adults.
If the politicians don't want to take a tougher stance on the Juvenile System and ACLU is concerned about Criminal Rights, then instead of saying, "LET'S GET TOUGHER ON KIDS" you say, "QUIT TRYING CHILDREN AS ADULTS". Same results, but doesn't make you look like a big meanie to say.

Those girls in the beating deserve something, but NOT life in prison. They don't appear to be a danger to society at large. Stupid, impulsive, and not very nice, but certainly they don't appear to be beyond help.

Nothing stops if we say nothing. If we say nothing we're sayng it's okay. And it's simply not. If 14 is the age of reason, then our children should be able to move out and get on with their lives at 14. If 18 is, then that should be the cut off. And if we need something more to deal with children then we find it. Picking and choosing which criminal we deem the worst and punishing them differently isn't justice. Not for our country and not even for the victims.
I can tell you one thing, if MY daughter got raped, and her rapist sent to regular Juvenile Court while others are going to adult court...I'm NOT going to be telling her, "Aw, suck it up. It could be worse! Look what happened to this person. That was the REAL crime, that's why they got sent to adult court. What happened to you was just sad, what happened to THEM was 'heinous'"
 
One thing I'm not clear on though. If you change the law and make the harshest possible sentence for a minor life imprisonment or you try them as adults and they get life imprisonment, isn't it just semantics?
 
Well, that's why we'd have to vote then isn't it?

I'm not one who believes that life in prison is appropriate for a first time offender who's a child.
MAYBE, if you showed me a 17 year old, who committed one of the "heinous" murders, who had a history of progressively worse crimes...fine, you might could get me to say life in prison.

I don't believe children are born bad. Which says to me, that if a child goes "bad" before 18, one of two things has happened. Either it was a stupid mistake caused by them being impulsive or not thinking it through or they've been "made" bad by abuse, family, and the situations that surround them. At which point...aren't they victims too? So, we have either stupid or victims.

Either way, I think it's not a lost cause to try and fix that. Maybe they DO keep reoffending and maybe they aren't getting help. "Maybe" they're being thrown in these Juvenile Halls to fend for themselves just like in prison with rapes, drugs, gangs and violence inside. And, perhaps if we made an effort, instead of this idea of trying to get them out of sign so we can rid our minds of them as quickly as possible....that would change.
 
RogueHunter said:
One thing I'm not clear on though. If you change the law and make the harshest possible sentence for a minor life imprisonment or you try them as adults and they get life imprisonment, isn't it just semantics?
Click to expand...

No, it's not just semantics. In one scenario, there is fairness and consistency. In the other, the justice system is twisted in certain circumstances, but not in others. The end result is only justice if it is arrived at in a fair, consistent, and impartial manner. What happens during the trial makes all the difference between justice and vengeance.
 
I'm sixteen, turning seventeen in 4 months, i know better then to do anything serious that can get me in trouble like beating some one or being knowledgeable of my bf planning on killing my parents so we can be together, at 14, even at 11 and my first years of middle school... i still knew that. I knew what the consequences were being on mommy and daddy's punishment, and i knew what could happen... i didnt know that i would be trialled as an adult or a child , because i didnt know I would be trialled different because of my age, i just knew if i did something bad, i would be in big trouble, go to jail trouble.

We knew about Juvi, we knew what kids did when they went there, a kid through a desk across the room one time, he went there, another cheated on a test, he went there, another got into a fight....they went there, another kid got expelled, he went there....

Getting into a fight is one thing, u get angry at them u want to beat the crap out of them, u jump them after school or something, meet in the parking lot, behind the school.... those girls planned it. true, u also plan it when u jump some one, but they lured her, Either to get back at her, or just post it on youtube and myspace to look like big shots, and it was 6 against one....one who wasnt even fighting back, one who they knocked unconsciouses and then beat again when she woke up... and it was recorded. that type of action should be punished. i dont know if all of them should be trialled as adults but i think that the ones that were at least 16 and the boys should.


On the other hand, in this country a 14 year old can't vote, can't drive, can't have a job, can't buy beer or cigarettes, can't get an apartment, in some states are still too young to ride in the front seat of a car, they can't do much of ANYTHING. And WHY? Because as a nation we've said, "Children are irresponsible. They aren't capable of making these decisions on their own. They can't think long term. They make POOR decisions and can't foresee the consequences of their actions."
Click to expand...

True a kid cant do all those things but u think that stops them. They know better, they know that thats the law, and most of them have been thought why its bad. But they still do it, they get beer, smokes, they take their parents car. Where im from in fact, a 14 1/2 year old can start drivers ed. Voting would be to hard and driving in the front seat, they would be with their parents. But whats the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old....one years suppose to make a difference? theres 18 year olds who do much more stupid things than a 14 year old.


I think depending on the crime, they can be trialled as adults, the kid who was practicing wrestling moves, i call that an accident, the girl who's parents were killed, i called that murder.

Say, that my freshman year...when i was fourteen, the kid that sits next to me, he doesnt like the way the teacher pressures him into doing all his work, giving him extra credit things to do, always pick on him in class... all that this teacher wants to do is help, he decides to fix the problem, he beats the teacher, gives them a concussion.and to go a little further, the teacher has internal bleeding and brain damage, they die.
Should the 14 year old be trialled as an adult...yes.....not only did they just ruin their life's by committing murder, but they just ruined the life of that teacher and that teachers family and friends.

He didnt mean to kill the teacher, just like she may have not had the idea of killing her parents, but she probably had more knowledge of what was going to happen then he did.


The way i see it...some one does have to pay for what happens.
In my drivers ed class we had an officer come in and talk to us about how if we did something wrong on the road, or something, totaled the car for example. WE didn't pay for it...our parents did. So i think, either the parents go to prison for life, or the kid goes charged as an adult.

Now imagen it with doing something where they can be charged as adults like in recent past. Maybe many parents would prefer to go in the place of their child, but then what would happen with that kid? I doubt they would learn their lesson, they probably would become worse.

i think one things for sure, kids are getting worse and worse, last Friday i went to the movies Theres a middle school near by and all the middle school kids go hang out near the movies. One little kid, no older than 13 and no taller than 5 ft, was cussing up a storm, trying to fight a guy that i would say was no younger than 17 for what ever reason.
 
How many times has this scenario happened. A child has killed !, increase the punishment !, here we have the case of a 14 yr old, the punishment has, or is to be increased. To an adult level.
Just a couple of questions.
Did the 21 year old tell the 14 year old what he was going to do?
Did the 14 year old have time to tell some one about what the 21 year old was going to do?
If so she is as guilty as he is.
Sounds as though the law is different over there, but here if the person next to you pulls a gun on some one, and you've got time to stop them before he/she kills that person and you do nothing you are just as guilty of murder.
Most 14 year olds want to be treated as adults.
 
Some children are born bad. They're called sociopaths. They have normal upbringings and no significant trauma and they still turn out twisted. Its where the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world come from. Sadly there are a lot more of them out there that just don't turn into serial killers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom