• 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
ChrisL said:
What if it's a 12-year-old? You're okay with putting a 12-year-old in jail for the rest of his or her life? You think they are on par with an adult in any sense at all?
Click to expand...

if it can be shown that the crime was an intentional act of murder...then yes. although, and I have stated this before (and quoted from Black's Law dictionary) children (14 and under) are viewed differently in the eyes of the law than are juveniles (aka minors 15-17)


That's what you and others are doing too when you refer to them as "sociopaths." You are certainly not qualified to make such a diagnosis.
Click to expand...

their actions are more in line with those of a sociopath than they are with those of a child :shrug:


Well, it's obviously quite upsetting to you that I give them the benefit of the doubt instead of being judge, jury and executioner.
Click to expand...

then obviously, we also disagree on the definition of "upset" as well. your opinion in no way "upsets" me, I just don't understand it.


Then you should be more than familiar with cases of prosecutorial misconduct.
Click to expand...

and yet there is no evidence of such in this case. the question then becomes....why do you assume it exists?

like I said: you assume the best of these three punks and assume the worst of the prosecution. I wonder why.....
 
OscarB63 said:
It does seem odd. Jones is just as guilty as the other two and should have gotten the same charge. although, IIRC, Edwards was already on probation for a previous offense (the specifics were not released) so that may have played a part in him getting a more serious charge.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but unless his "prior" was a serious violent crime it would not make him more culpable than the other two in this offense. He is the youngest and did the least of all three. Aside from some evidence of bragging about it being "time to take some life's" on a twitter account a few days prior.

The oldest, Jones, was also the one "crying crocodile tears" in court that day.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm, I just reviewed some of the recent news articles about the case and I find something strange in the application of charges.

The three teens are Jones, a 17 yo white kid who was driving the car; Luna, a 16 yo black kid who was sitting in the backseat and who shot the victim; Edwards, a 15 yo black kid who was riding in the passenger seat.

Only Luna and Edwards were charged with First Degree Murder.
Jones was charged with driving a vehicle used in discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact.

Why wasn't Jones charged with First Degree Murder? He did more than the 15 yo Edwards, who was apparently a passenger egging the issue on.

From what little we know all three were culpable of conspiracy to commit murder, all three were in the car together when Luna shot the victim, so why is the oldest (who also happens to be white) not being charged with First Degree Murder? Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

It has less to do with "oldest white kid should be charged with murder" and more to do with "other black kid who didn't pull trigger shouldn't be charged with murder". I'd be surprised if Murder 1 makes it past grand jury with the other black kid. Accessory, conspiracy, criminal negligence, sure...murder no.
 
Gipper said:
It has less to do with "oldest white kid should be charged with murder" and more to do with "other black kid who didn't pull trigger shouldn't be charged with murder". I'd be surprised if Murder 1 makes it past grand jury with the other black kid. Accessory, conspiracy, criminal negligence, sure...murder no.
Click to expand...

Well that was what I was leading up to. I had already posted earlier in the thread that perhaps the 15 yo should be tried as a juvenile. But if he is being charged as an adult why charge him with murder instead of accessory to murder or some lesser charge?
 
ChrisL said:
It was also odd how the oldest boy cried out in court that he was the one who pulled the trigger and was hushed up by the judge.
Click to expand...

nothing odd about it. that hearing was not the time to make such statements. I'm quite sure that if he wants to confess to pulling the trigger at trial, he will be allowed to do so.


I have seen cases where there were more than one person involved and all confessed and the state was unable to prove which one was telling the truth so all three were acquitted because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which one was actually the shooter.

think about it. 3 guys in the car. the state knows that one of them pulled the trigger, but if they can't prove which one of the three did it...they can't convict any of them.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Perhaps, but unless his "prior" was a serious violent crime it would not make him more culpable than the other two in this offense. He is the youngest and did the least of all three. Aside from some evidence of bragging about it being "time to take some life's" on a twitter account a few days prior.

The oldest, Jones, was also the one "crying crocodile tears" in court that day.
Click to expand...

hopefully it will all come out at trial. though it wouldn't surprise me if all three didn't agree to some kind of plea bargain to avoid a life sentence.
 
OscarB63 said:
if it can be shown that the crime was an intentional act of murder...then yes. although, and I have stated this before (and quoted from Black's Law dictionary) children (14 and under) are viewed differently in the eyes of the law than are juveniles (aka minors 15-17)




their actions are more in line with those of a sociopath than they are with those of a child :shrug:




then obviously, we also disagree on the definition of "upset" as well. your opinion in no way "upsets" me, I just don't understand it.




and yet there is no evidence of such in this case. the question then becomes....why do you assume it exists?

like I said: you assume the best of these three punks and assume the worst of the prosecution. I wonder why.....
Click to expand...

I am not jumping to any conclusions, but I'm not ruling anything out either. I certainly don't assume the "best" of these three. That's YOU making assumptions because you can't understand my position or my principles about these things.

I can just recognize the fact that they ARE kids.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well that was what I was leading up to. I had already posted earlier in the thread that perhaps the 15 yo should be tried as a juvenile. But if he is being charged as an adult why charge him with murder instead of accessory to murder or some lesser charge?
Click to expand...

I agree that he shouldn't be tried for murder, especially if we know proof-positive who the trigger man is. I disagree about trying as a juvenile. You simply cannot try kids over a certain age as juveniles for violent crimes because justice is not done. If you have a juvenile record, once you hit 18 you're as clean as fresh snow - record expunged/sealed, instantly free, no strikes. Now if you're picking pockets, swiping someone's TV, throwing rocks through someone's windows - that's one thing. However, if you try a 17 year old for murder as a juvenile, he serves less than a year in juvenile detention, then is set free with no record. To say that it's a miscarriage of justice would be a massive understatement.

People who can't see why teens are tried as adults for violent crimes are beyond ignorant of the law.
 
OscarB63 said:
nothing odd about it. that hearing was not the time to make such statements. I'm quite sure that if he wants to confess to pulling the trigger at trial, he will be allowed to do so.


I have seen cases where there were more than one person involved and all confessed and the state was unable to prove which one was telling the truth so all three were acquitted because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which one was actually the shooter.

think about it. 3 guys in the car. the state knows that one of them pulled the trigger, but if they can't prove which one of the three did it...they can't convict any of them.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see that it's alright for YOU to make all kinds of assumptions about everyone, as you accuse me of doing that. Just admit it, you and I do NOT know enough information about this case to make any assumptions about anything, and we SHOULD be waiting for ALL the facts to come out instead of convicting these kids without even a trial.
 
ChrisL said:
The prosecutors are in control. They can decide to listen or not listen to recommendations. Of course the prosecutors want to charge them as adults. That is far from surprising. I'd like to know what data they used to make this determination, or is it strictly based on the nature of the crime.
Click to expand...

More often than not, especially in high profile cases, the decision is based solely on political considerations.
 
ChrisL said:
I am not jumping to any conclusions, but I'm not ruling anything out either. I certainly don't assume the "best" of these three. That's YOU making assumptions because you can't understand my position or my principles about these things.

I can just recognize the fact that they ARE kids.
Click to expand...

and that's where we disagree. they are not "kids"
 
radcen said:
More often than not, especially in high profile cases, the decision is based solely on political considerations.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that the victim being an Australian factors into it.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh, I see that it's alright for YOU to make all kinds of assumptions about everyone, as you accuse me of doing that. Just admit it, you and I do NOT know enough information about this case to make any assumptions about anything, and we SHOULD be waiting for ALL the facts to come out instead of convicting these kids without even a trial.
Click to expand...

I'm not making any kind of assumption. just stating what I have seen happen in the past. I never claimed that this is what is going on in this case. only that I have seen it done in the past, so it is therefore "possible".

just as possible as these guys being successfully rehabilitated.
 
ChrisL said:
Why can't they be charged as juveniles as accessories to the murder? This has been done before. Why are they making such a big deal out of this PARTICULAR case? It's definitely a mystery. There have been PLENTY of juvenile murderers or accessories to murders that were much more heinous than this, and they were charged as juveniles.
Click to expand...
Because they all decided together to go do this, and actively pursued the victim together?

It's not like they decided to follow him then only one pulled a gun and shot without the other's foreknowledge.
 
Gipper said:
I agree that he shouldn't be tried for murder, especially if we know proof-positive who the trigger man is. I disagree about trying as a juvenile. You simply cannot try kids over a certain age as juveniles for violent crimes because justice is not done. If you have a juvenile record, once you hit 18 you're as clean as fresh snow - record expunged/sealed, instantly free, no strikes. Now if you're picking pockets, swiping someone's TV, throwing rocks through someone's windows - that's one thing. However, if you try a 17 year old for murder as a juvenile, he serves less than a year in juvenile detention, then is set free with no record. To say that it's a miscarriage of justice would be a massive understatement.

People who can't see why teens are tried as adults for violent crimes are beyond ignorant of the law.
Click to expand...

especially those who claim that teens should NEVER be tried as adults.
 
radcen said:
More often than not, especially in high profile cases, the decision is based solely on political considerations.
Click to expand...

like when the state in the zimmerman case decided to go for murder II instead of some kind of manslaughter charge.
 
radcen said:
Because they all decided together to go do this, and actively pursued the victim together?

It's not like they decided to follow him then only one pulled a gun and shot without the other's foreknowledge.
Click to expand...

Please post the link where it says the victim was "actively pursued." I read that the victim was jogging down the road when one of the boys shot him in the back. Is there evidence that the other two boys knew beforehand, or is this information included in the alleged confession?
 
ChrisL said:
Because I see no evidence to indicate these kids are anything other than your typical juvenile murderers. There is really nothing special or exceptionally heinous about this case, other than the fact that they ALLEGEDLY said they were "bored."
Click to expand...
Presuming the "bored" aspect is true: Then it is especially heinous... more so than even child molestation. At least the molester has a deep-seated sickness to explain their actions. The "bored" murderer doesn't even have that.
 
OscarB63 said:
especially those who claim that teens should NEVER be tried as adults.
Click to expand...

Some people just need an excuse for their hemorrhaging heart.

It seems that the people who use brain development arguments as a basis for trying them as kids suffer from the same malady themselves.
 
OscarB63 said:
especially those who claim that teens should NEVER be tried as adults.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that maybe "never" was an exaggeration, but only in cases of the most heinous of crimes should teens be charged as adults. I also clearly stated earlier in the thread that I felt something adjustments need to made to the juvenile system for such cases.
 
radcen said:
Presuming the "bored" aspect is true: Then it is especially heinous... more so than even child molestation. At least the molester has a deep-seated sickness to explain their actions. The "bored" murderer doesn't even have that.
Click to expand...

How do you know the "bored" murderer isn't suffering from a mental illness? Simple answer, you don't.
 
OscarB63 said:
like when the state in the zimmerman case decided to go for murder II instead of some kind of manslaughter charge.
Click to expand...

That was the state's gross negligence. I want to assume that the state never offered the defense with involuntary manslaughter, because I'm guessing that Zimmerman would've taken that. At least then there would've been something remotely considered a consequence for Zimmerman's actions.
 
ChrisL said:
Please post the link where it says the victim was "actively pursued." I read that the victim was jogging down the road when one of the boys shot him in the back. Is there evidence that the other two boys knew beforehand, or is this information included in the alleged confession?
Click to expand...

”They saw Christopher go by, and one of them said: ‘There’s our target,’” said Police Chief Danny Ford. ”The boy who has talked to us said, ‘We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.’”
Click to expand...

from everything that has been reported so far, all three knew beforehand that the killing was going to take place.
 
Gipper said:
That was the state's gross negligence. I want to assume that the state never offered the defense with involuntary manslaughter, because I'm guessing that Zimmerman would've taken that. At least then there would've been something remotely considered a consequence for Zimmerman's actions.
Click to expand...

agreed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom