• 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
well...according to her, we only have the word of the prosecution that these punks said anything. I just don't get why she is bending over backwards to excuse this crap and wants these killers treated like children
I guarantee the police already have a signed confession if they are making that statement in public, there is no way they will risk a mistrial by "creating" evidence that they can't present in court.
 
I guarantee the police already have a signed confession if they are making that statement in public, there is no way they will risk a mistrial by "creating" evidence that they can't present in court.

or setting themselves up for a libel/slander lawsuit. if they are reporting the kid said it...you can bet your ass the kid said it.
 
Problem is, the kids are on record as doing it because "they were bored". It doesn't get any more solid than a confession.

That's the case presented by the prosecution, and it most CERTAINLY gets more solid than a confession.

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199600502.pdf

Confessions constitute an important exception to the hearsay rule. They are attractive to police officers, for obvious reasons, and can impress juries. However, experience also teaches that confessions can prove unreliable and, regrettably, even lead to miscarriages of justice. The source of a confession’s unreliability may lie in the methods used to extract it: if obtained by coercion, which can cover forms of
pressure as varied as torture at one extreme to far more subtle means of inducement presented to the suspect at the other, there is a plain risk that the confession may prove untrue; and this is quite apart from any further consideration that, as a matter of policy, the law cannot simply be seen to have any truck with confessions obtained by especially devious or overreaching methods. Alternatively, a confession’s unreliability may stem from the constitution of the suspect: that person may be unusually suggestible, or may happen to be interviewed while in a vulnerable frame of mind or an impaired state, or may actually be suffering from a mental illness or identifiable personality disorder. In all these cases it has been found advisable to be circumspect about admitting confessional evidence. Unreliability,
then, is far from being the only reason for which improperly obtained confessional evidence is excluded in English law. As Lord Griffiths observed in Lam Chi- Ming v R [1991] 2 AC 212, 220:
. . . [T]he more recent English cases established that the rejection of an improperly
obtained confession is not dependent only upon possible unreliability but also upon the
principle that a man cannot be compelled to incriminate himself and upon the importance
that attaches in a civilized society to proper behaviour by the police towards those in their
custody.
 
As you can clearly see from the OP article, it certainly does not state anything that the boys' said

as you can clearly see (and I quoted) at least one of them stated that they did it "for the fun of it". do you seriously believe the authorities would report it and risk a mistrial and/or lawsuits if the kid hadn't actually said it?
 
That's the case presented by the prosecution, and it most CERTAINLY gets more solid than a confession.

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199600502.pdf
A signed confession is damning evidence Chris, the only way the defense has a chance of that getting thrown out is to prove that the LEOs coerced it. The fact that the kids gave a reason for the confession................any defense is going to have a hell of a time with this, especially given the fact that they shot someone in the back who didn't even know he was a target, ran, and tried to hide evidence. All of it is documented.
 
as you can clearly see (and I quoted) at least one of them stated that they did it "for the fun of it". do you seriously believe the authorities would report it and risk a mistrial and/or lawsuits if the kid hadn't actually said it?

A signed confession is damning evidence Chris, the only way the defense has a chance of that getting thrown out is to prove that the LEOs coerced it. The fact that the kids gave a reason for the confession................any defense is going to have a hell of a time with this, especially given the fact that they shot someone in the back who didn't even know he was a target, ran, and tried to hide evidence. All of it is documented.

Okay, let me try a different tactic here. What is the difference between the way you two are reacting to this case and the way others reacted to the Zimmerman case? You are reacting the same as all of those people who screamed, "He's guilty, give him the death penalty!"

YOU don't know the facts of the case. You only know what you have been TOLD.
 
Okay, let me try a different tactic here. What is the difference between the way you two are reacting to this case and the way others reacted to the Zimmerman case? You are reacting the same as all of those people who screamed, "He's guilty, give him the death penalty!"

YOU don't know the facts of the case. You only know what you have been TOLD.
Except, Zimmerman didn't initiate violence, he was confronted with violence and there was gray area. In this case, we have an innocent victim shot in the back, with the perpetrators saying they did it because they were bored.
 
Another thing I would like to add is that a signed confession is NOT good evidence. It can be and frequently IS overturned later on as being not valid for whatever reasons.
 
Except, Zimmerman didn't initiate violence, he was confronted with violence and there was gray area. In this case, we have an innocent victim shot in the back, with the perpetrators saying they did it because they were bored.

Irrelevant, you are jumping to conclusions and convicting these kids before they have had a trial and all the evidence against them has come out. That is NOT how our system works.
 
Okay, let me try a different tactic here. What is the difference between the way you two are reacting to this case and the way others reacted to the Zimmerman case? You are reacting the same as all of those people who screamed, "He's guilty, give him the death penalty!"

YOU don't know the facts of the case. You only know what you have been TOLD.

wrong. these guys are not claiming self defense, zimmerman did. in the zimmerman case there was no premeditation, in this case there is. and we also have the statement (whether you choose to believe it or not) from one of the killers stating that they did it "for the fun of it".

if you can't see the difference..... :shrug:
 
Irrelevant, you are jumping to conclusions and convicting these kids before they have had a trial and all the evidence against them has come out. That is NOT how our system works.

zimmerman never confessed to murder....these three apparently, and by all reports, have. Sure...they are entitled to a trial (unless they want to take a plea bargain for a lighter sentence)
 
Another thing I would like to add is that a signed confession is NOT good evidence. It can be and frequently IS overturned later on as being not valid for whatever reasons.

yeah..I'm sure these 3 sweet innocent little cherubs are just misunderstood and have been railroaded :roll:
 
wrong. these guys are not claiming self defense, zimmerman did. in the zimmerman case there was no premeditation, in this case there is. and we also have the statement (whether you choose to believe it or not) from one of the killers stating that they did it "for the fun of it".

if you can't see the difference..... :shrug:

There is no difference before the trial, as we don't know the details and as we do not convict people without a trial. The allegations are different, sure. That has no effect on whether or not you decide on your own, knowing the bare minimum but claiming that's enough to sentence children as adults. That is not how the system works.
 
yeah..I'm sure these 3 sweet innocent little cherubs are just misunderstood and have been railroaded :roll:

:roll: Your personal feelings aside, there hasn't been a trial.
 
There is no difference before the trial, as we don't know the details and as we do not convict people without a trial. The allegations are different, sure. That has no effect on whether or not you decide on your own, knowing the bare minimum but claiming that's enough to sentence children as adults. That is not how the system works.

you are the only one here saying sentence children (which is bull**** anyway. from a legal standpoint the term "child" only applies to persons 14 and under) as adults. they should be CHARGED as adults and let the chips fall where they may
 
:roll: Your personal feelings aside, there hasn't been a trial.

I look forward to you eating crow when these 3 "children" cop a plea to avoid "life without parole" :shrug:
 
you are the only one here saying sentence children (which is bull**** anyway. from a legal standpoint the term "child" only applies to persons 14 and under) as adults. they should be CHARGED as adults and let the chips fall where they may

That's your opinion. I've expressed mine and backed them with real information and facts rather than emotional pleas.

Oh and I almost forgot my smiley. :mrgreen:
 
Irrelevant, you are jumping to conclusions and convicting these kids before they have had a trial and all the evidence against them has come out. That is NOT how our system works.
Not irrelevent at all, the kids are on record as implicating themselves.
 
That's your opinion. I've expressed mine and backed them with real information and facts rather than emotional pleas.

Oh and I almost forgot my smiley. :mrgreen:

It is also the "opinion" of the authorities in OK.... :shrug:
 
Yes, and check out the links on the past two pages that I posted. And here's another. Really, you guys should be reading these and trying to better educate yourselves about the matter. :) They are extremely educational and loaded with things I'll bet you never knew.

http://cklawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/vol85no1/Weaver.pdf
Chris, the kids implicated themselves in a heinous crime. Their only excuse is "we were bored", that is not going to make any case for them being elibible for anything less than life.
 
I've argued this issue extensively at Comcast forums too. I've already done research into this subject, and even though I really like you guys I will not abandon my principals on this given what I've learned. Sorry. :)
 
I've argued this issue extensively at Comcast forums too. I've already done research into this subject, and even though I really like you guys I will not abandon my principals on this given what I've learned. Sorry. :)

3 teenagers, well above the age where "I didn't know any better" is even remotely an excuse, implicate themselves in a premeditated execution of a random stranger. at least one of them tells authorities they did it "for the fun of it" and you insist they be treated like "children". you can keep those "principles"
 
No one is suggesting leniency, just not putting them death or throwing them into an adult correctional system. Also, I have a 17-year-old son, so I think I certainly do know exactly how they behave, etc., and I disagree with your assessment completely.

Well, my condolences if you have a 17 yr old son and you can understand how he might one day just up and think, gee, let's execute some stranger today for something to do.

As for leniency, yes indeed you are suggesting leniency if you don't want them to be subject to the death penalty or put in an adult correctional facility as punishment for executing another young man.

So again I'll ask, anyone who wants to answer, what is your suggested "severe" punishment or "non-lenient" punishment for a 15, 16, 17 year old who executes another human being?
 
So again I'll ask, anyone who wants to answer, what is your suggested "severe" punishment or "non-lenient" punishment for a 15, 16, 17 year old who executes another human being?

In this case, where three youths went on a "joy killing" of a man who did nothing to them, execution is a fitting punishment for the one who pulled the trigger. Life sentences for the other two, no parole.
 
Back
Top Bottom