• 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 an 11 year old ever be tried as an adult?

Should an 11 year old ever be tried as an adult?

  • Yes, this particular young man is a perfect example

    Votes: 12 20.3%

  • No, never.

    Votes: 31 52.5%

  • The justice system needs another alternative for extremely young, potentially dangerous offenders

    Votes: 11 18.6%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 5 8.5%
  • Total voters
    59
repeter said:
Then go ahead and take that to the Supreme Court, see how far you get with cases of when a child takes his neighbors, gags and ties them with rope, and then drowns them, after ransacking their house.

I'll see if I can find the specific link for that case. The murderer was 17 when he committed the crimes.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about 17-year-olds here. We're talking about an 11-year-old. Big difference.
 
Arcana XV said:
I kinda like samsmart's idea of putting them in some kind of secure community where they can continue their education and be monitored by psychologists, maybe even get a job on site later on.
Click to expand...

At the expense of taxpayers?
 
samsmart said:
We're not talking about 17-year-olds here. We're talking about an 11-year-old. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, but legally they are the same. They are both minors. And if an 11 year old picks up a shotgun, points it at his mother, and pulls the trigger, and she dies because of it, that kid is a murderer.

Unless his lawyers can prove he didn't pick that gun up, it misfired, or some other irregularity which proves he didn't pick it up, point, and shoot his mother, he is a killer, and should be treated as one.
 
If you try a kid as an adult, you are claiming that the kid is responsible for his own decisions. What justification is there then if it is found that the kid was not guilty, for saying that the same kid can't make his own decisions about who to vote for to represent him, who he has sex with, what he puts in his body, etc...?

Any kid that could be tried as an adult if they commit murder should be treated as an adult with regards to everything else.
 
repeter said:
Yes, but legally they are the same. They are both minors. And if an 11 year old picks up a shotgun, points it at his mother, and pulls the trigger, and she dies because of it, that kid is a murderer.

Unless his lawyers can prove he didn't pick that gun up, it misfired, or some other irregularity which proves he didn't pick it up, point, and shoot his mother, he is a killer, and should be treated as one.
Click to expand...

If a 17-year-old is legally the same as an 11-year-old, then our laws need to be changed to reflect the obvious biological and psychological differences between them. Which I'm actually all for.
 
Arcana XV said:
Yes, of course. Who else is going to pay for it? What else do you suggest? The death penalty for pre-teens?
Click to expand...

Yep, for stuff like this.....
He will never be a productive member of society, except for donor organs....;)
 
Seems like a simple enough concept. Don't try someone for the age; try them for the crime. Problem solved.

Now we can't hide behind a guise of being unfair. Case by case basis. Just the facts, ma'am.
 
Gipper said:
Seems like a simple enough concept. Don't try someone for the age; try them for the crime. Problem solved.

Now we can't hide behind a guise of being unfair. Case by case basis. Just the facts, ma'am.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Justice is blind. You kill someone, regardless of age, you get punished.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Here's the case: FOXNews.com - Adult Trial for Boy in Death of Pa. Woman, Fetus

They are trying this boy as an adult. If you go to the article, you'll see a photo of the boy.

An 11 year old is very young. At 11 most kids haven't even started puberty. How can a child that young be considered an adult? Is this kid any more unreformable than many young thugs? What he allegedly did was horrible, but he is not anywhere near adulthood.
Click to expand...

I read the story; there's not a lot of detail. In particular there's no information on what his reason for doing this was, if any; or whether there were any mitigating circumstances. Was this woman abusing or mistreating him in some way? Did he do this out of jealousy over his father taking up with a new woman?

Does any of that matter? Well, maybe. If she was abusing him in some way, that's definitely a mitigating circumstance... its arguably in the same general ballpark as the "battered wife syndrome" which is an extension of self-defense pleas.

Has he been evaluated by a shrink? Has it been established that he knew what he was doing was wrong?

There are some cases where I think an 11yo could commit a really heinous crime, something indicating sociopathy, and they should never be allowed out in society ever again. BUT, I think each case has to be considered on its merits, and I think an 11yo should not be tried as an adult without evidence of some truly heinous and wacked-out things going on with him.

The one in the UK where the two boys around this age tortured two smaller boys, forcing them to commit sexual acts, beating and nearly killing them... those are sociopaths, and I don't think they need to ever get out of an institution.

In this case, I don't have enough info to decide. He killed someone, that's homicide; it may or may not be murder; if it is murder, there could be mitigating circumstances.

Insufficient data.
 
repeter said:
Exactly. Justice is blind. You kill someone, regardless of age, you get punished.
Click to expand...

So if a mischievious six-year old opens your basement window and sneaks in your house, is that Breaking and Entering? Should he get seven years in the Big House for it?

If, while he's down there, he finds some matches, accidentally lights the pack, drops it in a panic and runs away... and someone dies in the fire... is he guilty of arson and murder? Should he get Lethal Injection, like an adult might in some states?

Kids are not adults. While I don't believe in coddling teenagers who are serious repeat criminals, you have to draw a line somewhere.
 
Arcana XV said:
Yes, of course. Who else is going to pay for it? What else do you suggest? The death penalty for pre-teens?
Click to expand...

It seems like an extremely expensive solution is all I'm saying...creating a parallel sort of fantasy world apart from (and yet wholly dependent on) society.

I would say in this case, send the little dweeb to prison for a few decades. He is a child, but he is not innocent and clearly he is not safe.
 
repeter said:
A society that has murderers who are minors.
Click to expand...

We don't put them to death regardless of that fact. In fact, I don't think any country that still has the death penalty executes children this young. Why do you think that is? The chances of the death penalty age ever being lowered to 11 or younger are extremely unlikely.
 
emdash said:
It seems like an extremely expensive solution is all I'm saying...creating a parallel sort of fantasy world apart from (and yet wholly dependent on) society.

I would say in this case, send the little dweeb to prison for a few decades. He is a child, but he is not innocent and clearly he is not safe.
Click to expand...

They can go to a regular prison when they're older. How about a separate wing in a maximum security prison? It's not like there are that many criminals this young. They could all be housed in one place.
 
Arcana XV said:
They can go to a regular prison when they're older. How about a separate wing in a maximum security prison? It's not like there are that many criminals this young. They could all be housed in one place.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with a children's wing in a prison as long as it is actually like a prison.
 
emdash said:
At the expense of taxpayers?
Click to expand...

We already have the expense of maximum security prisons. And it would probably be cheaper because we'd be securing them, not imprisoning them.

Imprisonment, as has been said, is for punishment, and I agree that punishment is deserved for adults and teenagers who commit crimes.

But when young children commit violent acts, there's a psychological reason for it. While they need to be separated from society because of their potential to be a danger to others, they do not need to be punished because they have that inherent danger within them.

Rather, they need to be secured and properly socialized in a controlled setting so that, if they can, they can live with other in society and, if not, remained secured while still being productive.

I think that doing that would be less expensive than paying to put them in prison.
 
I heard he is being tried as an adult because it was really premeditated.
 
Goshin said:
So if a mischievious six-year old opens your basement window and sneaks in your house, is that Breaking and Entering? Should he get seven years in the Big House for it?

If, while he's down there, he finds some matches, accidentally lights the pack, drops it in a panic and runs away... and someone dies in the fire... is he guilty of arson and murder? Should he get Lethal Injection, like an adult might in some states?

Kids are not adults. While I don't believe in coddling teenagers who are serious repeat criminals, you have to draw a line somewhere.
Click to expand...

No, your scenario is an accident, he never intended to hurt anyone....;)
 
the plot thickens?

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

He also discussed the issues of the nature of the crime and of premeditation: "The evidence presented by the commonwealth showed that the victim, Kenzie Marie Houk, 8 1/2 months pregnant, was in bed at the time she was murdered. She was totally defenseless at the time her life and the life of her unborn fetus was taken by a shotgun blast to the back of her head. There is no indication of any provocation by the victim that led to her killing."

...The judge said the evidence indicated that "the commission of the crime demonstrated a degree of criminal sophistication" on the part of the boy, and that the offense was "necessarily premeditated."
Click to expand...
 
Goshin said:
So if a mischievious six-year old opens your basement window and sneaks in your house, is that Breaking and Entering? Should he get seven years in the Big House for it?

If, while he's down there, he finds some matches, accidentally lights the pack, drops it in a panic and runs away... and someone dies in the fire... is he guilty of arson and murder? Should he get Lethal Injection, like an adult might in some states?

Kids are not adults. While I don't believe in coddling teenagers who are serious repeat criminals, you have to draw a line somewhere.
Click to expand...

And that line is at murder, premeditated murder above all. Which is the case at hand.
 
Arcana XV said:
We don't put them to death regardless of that fact. In fact, I don't think any country that still has the death penalty executes children this young. Why do you think that is? The chances of the death penalty age ever being lowered to 11 or younger are extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

Forget the 11 year olds. Just hold them until they are older, and retry them as adults, if you want to kill them. All I want is to remove kids who are killers from the streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom