Should these teens be tried as adults

ChrisL said:

How do you know the "bored" murderer isn't suffering from a mental illness? Simple answer, you don't.

Click to expand...

Alcoholism is a disease. If I knock back a fifth of Beam, rape you and beat you half to death, should I be able to deflect blame onto the bottle?

ChrisL said:

How do you know the "bored" murderer isn't suffering from a mental illness? Simple answer, you don't.

Click to expand...

Now you're resorting to cheap jailhouse lawyer tactics. How do you *know* anything? :roll:

ChrisL said:

How do you know the "bored" murderer isn't suffering from a mental illness? Simple answer, you don't.

Click to expand...

I would argue that anyone who intentionally murders another human being for no reason is suffering from a mental illness. that still doesn't absolve them or make it OK not to punish them severely for their crime.

ChrisL said:

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.

Click to expand...

murder is the most heinous of crimes......

OscarB63 said:

I would argue that anyone who intentionally murders another human being for no reason is suffering from a mental illness. that still doesn't absolve them or make it OK not to punish them severely for their crime.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Her defense wouldn't fly. She'd have to argue diminished capacity, which she couldn't. Mens rea clearly exists in this case. Once they admit to saying they want to do something "just for kicks", they negate the argument immediately.

I wish Aderleth was here for this.

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...

Well, while I agree with much of your statement, there are some problems with it.

The point of trying a teenager in juvenile court is to allow for rehabilitation efforts that society does not think would work for an adult. Clearing a juvenile record by “sealing” it for crimes prior to 18 is merely another step in giving a “protected class” a better chance to reintegrate into society.

Part of the reason we do this is because we recognize that teens are more impulsive than adults. That is part of the dynamic of youthful socialization. The youngest in any teenaged group typically has the most to prove to his peers, and is therefore the easiest to induce to wrongful action. Compliance is based on the drive to prove one's worth in the eyes of his watching peers, with little consideration given to the crime they are “daring” him to do.

However, in adult crimes we presume that an adult has more impulse control and is expected to have either carefully considered the pros and cons of a planned crime, or is at least "old enough to know better" when he commits a crime of opportunity.

We still allow trial as an adult for a juvenile when we consider the crime committed especially heinous such that youth is no excuse. That’s why I have no objection to the 16 yo shooter and 17 yo driver being tried as adults. However, until I know more about the 15 yo’s priors I’d hesitate to throw him into adult prison for going along with the pack and just “being there.” I’ll reserve judgment until after I learn more about why he was facing probation.

ttwtt78640 said:

How quickly you admit that the gov't has rediculously lax personnel policies, yet the gov't (or public) would never permit private control of the release of prisoners given "indefinite" sentences.

Click to expand...

I don't see why not. There are already privately run prisons in the US, I don't see how this would be much different. I do think that some relatively strict oversight would be necessary though.

Captain Adverse said:

The point of trying a teenager in juvenile court is to allow for rehabilitation efforts that society does not think would work for an adult. Clearing a juvenile record by “sealing” it for crimes prior to 18 is merely another step in giving a “protected class” a better chance to reintegrate into society.

Click to expand...

Violent criminals are a "protected class" now? Really? Well hell, guess I can officially throw away any hope of this country ever being a meritocracy.

Part of the reason we do this is because we recognize that teens are more impulsive than adults. That is part of the dynamic of youthful socialization. The youngest in any teenaged group typically has the most to prove to his peers, and is therefore the easiest to induce to wrongful action. Compliance is based on the drive to prove one's worth in the eyes of his watching peers, with little consideration given to the crime they are “daring” him to do.

However, in adult crimes we presume that an adult has more impulse control and is expected to have either carefully considered the pros and cons of a planned crime, or is at least "old enough to know better" when he commits a crime of opportunity.

We still allow trial as an adult for a juvenile when we consider the crime committed especially heinous such that youth is no excuse. That’s why I have no objection to the 16 yo shooter and 17 yo driver being tried as adults. However, until I know more about the 15 yo’s priors I’d hesitate to throw him into adult prison for going along with the pack and just “being there.” I’ll reserve judgment until after I learn more about why he was facing probation.

Click to expand...

If someone is a sheep at 15 for something as sadistic as this, I don't think it's going to get much better for them. The ability to understand murder as a cognitive is already developed at this stage, as is the concept of right and wrong. He did this crime of his own volition, so the concept of "peer pressure" is lost.

Gipper said:

Violent criminals are a "protected class" now? Really? Well hell, guess I can officially throw away any hope of this country ever being a meritocracy.

Click to expand...

Oh please Gipper, you are not that obtuse. I find many of your posts too entertaining as well as informed to think that. You know very well I am talking about the protected class of children, i.e. minors who have not reached the legally recognized aged of adulthood.

Gipper said:

If someone is a sheep at 15 for something as sadistic as this, I don't think it's going to get much better for them. The ability to understand murder as a cognitive is already developed at this stage, as is the concept of right and wrong. He did this crime of his own volition, so the concept of "peer pressure" is lost.

Click to expand...

Then you must have forgotten what it was like to be a kid. I'm quite sure that at some point in your minority you played the "sheep" to older kids and/or adults you looked up to. It may have been displayed in other forms of bad behavior, hijinks, or whatever you choose to call it...but it likely occurred nonetheless.

Did the particular kid we are talking about pull the trigger? NO. Did he control the vehicle they were in? NO. In there any evidence he did more than maybe support the "game?" Not yet. Could he have done done the deed if he had the gun? Possibly but we don't know, and not knowing means it is also possible he can be reformed. So again, until I find out more regarding his "priors" I'd say some time in juvie might be just the thing to cure him of his bad actions. If not, by the time he gets out he will be an adult and how to deal with that won't be much of an issue.

ChrisL said:

Was I the one saying that they can't be rehabilitated?

Click to expand...

Are your answers to those questions any different than his?

Captain Adverse said:

Oh please Gipper, you are not that obtuse. I find many of your posts too entertaining as well as informed to think that. You know very well I am talking about the protected class of children, i.e. minors who have not reached the legally recognized aged of adulthood.

Click to expand...

A legitimate argument if 18 was the exact moment a brain could just "figure it out" universally. As hit upon before, becoming an "adult" at 18 is just a line in the sand that's required for universal enforcement. There's really no rational basis, psychologically or physiologically, for that number. It's just...used.

The purpose of trying kids as adults for different crimes at different ages is more of a pursuit for justice. Hell, the human brain isn't fully formed until the mid 20s. If a 19 year old went and shot someone in cold blood, are you supporting him being tried as a kid, or are you just going to tow the line by saying he's over some randomly invoked, arbitrary age?

Then you must have forgotten what it was like to be a kid. I'm quite sure that at some point in your minority you played the "sheep" to older kids and/or adults you looked up to. It may have been displayed in other forms of bad behavior, hijinks, or whatever you choose to call it...but it likely occurred nonetheless.

Did the particular kid we are talking about pull the tirgger? NO. Did he control the vehicle they were in? NO. Could he have done either? Possibly but we don't know, and not knowing means it is also possible he can be reformed. So again, until I find out more regarding his "priors" I'd say some time in juvie might be just the thing to cure him of his bad actions. If not, by the time he gets out he will be an adult and how to deal with that won't be much of an issue.

Click to expand...

Maybe I forgot what it was like to be a kid. I was captain of my school's Quiz Bowl team through high school (think of team Jeopardy), which prevented me from playing football. Of course, I was starting varsity pitcher as a sophomore, but that's another story. Sure, I've done stuff to "be cool", but shee-it...if someone told me to go with them to murder someone in cold blood to "fit in", I'd probably do some sort of mix between looking at them like they lost their damned minds, and booking it double-speed to an adult and telling them what they said. High schoolers know right from wrong, for the most part. Now, they may try to rationalize minor bullying, cheating, etc. However, even the most dim-witted teen knows that murder is wrong.

If they don't, I think society is better off with them in the ground.

Gipper said:

A legitimate argument if 18 was the exact moment a brain could just "figure it out" universally. As hit upon before, becoming an "adult" at 18 is just a line in the sand that's required for universal enforcement. There's really no rational basis, psychologically or physiologically, for that number. It's just...used.

The purpose of trying kids as adults for different crimes at different ages is more of a pursuit for justice. Hell, the human brain isn't fully formed until the mid 20s. If a 19 year old went and shot someone in cold blood, are you supporting him being tried as a kid, or are you just going to tow the line by saying he's over some randomly invoked, arbitrary age?

Click to expand...

It's still a legitimate argument because WE adults set the limit at 18. We could very easily set it lower, say at 16...and I would be totally down for it. However, currently we have decided that people under 18 deserve (for whatever reason) special protection and considerations. If you don't like it...work to change the law.

Gipper said:

Maybe I forgot what it was like to be a kid. I was captain of my school's Quiz Bowl team through high school (think of team Jeopardy), which prevented me from playing football. Of course, I was starting varsity pitcher as a sophomore, but that's another story. Sure, I've done stuff to "be cool", but shee-it...if someone told me to go with them to murder someone in cold blood to "fit in", I'd probably do some sort of mix between looking at them like they lost their damned minds, and booking it double-speed to an adult and telling them what they said. High schoolers know right from wrong, for the most part. Now, they may try to rationalize minor bullying, cheating, etc. However, even the most dim-witted teen knows that murder is wrong.

If they don't, I think society is better off with them in the ground.

Click to expand...

Well, what's "cool" at that age is relative. And we see this in all sorts of news articles about how kids act these days and what motivates them. The point is you did "act the fool" in situations that might have harmed someone, albeit in ways you considered unimportant then and still do today.

The fact remains, the youngest of the participants did no more than ride along and provide moral support. Can you say with absolute certainty he cannot be redeemed if sent to juvie instead of the big house?

Captain Adverse said:

It's still a legitimate argument because WE adults set the limit at 18. We could very easily set it lower, say at 16...and I would be totally down for it. However, currently we have decided that people under 18 deserve (for whatever reason) special protection and considerations. If you don't like it...work to change the law.

Click to expand...

I have to say that this is an exceptionally scary position to take.

Well, what's "cool" at that age is relative. And we see this in all sorts of news articles about how kids act these days and what motivates them. The point is you did "act the fool" in situations that might have harmed someone, albeit in ways you considered unimportant then and still do today.

The fact remains, the youngest of the participants did no more than ride along and provide moral support. Can you say with absolute certainty he cannot be redeemed if sent to juvie instead of the big house?

Click to expand...

What's "cool" may be relative, but murder is never relative.

And yes, I can say with a fair share of certainty that there is no redemption in spending a few months in juvenile hall for murder.

Captain Adverse said:

We still allow trial as an adult for a juvenile when we consider the crime committed especially heinous such that youth is no excuse. That’s why I have no objection to the 16 yo shooter and 17 yo driver being tried as adults. However, until I know more about the 15 yo’s priors I’d hesitate to throw him into adult prison for going along with the pack and just “being there.” I’ll reserve judgment until after I learn more about why he was facing probation.

Click to expand...

Good points. However, if an examination of the 15 year-old were to determine that he is an incorrigible sociopath who is not going to improve with age, IMO, he should be tried as an adult, sentenced as an adult, and executed when he attains the age of 21. (I don't believe in executing criminals until they are old enough to legally consume alcoholic beverages.)

Sig said:

Good points. However, if an examination of the 15 year-old were to determine that he is an incorrigible sociopath who is not going to improve with age, IMO, he should be tried as an adult, sentenced as an adult, and executed when he attains the age of 21. (I don't believe in executing criminals until they are old enough to legally consume alcoholic beverages.)

Click to expand...

There is no possibility to make a prediction like that with any degree of accuracy. And if he's a sociopath who will not improve his age, what difference does it make if you shoot him at 21 or 15 if you're going to shoot him anyway?

StillBallin75 said:

There is no possibility to make a prediction like that with any degree of accuracy. And if he's a sociopath who will not improve his age, what difference does it make if you shoot him at 21 or 15 if you're going to shoot him anyway?

Click to expand...

The examination would be continuous throughout his time in juvenile and adult detention. If he were to exhibit continuing sociopathic behavior during this time, he would get the gallows when he turns 21.

Gipper said:

I have to say that this is an exceptionally scary position to take.

Click to expand...

How is it scary? It's exactly the way the system is set up to work. You are a concerned voter....change the law. Otherwise accept the way current law works.

Gipper said:

What's "cool" may be relative, but murder is never relative.

And yes, I can say with a fair share of certainty that there is no redemption in spending a few months in juvenile hall for murder.

Click to expand...

Well again, the kid we are talking about did not commit a murder did he? He was present at one and can best be described as an accessory. Of course, if you commit murder then go hide out at your grandmother's house she is technically an "acessory" for helping hide you. Should Gramma go to the big house because she cared about her grandson enough to let him stay there?

Now before you answer, the LAW states that she should and could very well be held to that level of account...but it's highly unlikely any prosecutor would charge her. We don't need to charge this 15 yo with murder either. He can face accessory after the fact charges in juvie.

So he witnessed a murder, may have even urged his buddy on to show he had "heart" to be in the group...then again he may just have ridden along actually quite scared and pretending to be "all good with it." In either case he does not need to spend 25 to life for his actions. He can spend the next three years in juvie instead, hopefully coming out a better man.

Captain Adverse said:

How is it scary? It's exactly the way the system is set up to work. You are a concerned voter....change the law. Otherwise accept the way current law works.

Click to expand...

What's scary is that you accept this one-size-fits-all view of the law.

Well again, the kid we are talking about did not commit a murder did he? He was present at one and can best be described as an accessory. Of course, if you commit murder then go hide out at your grandmother's house she is technically an "acessory" for helping hide you. Should Gramma go to the big house because she cared about her grandson enough to let him stay there? LOL Now before you answer, the LAW states that she should and could very well be held to that level of account...but most prosecutors wouldn't charge her. We don't need to charge this 15 yo with murder either. He can face accessory after the fact charges in juvie.

So he witnessed a murder, may have even urged his buddy on to show he had "heart" to be in the group...then again he may just have ridden along actually quite scared and pretending to be "all good with it." In either case he does not need to spend 25 to life for his actions. He can spend the next three years in juvie instead, hopefully coming out a better man.

Click to expand...

He was an accessory, and she damn sure would get prosecuted. It's called "aiding and abetting".

Sig said:

Good points. However, if an examination of the 15 year-old were to determine that he is an incorrigible sociopath who is not going to improve with age, IMO, he should be tried as an adult, sentenced as an adult, and executed when he attains the age of 21. (I don't believe in executing criminals until they are old enough to legally consume alcoholic beverages.)

Click to expand...

Well, he does have some kind of prior record. If this prior record is for serious violence then perhaps I'd go along with his being tried as an adult. Primarily because such a record might support the contention that he had the capability of committing the crime himself had he been in possession of the weapon.

Gipper said:

What's scary is that you accept this one-size-fits-all view of the law.

Click to expand...

Wow. One size fits all? Where did you get that impression? Did I not state that I had no problem with the 16 yo shooter being tried as an adult? Did I not state that I had no problem with the 17 yo driver being tried as an adult? Did I not point out that trying juvenile's as adults is allowed when the crime commited by the juvenile was considered heinous enough to warrant it?

So just because I have an objection to a 15 yo "accessory" being charged with first degree murder and tried as an adult when he did nothing more than "ride along" I am expressing a "one-size fits all" position?

Gipper said:

He was an accessory, and she damn sure would get prosecuted. It's called "aiding and abetting".

Click to expand...

As I stated the letter of the law would agree, but most prosecutor's would not prosecute the grandmother unless she did something more directly related to the crime like help dispose of the weapon knowing it was used to commit the crime.

In any case, I am not so "absolute" about this issue as I know you are. I'd like to see some prison reform as I indicated in my Prison Reform thread before we just keep packing people off to prison only to have them come back out worse than they went in. This is especially true of children and juveniles who have the chance to be salvaged. I'm not sure if this 15 yo is one who can, because I don't know enough about his prior record. Until something changes I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1062222365 said:

Is execution by being shot in the back unsuspectingly cruel and unusual punishment?

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

So you see the comparison then? Good. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Is that a yes or a no?

Μολὼν λαβέ;1062226792 said:

Is that a yes or a no?

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's a criminal act. Our government is not supposed to do those things. Killing people is what criminals do.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1062226792 said:

Is that a yes or a no?

Click to expand...

Why do you ask? Are you another one who wants to kill 15-year-old kids?

Captain Adverse said:

Well, he does have some kind of prior record. If this prior record is for serious violence then perhaps I'd go along with his being tried as an adult. Primarily because such a record might support the contention that he had the capability of committing the crime himself had he been in possession of the weapon.

Click to expand...

Come to think of it, we should dispense with all this juvenile-adult nonsense (as if it ever really made any sense at all) and take a good hard look at the accused, his behavior, his mind, and his brain, irrespective of any arbitrarily designated chronological line of distinction between mature and immature culpability, and judge him accordingly, to wit, his potential for repeating such behavior as a juvenile or an adult as opposed to his behaving like a civilized, law-abiding citizen. In other words, if this kid is a bad seed then he should go. However, if there is some realistic potential for rehabilitation then we can consider a sentence alternative to execution, including his eventual reintegration to society.

ChrisL said:

It should be, and it is if it is a juvenile according to international law.

Click to expand...

First...Your opinion of what it "should be" is no more relevant than a pro-lifer feeling that abortion "Should be"....ie, it's not relevant, not when determining if a word is used properly. Your opinion doesn't change definitions nor make law.

Second...your statement wasn't specific to juveniles, but a broad one stating that someone sentenced to the death penalty is victim of state-sponsored murder.

So no...you're still wrong, and your link didn't actually prove otherwise in the least.