• 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
Dapper Andy said:
Just so we're clear, are your answers to these questions any different than Oscar's?
Click to expand...

Was I the one saying that they can't be rehabilitated?
 
Anyway, here's an update. As noted in the article, the original pictures released by the media were WRONG.

These Are the Three Teens Charged in the Murder of Student Chris Lane ‘For the Fun of It’ (UPDATED) | TheBlaze.com

I found this part of the article fascinating too!

Michael Jones, 17, was reportedly charged with using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact of murder in the first degree. He reportedly said in court “I pulled the trigger” but the judge told him to remain silent. The boy cried and his bond was set at $1 million.

The three teens will be tried as adults, the Herald Sun reports.
Click to expand...
 
Obviously at least one of these boys had absolutely no parental supervision at all. He had guns and stacks of money in his home apparently. I would think most vigilant parents would be aware of this.

I'm also curious as to how some justify sentencing the other two "non-shooters" as adults. Anybody?

I also found it odd, considering that the claim is the three confessed to the crime, that in the article, it states this:


Father of suspect James Edwards told KSWO-TV his son must be innocent because his son told him, “I didn’t have nothing to do with it.”
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
Obviously at least one of these boys had absolutely no parental supervision at all. He had guns and stacks of money in his home apparently. I would think most vigilant parents would be aware of this.

I'm also curious as to how some justify sentencing the other two "non-shooters" as adults. Anybody?

I also found it odd, considering that the claim is the three confessed to the crime, that in the article, it states this:
Click to expand...

how do you justify charging the guy in a gang rape who only held the victim down with rape?

in this case, all three were there, all three knew the plan, the two who did not pull the trigger are just as responsible for this murder as the guy who did.
 
OscarB63 said:
how do you justify charging the guy in a gang rape who only held the victim down with rape?

in this case, all three were there, all three knew the plan, the two who did not pull the trigger are just as responsible for this murder as the guy who did.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking about charging them. Of course they should be charged. I'm wondering why they should be charged as adults in this particular crime.

I also found it interesting that the prosecutor says the one kid is taking it as a "joke" but in the very next sentence it says he was "crying" in court.

"I believe this man is a threat to the community and should not be let out," Hicks said as he requested no bond for Edwards. "He thinks it's all a joke." The 17-year-old wept in court after he tried to speak and was cut off by the judge.
Click to expand...


Read more: Teens charged after allegedly killing Australian student in Oklahoma for the 'fun of it' | Fox News
 
ChrisL said:
I'm not asking about charging them. Of course they should be charged. I'm wondering why they should be charged as adults in this particular crime.
Click to expand...

because they are just as responsible. they knew and agreed to the plan to murder someone. they should be charged the same as the trigger man. the only way I could see differently is if they had no reasonable expectation that the trigger man was going to shoot someone and just happened to be in the car with him when he did.

I also found it interesting that the prosecutor says the one kid is taking it as a "joke" but in the very next sentence it says he was "crying" in court.
Click to expand...


nothing odd about it. funny how things stop being funny when reality hits you in the face. being an MP, I have seen many grown men cry like babies when they are caught committing a crime.
 
OscarB63 said:
because they are just as responsible. they knew and agreed to the plan to murder someone. they should be charged the same as the trigger man. the only way I could see differently is if they had no reasonable expectation that the trigger man was going to shoot someone and just happened to be in the car with him when he did.
Click to expand...

They didn't kill him. How can justify trying them as adults?




nothing odd about it. funny how things stop being funny when reality hits you in the face. being an MP, I have seen many grown men cry like babies when they are caught committing a crime.
Click to expand...

I'm sure, but the prosecution claims he's taking it as a "joke" yet he was crying.
 
ChrisL said:
They didn't kill him. How can justify trying them as adults?
Click to expand...

the same way you can justify charging a person who pays someone to kill for them with murder. they were active participants in the murder, before, during and after.






I'm sure, but the prosecution claims he's taking it as a "joke" yet he was crying.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of guilty, unremorseful criminals cry in an attempt to garner sympathy.

Crocodile tears (or superficial sympathy) are a false or insincere display of emotion such as a hypocrite crying fake tears of grief.

Crocodile tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
OscarB63 said:
the same way you can justify charging a person who pays someone to kill for them with murder. they were active participants in the murder, before, during and after.
Click to expand...

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.


I've seen plenty of guilty, unremorseful criminals cry in an attempt to garner sympathy.

Crocodile tears (or superficial sympathy) are a false or insincere display of emotion such as a hypocrite crying fake tears of grief.

Crocodile tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

I know what crocodile tears are. :roll: I doubt they are "crocodile tears." The kid has to be ****ting himself right now.
 
ChrisL said:
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...

such as?




I know what crocodile tears are. :roll: I doubt they are "crocodile tears." The kid has to be ****ting himself right now.
Click to expand...

not if he is a sociopath. I find it odd that you are going to such great lengths to bend over backwards to give these three murderers the benefit of the doubt. I taught at an inner city school for over a decade and saw hundreds, if not thousands, of teenagers like these three.
 
Another question I have. Why wouldn't we then charge juveniles as adults for ALL crimes? If they are equal to adults, then perhaps we should just do away with having a juvenile system altogether and try everyone as an adult and just forget about rehabilitation altogether. We'll just fill up our prisons with all ages of criminals, lock them up altogether and forget about them. Is that a good plan?

I agree that some crimes deserve harsher punishment than others even when it comes to juveniles, and sometimes perhaps adult punishment is applicable, but really no one can say in this particular case because all we've heard from really is the prosecution. THEY want to win the case, and they have a horse in this race, so you really can't take what they say about this case or these kids as gospel either.
 
OscarB63 said:
such as?
Click to expand...

Craig Price for one. Do you really think this shooting is the worst crime committed by juveniles? LOL! That's naive. That's another reason why I'm really kind of surprised by how this case is being presented in the media. It's FAR from the most heinous.

Craig Price (murderer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




not if he is a sociopath. I find it odd that you are going to such great lengths to bend over backwards to give these three murderers the benefit of the doubt. I taught at an inner city school for over a decade and saw hundreds, if not thousands, of teenagers like these three.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but that doesn't automatically mean these three are all sociopaths. In fact, that is HIGHLY unlikely.
 
ChrisL said:
Another question I have. Why wouldn't we then charge juveniles as adults for ALL crimes?
Click to expand...

because not all juveniles are the same or develop at the same rate and not all crimes, or the manner in which they are committed, are the same. that is why the decision to charge a juvenile as an adult is made on a case by case basis.
I agree that some crimes deserve harsher punishment than others even when it comes to juveniles, and sometimes perhaps adult punishment is applicable, but really no one can say in this particular case because all we've heard from really is the prosecution. THEY want to win the case, and they have a horse in this race, so you really can't take what they say about this case or these kids as gospel either.
Click to expand...

the prosecution has no vested interest in not charging these guys as juveniles. a win is a win whether they are charged as adults or not. I find it odd that you go out of your way to give the criminals in this case the benefit of the doubt, but immediately jump to the conclusion that the prosecution has an ulterior motive. I wonder why?
 
ChrisL said:
Craig Price for one. Do you really think this shooting is the worst crime committed by juveniles? LOL! That's naive. That's another reason why I'm really kind of surprised by how this case is being presented in the media. It's FAR from the most heinous.

.
Click to expand...

you really should read your own links

The case led to changes in state law to allow juveniles to be tried as adults for serious crimes, but these could not be applied retroactively to Price.[3]
Click to expand...

at the time...the state did not have the option to charge him as an adult. care to try again?
 
OscarB63 said:
because not all juveniles are the same or develop at the same rate and not all crimes, or the manner in which they are committed, are the same. that is why the decision to charge a juvenile as an adult is made on a case by case basis.

the prosecution has no vested interest in not charging these guys as juveniles. a win is a win whether they are charged as adults or not. I find it odd that you go out of your way to give the criminals in this case the benefit of the doubt, but immediately jump to the conclusion that the prosecution has an ulterior motive. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

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."

Is it bad to give the kids the benefit of the doubt? Does that make me evil to you? LOL!

I've read up on prosecutors. Maybe you should too.
 
OscarB63 said:
you really should read your own links



at the time...the state did not have the option to charge him as an adult. care to try again?
Click to expand...

Okay, I missed that part. But do honestly believe that all juvenile murderers are charged as adults? Here's more.

The Cutting Edge News

Meanwhile, more than 60 other teens charged with murder since 1996 have escaped the maximum sentence, court records show, often pleading guilty to a lesser crime such as second degree murder, making them eligible for parole. Yet, many of these youths committed shocking, grisly crimes; one was convicted of beating a two-year-old to death. A review of these cases found no obvious pattern to explain why some killers got life without parole and others won lesser sentences. What is clear, however, is that the law has not been applied consistently to the most grievous of juvenile murder cases. Juveniles whose crimes approach the cruelty of O’Brien’s have escaped the harsh sentence, while spontaneous acts of violence by teenagers with little prior record are punished with life behind bars.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
Because I see no evidence to indicate these kids are anything other than your typical juvenile murderers.
Click to expand...

and I guess that's where our difference of opinion comes in. I believe all "murderers" should be charged as adults.

Is it bad to give the kids the benefit of the doubt?
Click to expand...

it is when all you have to go on is your opinion

Does that make me evil to you? LOL!
Click to expand...

strawman much? I never said or implied that you were evil....only mistaken and probably misguided.

I've read up on prosecutors. Maybe you should too.
Click to expand...

I've been in law enforcement for the past 11 years. I can guarantee that I know more about prosecutors than you.
 
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?
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, I missed that part. But do honestly believe that all juvenile murderers are charged as adults? Here's more.

The Cutting Edge News
Click to expand...

from your link: one accepted a plea for a lesser sentence, the other took his chances in court and lost.

and, FTR, I never claimed that all juvenile murderers are charged as adults.
 
OscarB63 said:
and I guess that's where our difference of opinion comes in. I believe all "murderers" should be charged as adults.
Click to expand...

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?


it is when all you have to go on is your opinion
Click to expand...

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.



strawman much? I never said or implied that you were evil....only mistaken and probably misguided.
Click to expand...

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


I've been in law enforcement for the past 11 years. I can guarantee that I know more about prosecutors than you.
Click to expand...

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

Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct | Midwest Innocence Project
 
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 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.
 
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...

I wonder the same. A lot of things about this case just seem odd IMO.
 
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 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom