• 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
Shadow Serious said:
The problem is that the courts and DHS have a definition that welts or small bruises are excessive force which all but preempts the statue.
Click to expand...
Have you never heard the phrase that the Law is an Ass? Be careful when spanking one, especially the smaller younger ones, but my point is still entirely valid, we can spank them because we define them as children and treat them that way. That doesn't change just because they do something monstrous. They are still children.
 
TiredOfLife said:
The intent is clear, this tool kills things. The intent of the hammer is clear as well, it pounds things.
Click to expand...

It kills things what is your point? Do you not know that deadly force is justified for defending against grievous bodily harm and murder? And to do such one must have the tools to do so? Or are you hypnotized by "gun bad; kills people."?
 
TurtleDude said:
I say put them in with the general prison population where they can be passed around for a pack of smokes for the next 60 years of their lives.
Click to expand...

They deserve only the death sentence.
 
Shadow Serious said:
It kills things what is your point? Do you not know that deadly force is justified for defending against grievous bodily harm and murder? And to do such one must have the tools to do so? Or are you hypnotized by "gun bad; kills people."?
Click to expand...
No, I'm making the very simple and obvious point that a gun is not for self-defense, it's for killing things. You can use a hammer for self-defense but a gun is a whole lot easier, mainly because it's much more effective at Killing Things, which is why it was designed in the first place.
 
lolabird said:
I'm not a dude.
Congratulations on your monumental victories. Were you bored?
Click to expand...

Dude is gender neutral and was I bored with my Court victories? Not really.
 
Shadow Serious said:
The issue is that these teens did not kill because they were angry or put in a stressful situation but that they were understimulated (which means bored). Instead of taking a bat to mailboxes that some teens decide to do in a similar situation they wanted to kill people. Since they made a conscious decision to kill for no reason but for **** and giggles, that puts them outside of what can be considered reformable situation. Now sense one was 15 and was but an accomplice and may have been coerced to go he might be reformable however since juvenile justice stops at 21 and there is no follow up after make me want to try him as an adult also.
Click to expand...

Again this is the prosecutor's side of the story. Are you familiar at all with goes on pre trial? The prosecutor is going to try to muddy the names of the accused and make them appear as guilty as humanly possible and taint public opinion. This is a strategy.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Have you never heard the phrase that the Law is an Ass? Be careful when spanking one, especially the smaller younger ones, but my point is still entirely valid, we can spank them because we define them as children and treat them that way. That doesn't change just because they do something monstrous. They are still children.
Click to expand...

Anyway since there is either loose enforcement of the statue or a low threshold of battery effectively means that corporal punishment is not used as much and therefore not an option to prevent misbehavior.
 
Shadow Serious said:
The issue is that these teens did not kill because they were angry or put in a stressful situation but that they were understimulated (which means bored). Instead of taking a bat to mailboxes that some teens decide to do in a similar situation they wanted to kill people. Since they made a conscious decision to kill for no reason but for **** and giggles, that puts them outside of what can be considered reformable situation. Now sense one was 15 and was but an accomplice and may have been coerced to go he might be reformable however since juvenile justice stops at 21 and there is no follow up after make me want to try him as an adult also.
Click to expand...

This really pisses me off. How do you know why they killed? Because the prosecutor told you? Lol! Have you spoken to these kids? What does the defense team say? Since you seem to know all about these kids and this case, do tell!
 
TiredOfLife said:
No, I'm making the very simple and obvious point that a gun is not for self-defense, it's for killing things. You can use a hammer for self-defense but a gun is a whole lot easier, mainly because it's much more effective at Killing Things, which is why it was designed in the first place.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that cops should not have guns? That guns cannot be used by cops for self defense or for others? Or are cops special and get to use guns for this purpose?

How will a 140 pound woman defend herself against a 250 pound man with a hammer? I don't see it happening. The point of having guns it makes all men (and women) equal in ability to defend their lives, their families lives, as well as their property.
 
Shadow Serious said:
Anyway since there is either loose enforcement of the statue or a low threshold of battery effectively means that corporal punishment is not used as much and therefore not an option to prevent misbehavior.
Click to expand...
If you can get the parents to be truthful, it's still used plenty.
 
Mr X said:
The law says they are minors, so they should be tried as minors. You can't just say minors are adults for convenience. No-one is defending them, and IF they are convicted, they should be severely punished.
Click to expand...

They can be tried as adults because the law says that they can.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
DUNCAN, Okla. (AP) — With the simplest of motives — breaking up the boredom of an Oklahoma summer — three teenagers followed an Australian collegiate baseball player who was attending school in the U.S. and killed him with a shot to the back for “the fun of it,” prosecutors said Tuesday as they charged two of the teens with murder.
As the boys appeared in an Oklahoma courtroom, a 17-year-old blurted out, “I pulled the trigger,” then wept after a judge told him that Tuesday’s hearing wasn’t the time or place to sort out the facts of the case.
Prosecutor Jason Hicks called the boys “thugs” as he told Stephens County Judge Jerry Herberger how Christopher Lane, 22, of Melbourne, died on a city street.
Chancey Allen Luna, 16, and James Francis Edwards, Jr., 15, of Duncan were charged with first-degree murder and, under Oklahoma law, will be tried as adults. Michael Dewayne Jones, 17, of Duncan was accused of using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and accessory to first-degree murder after the fact. He is considered a youthful offender but will be tried in adult court. 3 Teens Charged After Australian Player Slain « CBS Houston
Click to expand...

They made an adult decision, they deserve adult consequences.
 
Shadow Serious said:
Are you saying that cops should not have guns? That guns cannot be used by cops for self defense or for others? Or are cops special and get to use guns for this purpose?

How will a 140 pound woman defend herself against a 250 pound man with a hammer? I don't see it happening. The point of having guns it makes all men (and women) equal in ability to defend their lives, their families lives, as well as their property.
Click to expand...
A gun is not about defense. It's for killing something.

As for what I would do with guns, especially handguns, no one would have them unless they were going off to war. That's a very good place for a gun BTW, it's really good at killing people.
 
Shadow Serious said:
They can be tried as adults because the law says that they can.
Click to expand...

Why should the 15 year old be tried as an adult? Because he was present when the shooting occurred?

Just because "the law says so" isn't good enough for me. What if the "law" says they're going to put restrictions on your second amendment rights? You gonna roll over and be okay with that too?
 
TiredOfLife said:
You miss the point, they can't make an adult decision since they aren't adults yet.
Click to expand...

How could anyone equate what these CHILDREN did as an "adult decision?" Is the world completely whacked or what?
 
ChrisL said:
How could anyone equate what these CHILDREN did as an "adult decision?" Is the world completely whacked or what?
Click to expand...
Well you know my opinion on that. You'll get no argument from me on the fact that humans can be sane but humanity and society certainly are not.
 
TiredOfLife said:
You miss the point, they can't make an adult decision since they aren't adults yet.
Click to expand...

And yet....they did. They CHOSE to take a persons life. That is an adult decision. Not a childs decision. Just because you are a child does not mean you cannot make adult decisions. A child that consents to having sex with their same age partner is making an adult decision.

The age in which someone becomes legally an adult does not in any way prevent a child from making adult decisions.
 
Mr X said:
That is for the judge to decide, A young offenders institute until 18 then transferred to an adult prison. but the main point is that they should be tried as minors due to their age. Under law, everyone under the age of 18 is a minor, that doesn't change regardless of their actions.

Stealing is wrong, but if a 4 year old stole a chocolate bar from a shop, I wouldn't expect them to be tried as an adult.
Click to expand...


Five year old stealing a chocolate bar from a shop <<< murder for ****s and giggles by 15, 16, and 17 year-olds.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet....they did. They CHOSE to take a persons life. That is an adult decision. Not a childs decision. Just because you are a child does not mean you cannot make adult decisions. A child that consents to having sex with their same age partner is making an adult decision.

The age in which someone becomes legally an adult does not in any way prevent a child from making adult decisions.
Click to expand...
Taking a life, especially for no good reason, sounds exactly like what a child might do. And two kids having sex when they are same age doesn't make them adults either. I won't say how young I was the first time I had actual intercourse but had killed someone at that age no one would have even dreamed of charging me as an adult, since I was nothing of the kind. I think my bedtime was still 8:30 PM then.
 
ChrisL said:
How could anyone equate what these CHILDREN did as an "adult decision?" Is the world completely whacked or what?
Click to expand...

The age in which a person makes adult decisions is not based on the legal (the law) age of adulthood. I've known people which were legally children and yet made more adult decisions than people who were legally adults.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet....they did. They CHOSE to take a persons life. That is an adult decision. Not a childs decision. Just because you are a child does not mean you cannot make adult decisions. A child that consents to having sex with their same age partner is making an adult decision.

The age in which someone becomes legally an adult does not in any way prevent a child from making adult decisions.
Click to expand...

That is NOT an adult decision. An adult would decide NOT to do that. Children are children no matter what you want to make them into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom