• 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, 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.

Well now, that's a pretty rude and uncalled for assumption. I meant that I understand that kids that age ARE kids and that the profiles about their impulsivity, etc. fits.

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.

I am against the death penalty. No children don't belong in adult correctional facilities.

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?

IF the child is deemed a danger to society by a psychiatrist or other licensed mental health professional, I would say that life in prison is a fitting punishment, but while a child should be separated from adults. There is nothing lenient about that, and you don't have the blood of children and possibly innocent people (speaking in general terms here - NOT about this particular case so don't flip your lid) on our hands as a country. Do they execute children up there in Canada BTW?
 
And children as young as 7 could and were given the death penalty before. And experts claim an 80% success rate with rehabilitation. So I guess you'll have to call them and argue that you know and all the people here know better than the experts about recidivism and rehabilitation as it pertains to juveniles.

Here's what I'll give you, as it relates to rehabilitation. There is evidence that people who commit crimes of passion, such as murdering a spouse they caught cheating on them or murdering their children through post-partem depression or other mental illness, may over time work through their problems and not be a menace to society going forward. These are people who's anger/trouble was focussed and not sociopathic or pyschopathic. The difference you have here is three young men who considered execution to be a form of fun, something to pass the time, a diversion from boredom. That's not something that is easily remedied or something that through therapy can be treated. That is a severe mental defect.
 
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"

I don't really care if you like my opinions or "principles" or not. I never said you had to like or agree with them, but they are mine and I'll keep them. :) Just saying.
 
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.

Gosh Chris, you give "Stand Your Ground" a different perspective. You've been taking on all comers to defend your position since yesterday. I truly admire what seems to be sincere fortitude. :peace
I agree with your statement above. The original question concerns their crime status as adults or children; I will re-issue my response...
Based upon the alleged admissions of the alleged perpetrators that they did knowingly plan, follow through, and execute with malice and forethought the heinous crime of murder upon an innocent soul the young men should stand trial as adults and if convicted receive full force and effect of the most severe punishment available in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma.
I do not agree, in this case, that rehabilitation is an option.
Hang in the --- oops ... how about .. Keep on Truckin' Chris

Thom Paine
 
Here's what I'll give you, as it relates to rehabilitation. There is evidence that people who commit crimes of passion, such as murdering a spouse they caught cheating on them or murdering their children through post-partem depression or other mental illness, may over time work through their problems and not be a menace to society going forward. These are people who's anger/trouble was focussed and not sociopathic or pyschopathic. The difference you have here is three young men who considered execution to be a form of fun, something to pass the time, a diversion from boredom. That's not something that is easily remedied or something that through therapy can be treated. That is a severe mental defect.

You don't know anything about this case or the people involved except for some incomplete data. Your diagnosis is also not valid. Frigging armchair psychiatrists, medical professionals and lawyers are a hoot.
 
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.

I agree, but you see, those are adult sentences and the ones on life sentences would have to be housed somewhere and the ones who claim they shouldn't be tried as adults believe they should also not be housed in adult correctional facilities. So while your response is imminently reasonable, it doesn't fit the murders as children sentencing criteria.
 
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"




Hey, you can keep your "principles", too, because we don't want them.

Gather them all up, Put 'em in a box and stick 'em up in your attic.




"Better days are coming." But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Well now, that's a pretty rude and uncalled for assumption. I meant that I understand that kids that age ARE kids and that the profiles about their impulsivity, etc. fits.



I am against the death penalty. No children don't belong in adult correctional facilities.



IF the child is deemed a danger to society by a psychiatrist or other licensed mental health professional, I would say that life in prison is a fitting punishment, but while a child should be separated from adults. There is nothing lenient about that, and you don't have the blood of children and possibly innocent people (speaking in general terms here - NOT about this particular case so don't flip your lid) on our hands as a country. Do they execute children up there in Canada BTW?

My apologies for referring back to your son so flippantly - I was trying to make a point against your comment and mine was uncalled for and I uncategorically apologize for it.

No, we don't have the death penalty here - not that the majority of the electorate don't favor reinstating the death penalty - recent polling shows 63% of Canadians favor reinstatement - our politicians, however, are opposed.

Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

As for children, the majority of Canadians are outraged at the leniency with which young adults are treated under our Young Offenders Act and want it abolished and most if not all teenaged youth tried as adults particularly when they commit heinous crimes like murder.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but you see, those are adult sentences and the ones on life sentences would have to be housed somewhere and the ones who claim they shouldn't be tried as adults believe they should also not be housed in adult correctional facilities. So while your response is imminently reasonable, it doesn't fit the murders as children sentencing criteria.

They committed a heinous crime, and are old enough to know what they did was wrong. They reportedly admitted that they knew their actions were wrong, that should be enough to put them on trial as adults.
 
You don't know anything about this case or the people involved except for some incomplete data. Your diagnosis is also not valid. Frigging armchair psychiatrists, medical professionals and lawyers are a hoot.

Well, so you don't like my analysis and prefer your own - that's fine - I don't believe your analysis that these are just three precious dears who need to be saved and are just misunderstood and if they could get some guidance and handholding they can be rehabilitated and tossed back out into an unsuspecting world.
 
I believe this is one area where the American justice system has it right. Young people, 15, 16 and 17, who commit such crimes are not children. Young offenders laws in my country are abused regularly by not only young adults under the age of 18 but by adults who use young people under the age of 18 to commit crimes.

On a side note, I would also charge whomever gave these young men a gun or allowed an insecured weapon to be taken by these young men to senselessly murder an innocent man.

I don't know for sure but I bet the gun was stolen or bought off the street illegally, these kids were apparently in a gang or wannabe gangsters..
 
Well, so you don't like my analysis and prefer your own - that's fine - I don't believe your analysis that these are just three precious dears who need to be saved and are just misunderstood and if they could get some guidance and handholding they can be rehabilitated and tossed back out into an unsuspecting world.
I suspect the truth may be somewhere between Chris and your opinion.
I am thinking maybe 2 of the 3 could be rehabilitated, as they were followers, poor decision skills,
but did not initiate the idea of killing for fun.
The trick will be to figure out which of the 3 is the sociopath.
 
Hey, you can keep your "principles", too, because we don't want them.

Gather them all up, Put 'em in a box and stick 'em up in your attic.

hey..if it makes you feel better to give cold blooded murderers a slap on the wrist because they are "children"....knock yourself out.
 
I suspect the truth may be somewhere between Chris and your opinion.
I am thinking maybe 2 of the 3 could be rehabilitated, as they were followers, poor decision skills,
but did not initiate the idea of killing for fun.
The trick will be to figure out which of the 3 is the sociopath.

birds of a feather....... leader or follower, all 3 were old enough to know better
 
I suspect the truth may be somewhere between Chris and your opinion.
I am thinking maybe 2 of the 3 could be rehabilitated, as they were followers, poor decision skills,
but did not initiate the idea of killing for fun.
The trick will be to figure out which of the 3 is the sociopath.

You're probably right, since 2 of the 3 have been charged with murder but the other one, the driver, was simply charged with accessory after the fact.
 
There's a reason we differentiate between children and adults, and that's because children are still developing, and are incapable of making good decisions. Their brains are still growing and developing into their twenties. A child is a child is a child, not an adult. Trying a child as an adult is a travesty of justice. I see the fry-em rape-em kill-em mob are baying for childrens' blood as usual. Their perverted blood-lust is sickening.
 
There's a reason we differentiate between children and adults, and that's because children are still developing, and are incapable of making good decisions. Their brains are still growing and developing into their twenties. A child is a child is a child, not an adult. Trying a child as an adult is a travesty of justice. I see the fry-em rape-em kill-em mob are baying for childrens' blood as usual. Their perverted blood-lust is sickening.

yeah...the brain isn't fully developed until around age 25. I guess, using your logic, a 24 y/o should get away with murder because they are still developing. a 15,16 & 17 y/o who are capable of planning and carrying out an execution are not children and no amount of hand-wringing is going to change that.
 
There's a reason we differentiate between children and adults, and that's because children are still developing, and are incapable of making good decisions. Their brains are still growing and developing into their twenties. A child is a child is a child, not an adult. Trying a child as an adult is a travesty of justice. I see the fry-em rape-em kill-em mob are baying for childrens' blood as usual. Their perverted blood-lust is sickening.

Children are most definitely not incapable of making good decisions and the decision to shoot someone just for the heck of it is so far outside the realm of "good" that no reasonable person could possibly justify it as "a misguided decision".
 
Children are most definitely not incapable of making good decisions and the decision to shoot someone just for the heck of it is so far outside the realm of "good" that no reasonable person could possibly justify it as "a misguided decision".

even a 10 y/o should be able to recognize that killing another person just for fun is a bad idea.
 
You're probably right, since 2 of the 3 have been charged with murder but the other one, the driver, was simply charged with accessory after the fact.

All three should be charged equally. The 17yo was driving so he was every bit as actively involved as the others. The ONLY way I'd consider letting him off the hook is if it can be proved that the others forced him into participating.
 
Last edited:
even a 10 y/o should be able to recognize that killing another person just for fun is a bad idea.

It boggles my mind that others can't comprehend that. This wasn't some 4 year old or some retard that committed this act.
 
All three should be charged equally. The 17yo was driving so he was every bit as actively involved as the others. The ONLY way I'd consider letting im off the hook is if it can be proved that the others forced him into participating.

exactly. letting him go because "he was just the driver" would be like letting a member of a gang rape go because he "only held her down"
 
It boggles my mind that others can't comprehend that. This wasn't some 4 year old or some retard that committed this act.

and it wasn't like they were out joy riding and throwing bottles at street signs and accidentally hit someone in the head and killed them.
 
Back
Top Bottom