• 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 Tennessee Fire Starters be Tried as Adults?

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hmm...seems to me this should not even be up for debate. But, I imagine that every little bit of extenuating circumstance will be used to keep them not only anonymous, but to also try them as juveniles.

Could juveniles in Gatlinburg fire face murder charges? - CNN.com

IMO, these kids need to do 50 years or more behind bars...if not get the death penalty.
 
calamity said:
Hmm...seems to me this should not even be up for debate. But, I imagine that every little bit of extenuating circumstance will be used to keep them not only anonymous, but to also try them as juveniles.

Could juveniles in Gatlinburg fire face murder charges? - CNN.com

IMO, these kids need to do 50 years or more behind bars...if not get the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Are they juveniles or adults? Try them accordingly. We have a differentiation for a reason, and that's supposed to be based on this idea that kids don't quite know the full implications of their actions. So we try kids as juveniles and adults as adults. And that's the way it should be. We keep making excuses for trying juveniles as adults for horrible crimes because we desire to see them punished more harshly for severe crimes. But that's vengance/revenge/retaliation mindset, and that is not justice.

So either we have juvenile distinction and we use it, or we don't. If the idea is that kids don't understand, that lack of understanding doesn't quite go away for some crimes over others.

Also first degree murder? I mean, I don't think that's quite appropriate. Less they were intending on killing people and premeditated this. I fear we overuse first degree murder often.
 
I can't find the ages of the juveniles, but I seriously doubt they will be getting life without parole.

Juveniles are different. They don't have the reasoning capability to make such sentencing not "cruel and unusual". We don't even know if they were choir boys who made a mistake, punks, or gang bangers. We don't even know if they were legal citizens.

Having said that, there are a lot of facts yet to come out.

I'm not trying to minimize this, but juvenile justice is not the same as adult justice.
 
Ikari said:
Are they juveniles or adults? Try them accordingly. We have a differentiation for a reason, and that's supposed to be based on this idea that kids don't quite know the full implications of their actions. So we try kids as juveniles and adults as adults. And that's the way it should be. We keep making excuses for trying juveniles as adults for horrible crimes because we desire to see them punished more harshly for severe crimes. But that's vengance/revenge/retaliation mindset, and that is not justice.

So either we have juvenile distinction and we use it, or we don't. If the idea is that kids don't understand, that lack of understanding doesn't quite go away for some crimes over others.

Also first degree murder? I mean, I don't think that's quite appropriate. Less they were intending on killing people and premeditated this. I fear we overuse first degree murder often.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit torn on this myself. I get that we need to give kids a chance to change and hopefully become responsible adults. But, at the same time, I understand that most violent adult criminals have a history as violent juveniles.

This crime was pretty egregious. Did they know what they were doing? Probably. Did they understand that their little fire would kill 14 people and do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage? Probably not. Should it matter? I do not know.

If an adult drinks too much at this year's Christmas party and slams his car into a family of five, killing more than half of them, will the justice system cut him/her a break because they did not intend to create said mayhem? I doubt it.
 
I think that if they are juvenile, they should be tried as such. If the juvenile laws don't meet expectations, then the laws should be changed.

With that, this is a hard case that needs to be weighed carefully. What damage did they intend to do, what damage should have been expected and all of that weighed against what was actually done. I don't know what the final answer should be.
 
If they are juveniles they should be tried as juveniles. Juveniles, by definition are unable to forsee much beyond their immediate actions, or their possible outcomes.
A child is a child.
 
calamity said:
If an adult drinks too much at this year's Christmas party and slams his car into a family of five, killing more than half of them, will the justice system cut him/her a break because they did not intend to create said mayhem? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be tried for 1st degree murder, that's for sure. But the individual was an adult, and the assumption is that as an adult, it's reasonable to assume he should understand the consequences of drinking and driving before he gets to the bar, and that's why he's still fully culpable.

The consequences of this case are dire indeed, 14 people killed, immense property damage, etc. I don't know what the kids thought or if they were really aware of what could be the consequences for those actions. But my generalized take on trying someone as an adult vs juvenile is based on whether or not the individual is an adult or a juvenile. I think we should stick to that and not float things around because a particular crime may be heinous and we want greater "justice".
 
calamity said:
Hmm...seems to me this should not even be up for debate. But, I imagine that every little bit of extenuating circumstance will be used to keep them not only anonymous, but to also try them as juveniles.

Could juveniles in Gatlinburg fire face murder charges? - CNN.com

IMO, these kids need to do 50 years or more behind bars...if not get the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Don't you think the parents should be made responsible at least for damages? Obviously the kids were not socialized as they should have been
 
joG said:
Don't you think the parents should be made responsible at least for damages? Obviously the kids were not socialized as they should have been
Click to expand...

Responsible for over 500 million dollars? No.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If they are juveniles they should be tried as juveniles. Juveniles, by definition are unable to forsee much beyond their immediate actions, or their possible outcomes.
A child is a child.
Click to expand...

It would depend, should they have reasonably foreseen what would occur as a result of their actions? A child is not a child, look at the difference in maturity between 6 year old and a 16 year old.
 
calamity said:
Hmm...seems to me this should not even be up for debate. But, I imagine that every little bit of extenuating circumstance will be used to keep them not only anonymous, but to also try them as juveniles.

Could juveniles in Gatlinburg fire face murder charges? - CNN.com

IMO, these kids need to do 50 years or more behind bars...if not get the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Try them as adults.

One of the reasons for having penalties is as a deterrent to similar crimes. If the state can prove their case, they need to do plenty of time. This isn't teenaged prank stuff. This is deadly and malicious violence. Throw the book at 'em.
 
joG said:
They will pay for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

That's why I don't think that they should be liable. If they themselves went and purposefully burned down the forest, then maybe. But even then, I think we're falling onto the side of excessive fines imposed.
 
Does anyone have details on the arson allegation itself?

I've seen the arson allegation and news conference on the arrest, but there's no details.

Was it a campfire that went out of control? Or were they purposefully intending to destroy property? Can anyone find the applicable law they're charged under? I don't have the Tennessee statutes app on my phone.

And what could they have reasonably foreseen? We're burn bans in effect? Is this a hotspot for wildfires?

What is bothering me is the lack of detail, this fire was so destructive that I almost wonder if they're taking two kids who made an innocent mistake like not put out their campfire properly or discarded a cigarette butt on the wrong spot.

And what is a reasonable obligation on the part of property owners out there to be ready for a wildfire? Last year we had a drought and some fires here in Western WA, us living in Mason County were on fire alert, I was ready to evacuate my house on a moments notice, do people in Tennessee not prepare for these things? I kinda fail to see how starting a wildfire is nessecarily murder unless you can show death was the intended result, burning down someone's house while they're in it is certainly mirder, but if your fire by mistake or mosfortune goes out of control and someone who should've been prepared to evacuate doesn't and dies, maybe that's manslaughter, but certainly not a death penalty crime as one here suggested
 
MaggieD said:
Try them as adults.

One of the reasons for having penalties is as a deterrent to similar crimes. If the state can prove their case, they need to do plenty of time. This isn't teenaged prank stuff. This is deadly and malicious violence. Throw the book at 'em.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for the circumstances of the fire starting? I know they're charged with arson, but what's the backstory here? Burning down something on purpose? Bad campfire?
 
Ikari said:
That's why I don't think that they should be liable. If they themselves went and purposefully burned down the forest, then maybe. But even then, I think we're falling onto the side of excessive fines imposed.
Click to expand...

It is about precedent and other parents knowing that they will be liable as these ones should be seen to be.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Do you have a source for the circumstances of the fire starting? I know they're charged with arson, but what's the backstory here? Burning down something on purpose? Bad campfire?
Click to expand...

Nope. Haven't read the backstory which is why I caveated my post to say, "...if the state can prove it."
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Does anyone have details on the arson allegation itself?
Click to expand...
It's right there in the article. Because they're currently being handled in the juvenile system, pretty much everything about the case as it stands is confidential.
 
HonestJoe said:
It's right there in the article. Because they're currently being handled in the juvenile system, pretty much everything about the case as it stands is confidential.
Click to expand...


Well yeah they can't ID juvenile suspects, but they could explain the circumstances.
 
joG said:
Don't you think the parents should be made responsible at least for damages? Obviously the kids were not socialized as they should have been
Click to expand...
I don't think that's obvious at all. I've known many kids who were the polar opposites of their parents, in both good and bad directions.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If they are juveniles they should be tried as juveniles. Juveniles, by definition are unable to forsee much beyond their immediate actions, or their possible outcomes.
A child is a child.
Click to expand...
How do you define "child"? Physical age? Maturity? Ignore both and go by what the law says? What if the law is wrong?
 
No, they should not be tried as adults. Either these people are adults or they are not. If the government sees them as too young to make an informed decision about the political process (voting) or in the legal system (entering contracts), then they should be too young to be considered in an adult in the legal system when it comes to criminal matters.

Either they are adults or they are not. But they cannot be juveniles when it comes to denying them privileges/rights, and cannot also be adults when we want to deny them privileges/rights.
 
This is nothing more than gut feeling, but I am uneasy with how quick they found the kids and got them to confess.

Are the confessions legit? Kids especially are more susceptible to psychological mind games. Were they pressured into confession by overzealous LE who were 1) under great pressure to solve, and 2) possibly saw a high-profile promotion opportunity?

It may be legit, and these may be the ones, but I'm not willing to take it to the bank just yet. It just feels too quick and too easy and too convenient.
 
Ikari said:
Are they juveniles or adults? Try them accordingly. We have a differentiation for a reason, and that's supposed to be based on this idea that kids don't quite know the full implications of their actions. So we try kids as juveniles and adults as adults. And that's the way it should be. We keep making excuses for trying juveniles as adults for horrible crimes because we desire to see them punished more harshly for severe crimes. But that's vengance/revenge/retaliation mindset, and that is not justice.

So either we have juvenile distinction and we use it, or we don't. If the idea is that kids don't understand, that lack of understanding doesn't quite go away for some crimes over others.

Also first degree murder? I mean, I don't think that's quite appropriate. Less they were intending on killing people and premeditated this. I fear we overuse first degree murder often.
Click to expand...

chuckiechan said:
I can't find the ages of the juveniles, but I seriously doubt they will be getting life without parole.

Juveniles are different. They don't have the reasoning capability to make such sentencing not "cruel and unusual". We don't even know if they were choir boys who made a mistake, punks, or gang bangers. We don't even know if they were legal citizens.

Having said that, there are a lot of facts yet to come out.

I'm not trying to minimize this, but juvenile justice is not the same as adult justice.
Click to expand...

calamity said:
I'm a bit torn on this myself. I get that we need to give kids a chance to change and hopefully become responsible adults. But, at the same time, I understand that most violent adult criminals have a history as violent juveniles.

This crime was pretty egregious. Did they know what they were doing? Probably. Did they understand that their little fire would kill 14 people and do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage? Probably not. Should it matter? I do not know.

If an adult drinks too much at this year's Christmas party and slams his car into a family of five, killing more than half of them, will the justice system cut him/her a break because they did not intend to create said mayhem? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

ksu_aviator said:
I think that if they are juvenile, they should be tried as such. If the juvenile laws don't meet expectations, then the laws should be changed.

With that, this is a hard case that needs to be weighed carefully. What damage did they intend to do, what damage should have been expected and all of that weighed against what was actually done. I don't know what the final answer should be.
Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:
If they are juveniles they should be tried as juveniles. Juveniles, by definition are unable to forsee much beyond their immediate actions, or their possible outcomes.
A child is a child.
Click to expand...

How do we as a society legally define what a juvenile is?? If we draw the line age 18, then what sudden change happens on that 18th birthday that changes the rules? If we make some form of test for maturity and being capable of understanding the results of their actions, then we could end up with some 12 year old "adults" and some 40 year old "juveniles". Personally, I think that we should approach this as a combination of the two. Once a person is past the age of 15, then we start applying the rules about knowledge of the results of their actions. Once they pass the age of 20 (we've seen far too many examples of people over the age of 18 who have NO clue about the consequences of their actions), we stop doing that and they are treated as an adult. Within that age range the charges and sentencing should reflect their level of maturity - intellectually, emotionally and psychologically. Also, in any case where the perp is under the age of 15, the parents should be part of the charges/sentencing. If you're a parent, then you carry a measure of responsibility for your child's actions.
 
I believe that area was in a severe drought at the time and people were informed not to burn or start fires. I don't know enough about this particular incident to judge it. Would depend mightily on how/why they started the fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom