• 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!

Should these teens be tried as adults

Should the 15 and 16 year old also be tried as adults

  • yes and throw away the key

    Votes: 72 87.8%

  • no, they deserve a second chance

    Votes: 10 12.2%
  • Total voters
    82
Goshin said:
If we were talking about 10yo's, GG, or even 12yo's... I might be inclined to agree. But 15 and 16yo's are old enough to know better and have no excuse for murdering a man out of boredom.
Click to expand...

they would be hard to salvage and probably not worth the effort. and the guy is dead. That's what people tend to forget. a price has to be paid.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Killing another person is not a trivial matter where age matters in relation to the crime committed. This was not a case of mischief or a poor decision that only hurt the participant...
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't. And I never suggested otherwise.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What are you suggesting?
Click to expand...

Applying juvenile law (not going to judge the details of the law here). But there is a reason why there is a juvenile law in the first place. We can't just throw it out of the window just because we have a case at hand that's especially outraging. When the distinction becomes arbitrary, why do we have a majority age at all?

Maybe it should also be looked upon the parents and if there is or is not some responsibility on their side too.
 
German guy said:
Applying juvenile law (not going to judge the details of the law here). But there is a reason why there is a juvenile law in the first place. We can't just throw it out of the window just because we have a case at hand that's especially outraging. When the distinction becomes arbitrary, who do we have a legal age at all?

Maybe it should also be looked upon the parents and if there is or is not some responsibility on their side too.
Click to expand...

and if they are tried under juvenile law, they would get out at age 21, 4-6 years for a crime that should involve at minimum LWOP
 
German guy said:
Sure they don't, and that's not in the slightest what I'm suggesting. I'm just saying it's possible that they are not mature enough to fully understand the consequences.
Click to expand...


GG, adult criminals are well known for either not fully understanding the consequences and ramifications of their actions, or not believing they will suffer them. This too is not an adequate excuse for anyone much past 10yo when we're talking about deliberate and unjustifiable murder.


I'm going to bet you could talk to hundreds of 15-16yos and that almost none of them, save perhaps those with severe cognitive problems, would fail to agree that purposeless murder was wrong and that severe consequences would likely entail... ergo, these perps could have, should have, and almost certainly did, know better.
 
German guy said:
Applying juvenile law (not going to judge the details of the law here). But there is a reason why there is a juvenile law in the first place. We can't just throw it out of the window just because we have a case at hand that's especially outraging. When the distinction becomes arbitrary, why do we have a majority age at all?

Maybe it should also be looked upon the parents and if there is or is not some responsibility on their side too.
Click to expand...

The application of juvenile laws typically ends at age 21 or younger depending on the State. Should these teens be allowed to be reintroduced into society that quickly?
 
German guy said:
Applying juvenile law (not going to judge the details of the law here). But there is a reason why there is a juvenile law in the first place. We can't just throw it out of the window just because we have a case at hand that's especially outraging. When the distinction becomes arbitrary, why do we have a majority age at all?

Maybe it should also be looked upon the parents and if there is or is not some responsibility on their side too.
Click to expand...


We have a juvenile justice system to deal with relatively minor problems of juvenile delinquency like underage drinking, vandalism, brawling, petty theft, and suchlike... it is actually commonplace in most states for juveniles to be tried as adults if they commit a capital crime like murder. The Juvie system was never designed to handle capital crimes. It was intended to give juvenile offenders guilty of minor crimes a second chance.... not to let murderers get off lightly.
 
Goshin said:
GG, adult criminals are well known for either not fully understanding the consequences and ramifications of their actions, or not believing they will suffer them. This too is not an adequate excuse for anyone much past 10yo when we're talking about deliberate and unjustifiable murder.

I'm going to bet you could talk to hundreds of 15-16yos and that almost none of them, save perhaps those with severe cognitive problems, would fail to agree that purposeless murder was wrong and that severe consequences would likely entail... ergo, these perps could have, should have, and almost certainly did, know better.
Click to expand...

Earlier I posted that the 16 yo who shot the gun and the 17 yo ringleader should both be tried as adults. However, unless someone has posted any update??? I'd think the 15 yo who just "rode along" should be tried as a juvenile. The youngest "follower" there, not much more he could do but maybe suggest it's not a good idea. He may be salvageable.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The application of juvenile laws typically ends at age 21 or younger depending on the State. Should these teens be allowed to be reintroduced into society that quickly?
Click to expand...

Well it depends, and I certainly don't believe they should be let out by default when turning 21. When they are found to have cognitive/developmental deficits, they should probably get a legal guardian, and if they are (additionally) still considered a threat to society, they should probably get institutionalized after their legal punishment.
 
Goshin said:
We have a juvenile justice system to deal with relatively minor problems of juvenile delinquency like underage drinking, vandalism, brawling, petty theft, and suchlike... it is actually commonplace in most states for juveniles to be tried as adults if they commit a capital crime like murder. The Juvie system was never designed to handle capital crimes. It was intended to give juvenile offenders guilty of minor crimes a second chance.... not to let murderers get off lightly.
Click to expand...

So in some cases, we don't trust minors to be fully responsible for their actions, and in others, we don't, the only difference being that we find one thing more outrageous, the other not? That doesn't make sense. Either they are fully mature, or they aren't.

And besides, where should we draw the line? Don't 6 year olds understand that killing another person is wrong, too? Of course they do. Yet nobody in his right mind would judge them with the same yardstick as adults, but look at the parents first.
 
German guy said:
Well it depends, and I certainly don't believe they should be let out by default when turning 21. When they are found to have cognitive/developmental deficits, they should probably get a legal guardian, and if they are (additionally) still considered a threat to society, they should probably get institutionalized after their legal punishment.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the legal system in Germany, but you can't just transfer individuals between systems in the US. In order to be go with the insanity plea, they would have to do so from the get go, and from what has been reported, boredom does not make for a good insanity defense...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not familiar with the legal system in Germany, but you can't just transfer individuals between systems in the US. In order to be go with the insanity plea, they would have to do so from the get go, and from what has been reported, boredom does not make for a good insanity defense...
Click to expand...

That's a good point ... I'm certainly no legal expert, so I didn't mean to comment on the particularities of the American system. As for Germany, I know that in case of juveniles, the developmental state of the perpetrator is taken into account, and even if legal punishment in prison is limited, it's possible to lock away perpetrators of certain violent crimes in institutions, when after serving their sentence it's found they're still a threat (like in case of sex offenders, i.e.).
 
sawyerloggingon said:
DUNCAN, Okla. (AP) — With the simplest of motives — breaking up the boredom of an Oklahoma summer — three teenagers followed an Australian collegiate baseball player who was attending school in the U.S. and killed him with a shot to the back for “the fun of it,” prosecutors said Tuesday as they charged two of the teens with murder.
As the boys appeared in an Oklahoma courtroom, a 17-year-old blurted out, “I pulled the trigger,” then wept after a judge told him that Tuesday’s hearing wasn’t the time or place to sort out the facts of the case.
Prosecutor Jason Hicks called the boys “thugs” as he told Stephens County Judge Jerry Herberger how Christopher Lane, 22, of Melbourne, died on a city street.
Chancey Allen Luna, 16, and James Francis Edwards, Jr., 15, of Duncan were charged with first-degree murder and, under Oklahoma law, will be tried as adults. Michael Dewayne Jones, 17, of Duncan was accused of using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and accessory to first-degree murder after the fact. He is considered a youthful offender but will be tried in adult court. 3 Teens Charged After Australian Player Slain « CBS Houston
Click to expand...

No, they shouldn't be tried as adults. If 18 is going to be the dividing line between a child and an adult, then that should be applied across the board. It's unfair to expect someone to uphold all the responsibilities of an adult while enjoying none of the privileges of being an adult.

However, I also think sentencing should be changed so that it doesn't matter as much if you're tried as an adult or a child. Someone who commits a crime like this should be incarcerated and rehabilitated until they are deemed safe to return to normal society, regardless of their age. Prisoners would still be separated by age, and the rehabilitation for younger children might take a different form, but they'd still be the responsibility of the state until they were deemed safe. They shouldn't just be turned loose at 18 or 21 or whatever the age is in their state.
 
German guy said:
So in some cases, we don't trust minors to be fully responsible for their actions, and in others, we don't, the only difference being that we find one thing more outrageous, the other not? That doesn't make sense. Either they are fully mature, or they aren't.

And besides, where should we draw the line? Don't 6 year olds understand that killing another person is wrong, too? Of course they do. Yet nobody in his right mind would judge them with the same yardstick as adults, but look at the parents first.
Click to expand...


The problem is there is no "line" to be drawn, where we can say with certainty "Child on this side, responsible for nothing; adult on that side, responsible for everything."

Growing up is a gradual process. Thus, legal maturity is a gradual process also. Certain things are allowed at 15, 16. Age of consent in the US btw is 16 in many states.

Some rights are granted at 17... f'rinstance at 17 you can typically chose if you want to go live with your non-custodial parent.

18 is consider legal adulthood for most purposes... but in most states there are still certain things that are forbidden you (alcohol and handguns to name two common ones) until 21.


The Juvie Justice system gives MINOR offenders a chance to not have their life ruined because they stole a car to go joyriding in, or vandalized the math teacher's yard. The theory goes though, that if you're old enough to commit capital crimes, you may (depending on age and other factors) be old enough to stand trial as an adult, since JJ wasn't really intended for dealing with teenager murderers.


Unless they are literally severely mentally disabled, there is simply no excuse for murdering a young man for no other reason than boredom. Their youth alone is not sufficient as a mitigating circumstance either, IMO.
 
Goshin said:
The problem is there is no "line" to be drawn, where we can say with certainty "Child on this side, responsible for nothing; adult on that side, responsible for everything."

Growing up is a gradual process. Thus, legal maturity is a gradual process also. Certain things are allowed at 15, 16. Age of consent in the US btw is 16 in many states.

Some rights are granted at 17... f'rinstance at 17 you can typically chose if you want to go live with your non-custodial parent.

18 is consider legal adulthood for most purposes... but in most states there are still certain things that are forbidden you (alcohol and handguns to name two common ones) until 21.


The Juvie Justice system gives MINOR offenders a chance to not have their life ruined because they stole a car to go joyriding in, or vandalized the math teacher's yard. The theory goes though, that if you're old enough to commit capital crimes, you may (depending on age and other factors) be old enough to stand trial as an adult, since JJ wasn't really intended for dealing with teenager murderers.


Unless they are literally severely mentally disabled, there is simply no excuse for murdering a young man for no other reason than boredom. Their youth alone is not sufficient as a mitigating circumstance either, IMO.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation of that system.

As far as I know, in case of minor (serious) offenders, there is always a case-by-case-basis investigation on the maturity level of the perpetrator. I feel that's what should happen. Because as you say, it's indeed impossible to draw one single line. And that's where the treatment of minors should differ from that of adults, IMO.
 
German guy said:
Thanks for the explanation of that system.

As far as I know, in case of minor (serious) offenders, there is always a case-by-case-basis investigation on the maturity level of the perpetrator. I feel that's what should happen. Because as you say, it's indeed impossible to draw one single line. And that's where the treatment of minors should differ from that of adults, IMO.
Click to expand...

This is what the prosecutors have done in this case...
 
Bodhisattva said:
You can't believe the cameras. With all the holographic equipment and the fake WTC airplanes...
Click to expand...

Do tell?

Considering I was there and saw the bloody plane hit the second tower please enlighten me about fake planes.
 
German guy said:
Thanks for the explanation of that system.

As far as I know, in case of minor (serious) offenders, there is always a case-by-case-basis investigation on the maturity level of the perpetrator. I feel that's what should happen. Because as you say, it's indeed impossible to draw one single line. And that's where the treatment of minors should differ from that of adults, IMO.
Click to expand...


Well to some degree it is like that here. I was never expert in juvie justice (didn't do a lot of that back in the day), but IIRC when a serious crime is committed by a juvenile there are typically psyche tests and competency hearings as part of the decision whether to try to them as an adult or not.

Of course politics can always rear its ugly head, and the exact mechanics will vary from state to state... as you have probably come to realize, States in the US are semi-autonomous in many ways and vary considerably in their legal systems.
 
German guy said:
So in some cases, we don't trust minors to be fully responsible for their actions, and in others, we don't, the only difference being that we find one thing more outrageous, the other not? That doesn't make sense. Either they are fully mature, or they aren't.

And besides, where should we draw the line? Don't 6 year olds understand that killing another person is wrong, too? Of course they do. Yet nobody in his right mind would judge them with the same yardstick as adults, but look at the parents first.
Click to expand...

with the level of irresponsibility of many youths these days.. yea, there must be shorter lines drawn on some things than others..
idle hands are the devils workshop..

as for capitol punishment for children, strangely enough I think its more of a question of "can they be righted?", rather than the child's age.. though I suspect age would certainly be a factor.

in light of this trio's motive and their age, I believe these guys are among the worst humanity has to offer and IMO aren't worth saving.
I suppose it seems harsh but also IMO the kid they murdered was very likely a benefit to society and easily worth three of them.
 
Gaius46 said:
Do tell?

Considering I was there and saw the bloody plane hit the second tower please enlighten me about fake planes.
Click to expand...

The technology is that advanced. With controlled explosions, holographic planes, speakers... you were just scammed.
 
Goshin said:
Because there is a VAST difference between letting an adolescent get off lightly for "mischief"-grade crimes like minor vandalism, petty theft, or fist fighting... and letting them get off lightly when they murdered a man for no reason at all other than boredom and malicious indifference to human life.
Click to expand...

So what's the difference? You, as an adult, would get off lightly for 'mischief-grade' crimes. Why not dispense with the juvenile offender distinction and leave it in the hands of the judge?
Seems like legislators want to keep taking discretion away from judges. Mandatory sentences are another example. Why have judges at all- let's just have a decision of guilty or not-guilty according to a decision arrived at in conference with the prosecution, the defense, and an elected representative of the government and apply the sentences that the legislature has decided on.
 
Ray410 said:
The reason this "problem" has not been resolved before now is because nobody knows what to do.

It's not a matter of rehabilitation, they failed to develop the slightest shred of conscience or compassion during the early years when other children are developing those critical traits. My guess is that this lack of humanity in "children " is rapidly becoming an evident problem throughout the civilized world.

In all likelihood, these "children" if ever set free, will spend the rest of their lives brutally harming innocent people and even other children and still incur millions of dollars from taxpayers to babysit them for the rest of their lives.

We owe a duty to those future innocent victims as well as the young man they murdered.

I believe the solution is that they should be tried as adults, but with certain adult punishments taken off the table, such as the death penalty. That would leave the problem of long term cost to taxpayers, which would require that they be forced to work to pay for their room and board during the entire time they are incarcerated.
Click to expand...

I could maybe agree with that.
 
Grand Mal said:
So what's the difference? You, as an adult, would get off lightly for 'mischief-grade' crimes. Why not dispense with the juvenile offender distinction and leave it in the hands of the judge?
Seems like legislators want to keep taking discretion away from judges. Mandatory sentences are another example. Why have judges at all- let's just have a decision of guilty or not-guilty according to a decision arrived at in conference with the prosecution, the defense, and an elected representative of the government and apply the sentences that the legislature has decided on.
Click to expand...


Has no relationship to what actually happens in court; hyperbole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom