• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge gives teen killer's sentence

Pinkie said:
Again, this is why I think the parents should have criminal liability.
Click to expand...

There is cause for investigation for sure. But it would have to be damned good evidence that they had knowledge of the crime before hand.
 
Enola said:
A 6 year old or a 4 year old are not fully "cooked" yet when it comes to knowing right from wrong. A teen is.
Click to expand...

Hell, there are a good number of 20 year olds who haven't figured that out yet either.
 
I think parental situations should be looked in some circumstances. But a dog will push away a newborn puppy when she senses something is wrong with it. Humans don't have that 6th sense. And besides, the kids already know right from wrong from their peers, school, tv, etc. THIS particular kid was born a sociopath and wanted to know what it felt like to kill another kid. So I say let her experience what her victim felt by killing HER. I have no empathy for the murderous brat. None.
 
Enola said:
A 6 year old or a 4 year old are not fully "cooked" yet when it comes to knowing right from wrong. A teen is.
Click to expand...

O, I think there are very smart 6 year olds who grasp the concept of "dead". And even a 4 year old can see someone is suffering. There was a torture-murder not long ago with a 4 year old who drowned a 18 month old baby in a bathtub. Complex planning, heavy lifting, long struggle, etc. Best case scenario, the baby took 4 minutes to drown.

I'm good with cutting off the age limit at 18, but obviously, NO age will satisfy everyone.

If 13, why not 12? Why not 10? Etc.

 
Enola said:
I think parental situations should be looked in some circumstances. But a dog will push away a newborn puppy when she senses something is wrong with it. Humans don't have that 6th sense. And besides, the kids already know right from wrong from their peers, school, tv, etc. THIS particular kid was born a sociopath and wanted to know what it felt like to kill another kid. So I say let her experience what her victim felt by killing HER. I have no empathy for the murderous brat. None.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't have what you want.

Deal with it.
 
Ikari said:
There is cause for investigation for sure. But it would have to be damned good evidence that they had knowledge of the crime before hand.
Click to expand...

Not specific knowledge of the crime itself, just specific knowledge that the kid presented an unreasonable danger to others and they took no action to control or have her placed somewhere secure.

I'd convict for that.
 
Pinkie said:
Not specific knowledge of the crime itself, just specific knowledge that the kid presented an unreasonable danger to others and they took no action to control or have her placed somewhere secure.

I'd convict for that.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would; it would really depend on the evidence and the situation.
 
Ikari said:
No....we have enough laws already.
Click to expand...

We have no way to charge the parents of this girl.

Ergo, IMO, we need a new law.

Doesn't mean I don't think we could repeal 50% of the ones we have and be better off.
 
Pinkie said:
We have no way to charge the parents of this girl.

Ergo, IMO, we need a new law.

Doesn't mean I don't think we could repeal 50% of the ones we have and be better off.
Click to expand...

No, there's laws such as criminal negligence and such already. We already have laws on hand. The last thing we need is sweeping legislation which allows for the prosecution of parents when their children act out or are out of control. The parents do not make the choice to commit the crime and thus without prior knowledge of the crime proper cannot be brought before the law. That is on purpose. There are also plenty of other of laws which can be use if the situation necessitates it. You may think of this specific case and think there should be something we should be able to do with the parents, but with new law comes new corruption and new violation and it isn't far fetched that such a law would be used to abuse and spy on families.

We have enough laws as is; well too many if you ask me. If you cannot prosecute under the laws we currently have; chances are you shouldn't be prosecuting in the first place.
 
muciti said:
It it were so obvious you wouldn't be using an opinion to answer a question as to whether or not something is in the constitution. You put forth Ginsbergs interpretation of the constitution as fact because she is a SCJ. So are the other 4 who say its not. He asked you to show him where in the constitution you pulled that from, you failed to do so. nice try at a rebuttal though. Next time put some thought into it.
Click to expand...

Do you know how the SCOTUS works? Here I'll explain it to you. A case makes it all the way up there, 9 judges decide the constitutionality of it. If majority rules it's unconstitutional, law of the land. If majority rules it's constitutional, law of the land. I don't really care about your relativist interpretation of what is and isn't constitutional. That's how our system works. As of right now: executing people who committed a heinous crime under 18 is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Indeed. Truer words were never spoken. Caged...out of sight, out of mind...and you feel all 'civilized.'
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what your problem is, and I'm not interested in decoding your rhetoric.
 
I can't find the link right now, but the girl wrote in her diary that the feeling she got while killing the other girl was "ahmazing!"
 
American said:
OVERRULED THE COURT'S PRIOR RULING (meaning liberals were reinterpreting again) what probably had been held constitutional for 200 years. I don't even have to read it to figure liberals were at working undoing the Constitution as they usually try to do. That filthy rag ratified by rich white slave owners. Well since I'm Communist this week, I'll support overthrowing the US Constitution this time. We communists and liberals need to continue to erode the Constitution everywhere and by any means necessary.

Malcolm_X_any_means_necessary.jpg


If the conservative side were to win, the justice would be an idiot of course.
Click to expand...

Who gives two ****s what was constitutional for 200 years or not? Slavery was constitutional for 200 years then it was ruled unconstitutional.
 
Ikari said:
No, there's laws such as criminal negligence and such already. We already have laws on hand. The last thing we need is sweeping legislation which allows for the prosecution of parents when their children act out or are out of control. The parents do not make the choice to commit the crime and thus without prior knowledge of the crime proper cannot be brought before the law. That is on purpose. There are also plenty of other of laws which can be use if the situation necessitates it. You may think of this specific case and think there should be something we should be able to do with the parents, but with new law comes new corruption and new violation and it isn't far fetched that such a law would be used to abuse and spy on families.

We have enough laws as is; well too many if you ask me. If you cannot prosecute under the laws we currently have; chances are you shouldn't be prosecuting in the first place.
Click to expand...

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. Criminal negligence does not apply; nothing applies. If you know your child is dangerous, and you take no steps to protect others, I say you should do time.
 
Enola said:
I can't find the link right now, but the girl wrote in her diary that the feeling she got while killing the other girl was "ahmazing!"
Click to expand...

Thrill killers are repulsive; child thrill killers even moreso. What she wrote in her diary doesn't add to my repulsion.
 
The only thing I feel about this is profound sadness that a precious, innocent child was slaughtered, and enormous relief that the psychopatic little bitch who did it will spend most of her life in prison. I sincerely hope she is never released again. The only thing she is sorry about is that she was caught. If she's ever released, her prison cellmates will have schooled her on how to prevent that from happening when she selects her next victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom