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

Jallman, all you're doing is enforcing my belief that the whole system needs an overhaul. You're quick to pull the "he's only 11" argument out of the holster and saying that it's the way it is. It also shows that the way it is should not be the way it is. The problem with many laws such as blue laws (which were inherited from English law) and many aspects of the Constitution is that they do not reflect society in the way that it has evolved and adapted to a time of progression. I'm guessing that when these rules first came to be, a pubescent child killing a grown adult outside of the field of battle was about as non-existent as you could get.

Such is not the case here. If we were talking about a kid whose hands slipped and the gun accidentally fired, it's a whole other case. This kid shot a pregnant woman execution style. This is full-blown premeditation, complete with culpability and understanding of motive and rationality.

The first thing I ask myself when I consider a punishment would be "would I want them to live next door to me?". I look at this kid, his crime, his intentions, and his psychological state and I tell myself that there is absolutely no chance that I would want to be within driving distance of this kid. Parents are responsible for their children to a certain extent, but after you hit a point the fabrications of right and wrong in the human psyche determine what you do and what you don't do. This kid didn't kill his dad's girlfriend and unborn son because the dad was inept. This kid killed her because he's messed up in the head, and if you release him with essentially a slap on the wrist, his own brain tells him that killing again isn't a huge tragedy because the trade-off isn't all that bad.

Blackdog said:

When you come up with a better argument than "he's eleven" I will consider it. Until then your argument is lacking anything of substance and common sense.

Click to expand...

There is no better argument than the fact that he's 11. It's the most sound argument because it follows the law objectively. You can try to insult me by insinuating that there is no common sense to my argument or whatever the **** you thought you were doing, but the fact remains, YOU'RE the one who is having a total lapse of objectivity here.

Why don't you try coming up with an argument for why we should disregard the law in this case? You're the one wanting to show a complete and utter lack of respect for our legal system, the one who wants to toss objectivity aside and rely on some purely subjective measure for trying this 11 year old boy as an adult.

Consider it or not, that's your right. But you are flat wrong and your whole argument is nothing but an emotional, menstrual knee-jerk reaction to the crime rather than an objective look at justice.

jallman said:

There is no better argument than the fact that he's 11. It's the most sound argument because it follows the law objectively. You can try to insult me by insinuating that there is no common sense to my argument or whatever the **** you thought you were doing, but the fact remains, YOU'RE the one who is having a total lapse of objectivity here.

Click to expand...

If you say so. :shrug:

jallman said:

Why don't you try coming up with an argument for why we should disregard the law in this case? You're the one wanting to show a complete and utter lack of respect for our legal system, the one who wants to toss objectivity aside and rely on some purely subjective measure for trying this 11 year old boy as an adult.

Click to expand...

I have given my argument based on logic and our law as it stands. You are trying to say we can't try minors as adults and we do it every day all over the country. This is a fact.

The rest of your statement completely ignores modern case law and the new laws passed in 2006.

jallman said:

Consider it or not, that's your right. But you are flat wrong and your whole argument is nothing but an emotional, menstrual knee-jerk reaction to the crime rather than an objective look at justice.

Click to expand...

And yet he is being tried as an adult.

What does this tell you?

Gipper said:

Jallman, all you're doing is enforcing my belief that the whole system needs an overhaul.

Click to expand...

That's a reasonable argument and one that could be approached with rationality.

You're quick to pull the "he's only 11" argument out of the holster and saying that it's the way it is.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, I gave justification for it being the way it is earlier in this thread. I don't think we should be trying kids as adults for several reasons. I will relist them here:

• There is an expectation that the adults in the child's life are more responsible for the child's behavior than the child, itself is responsible for.
  
• There is an expectation that children are not mature enough to understand the far reaching ramifications of their actions.
  
• Even when a child knows right from wrong, there is still an understanding that they have no concept of varying degrees of right and wrong, especially over crimes that result in permanent injury.
  
• Which leads me to the next point; a child does not understand permanence.
  
• A child has a certain blurred line between reality and make believe. Yes, even at 11 years old.
  
• The brain of a child is not developed in areas that govern impulse and emotion control.
  
• The law doesn't grant certain rights and privileges to children because children cannot handle those rights responsibly, which is exactly why they are treated differently when they are responsible for a crime.

It also shows that the way it is should not be the way it is.The problem with many laws such as blue laws (which were inherited from English law) and many aspects of the Constitution is that they do not reflect society in the way that it has evolved and adapted to a time of progression. I'm guessing that when these rules first came to be, a pubescent child killing a grown adult outside of the field of battle was about as non-existent as you could get.

Click to expand...

You're talking about two different animals with the blue laws and the criminal application of juvenile and adult court systems. Blue laws would be expected to change with society because they were enforcements of social norms and mores. In this case, we are talking about strict adherence to ordinances governing criminal culpability and application of justice. We can't allow our revulsion against the idea that a child would kill a pregnant woman to dispel objectivity.

I also hear people talking about case by case basis and that's just not feasible nor beneficial to the pursuit of justice in the criminal court system. That opens the door to a subjectivity that does not permit equitable treatment of all defendants against prosecution. The reason our justice system is effective is that we have immovable guidelines that are well thought out and set in place to limit the fallability of human judgment...to limit our emotional responses to the heinous from eclipsing fair treatment under the law. "Case by case" is simply code, albeit subconsciously, for "let's see how we feel about each kid".

That's simply not justice.

Such is not the case here. If we were talking about a kid whose hands slipped and the gun accidentally fired, it's a whole other case. This kid shot a pregnant woman execution style. This is full-blown premeditation, complete with culpability and understanding of motive and rationality.

Click to expand...

You may feel that he had complete culpability, but the law says otherwise. You may feel that he had complete understanding of his motive and rationality, but the objective guidelines put in place to limit our feelings from clouding justice have established a given in this proof that no, he does not understand. That given is established to protect and serve justice for all child defendants, not just the ones we believe in, but all child defendants. If we start moving that line for one, whether he deserves it or not, that line becomes solvent and movable for all of them. That's when objectivity becomes relative...which is really just subjectivity and a total breakdown of justice.

The first thing I ask myself when I consider a punishment would be "would I want them to live next door to me?"

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to justice. Your feelings about whether you want this kid next to you don't matter.

I look at this kid, his crime, his intentions, and his psychological state and I tell myself that there is absolutely no chance that I would want to be within driving distance of this kid.

Click to expand...

Your wants have nothing to do with justice and objectivity. I don't mean to offend, but this is exactly the type of emotional response that the law seeks to restrict in the name of justice. What if your kid did something bad, not even murder but just something bad enough to land in court and it was left to someone else's "wants" as to whether your child would receive equitable treatment with the next kid in the court system?

Parents are responsible for their children to a certain extent, but after you hit a point the fabrications of right and wrong in the human psyche determine what you do and what you don't do.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all else we wouldn't have a "not guilty by reason of mental defect" plea...

This kid didn't kill his dad's girlfriend and unborn son because the dad was inept. This kid killed her because he's messed up in the head, and if you release him with essentially a slap on the wrist, his own brain tells him that killing again isn't a huge tragedy because the trade-off isn't all that bad.

Click to expand...

No one is saying "slap on the wrist". I haven't heard that argument from any but those who would throw the justice system aside and let their feelings try this kid as an adult.

Could it be that the emotional response is actually fear driving this mad rush to invalidate our criminal justice system? If it is, keep in mind, that's still emotion driving the argument and not objectivity.

Blackdog said:

And yet he is being tried as an adult.

What does this tell you?

Click to expand...

It tells me that the judge that allowed it is just as emotional and mestrual as you about this case. :shrug:

jallman said:

It tells me that the judge that allowed it is just as emotional and mestrual as you about this case. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I have given my argument based on logic and our law as it stands. You are trying to say we can't try minors as adults and we do it every day all over the country. This is a fact.

The rest of your statement completely ignores modern case law and the new laws passed in 2006.

You can't ignore the facts.

jallman said:

See, here's another dishonest argument born of emotional reaction rather than clear thought. No one is suggesting he just be "slapped on the wrist". However, I do think that the law is meaningless if it isn't applied objectively and consistently in all cases.

This whole "well let him live with you" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion, an attempt to break logic and objectivity by bringing personal fear into the argument.

Click to expand...

It is an in your face direct commentary to the people who bleed liberally without any THOUGHT...which is what you are doing. You might want to actually try being around some of these young people before you decide what their fate should be.

You MIGHT note that my comments were pretty fair...give him a chance to be rehabilitated. If he is, give him probation. if not, keep him where he belongs. Making an arbitrary decision to hold him until he is 21 and then release him by mandate is idiocy. It is based on feeeeeeel good ideology. And I truly believe people like YOU should be FORCED to take in people like this young man.

Blackdog said:

I have given my argument based on logic and our law as it stands. You are trying to say we can't try minors as adults and we do it every day all over the country. This is a fact.

The rest of your statement completely ignores modern case law and the new laws passed in 2006.

You can't ignore the facts.

Click to expand...

But I can ignore emotional kneejerk responses that seek to ignore objectivity.

VanceMack said:

It is an in your face direct commentary to the people who bleed liberally without any THOUGHT...which is what you are doing.

Click to expand...

No, you're a libruhl. :roll:

You might want to actually try being around some of these young people before you decide what their fate should be.

Click to expand...

You might want to keep your anecdotal evidence out of this as it has no place in rational debate.

You MIGHT note that my comments were pretty fair...give him a chance to be rehabilitated. If he is, give him probation. if not, keep him where he belongs. Making an arbitrary decision to hold him until he is 21 and then release him by mandate is idiocy. It is based on feeeeeeel good ideology.

Click to expand...

Excuse me but exactly where did I say that we should release him at 21? Anywhere? A post number will suffice.

And I truly believe people like YOU should be FORCED to take in people like this young man.

Click to expand...

And I truly believe YOUR beliefs don't mean JACK **** when it comes to the law.

jallman said:

But I can ignore emotional kneejerk responses that seek to ignore objectivity.

Click to expand...

Please point out my emotional knee jerk reaction?

I stated clearly we don't have all the facts. I stated my observance of the evidence says the judge is most likely correct in this instance.

You are again projecting.

I don't care one way or the other what happens to the kid, it will not affect me one way or the other. I do know as an X-LEO, you are trying to make something that is not cut and dry, cut and dry. You are ignoring the facts we do have. You are also ignoring the law and precedence set down in case law for some high reaching emotional ideal.

Blackdog said:

Please point out my emotional knee jerk reaction?

I stated clearly we don't have all the facts. I stated my observance of the evidence says the judge is most likely correct in this instance.

You are again projecting.

I don't care one way or the other what happens to the kid, it will not affect me one way or the other. I do know as an X-LEO, you are trying to make something that is not cut and dry, cut and dry. You are ignoring the facts we do have. You are also ignoring the law and precedence set down in case law for some high reaching emotional ideal.

Click to expand...

I am ignoring nothing. The fact is, he's 11 and emotion is driving this rush to trample the objectivity of our legal system. Now you can sit here and taunt back "no, you're emotional", but that does not negate the fact that I am using an objective standard devoid of subjectivity and you are the one advocating blurring that line with subjectivity.

jallman said:

I am ignoring nothing. The fact is, he's 11 and emotion is driving this rush to trample the objectivity of our legal system.

Click to expand...

This may be so I don't know, but it has nothing to do with my satements.

jallman said:

Now you can sit here and taunt back "no, you're emotional",

Click to expand...

Why? You ARE trying to say I am when emotions had nothing at all to do with anything I typed. Unlike you, I am looking at the evidence in the crime as well as his age as best as we have from the articles. I am not sitting here chanting "he's 11" as some kind of mantra.

jallman said:

but that does not negate the fact that I am using an objective standard devoid of subjectivity and you are the one advocating blurring that line with subjectivity.

Click to expand...

Say that ten times fast.

No. I am advocating in this particular case according to the defendants state of mind and the evidence. The punishment should fit the crime.

Blackdog said:

No. I am advocating in this particular case according to the defendants state of mind and the evidence. The punishment should fit the crime.

Click to expand...

In other words, you want subjectivity to come into play when your revulsion eclipses your sound judgment. This is exactly the type of emotional response that the law attempts to restrict, especially when it comes to minors.

jallman said:

No, you're a libruhl. :roll:

You might want to keep your anecdotal evidence out of this as it has no place in rational debate.

Excuse me but exactly where did I say that we should release him at 21? Anywhere? A post number will suffice.

And I truly believe YOUR beliefs don't mean JACK **** when it comes to the law.

Click to expand...

You keep talking about the law as if you actually know something about it. of course...if it were against the law the state of Pennsylvania would not be having the discussion. And the OP was simply a poll as to if it is EVER APPROPRIATE.

"Since the early 1990s many states have adopted a "get tough" approach to juvenile justice as a response to the increasingly violent crimes committed by children. As of 2003 many states had adopted legislation that permits more children to be tried as adults. All states have a provision allowing prosecutors to try juveniles as young as 14 as adults under certain circumstances. In some states, such as Indiana, South Dakota, and Vermont, children as young as 10 can be tried as adults.

An example of a "get tough" law is Michigan's Juvenile Waiver Law of 1997. This measure lowered the age that juveniles can automatically be tried as adults. In adopting this law, the state has taken away some of the judge's discretion in deciding whether a minor should be tried as a child or as an adult. Factors such as criminal history, psychiatric evaluation, and the nature of the offender's actions carry less weight when the judge is forced to enter an automatic adult plea."

Http://law.jrank.org/pages/7957/Juvenile-Law-Trying-Juveniles-Adults.html#ixzz0kLatLlTc

Again...try KNOWING something about it before you try TALKING about it. And try experiencing a bit as well. It might shock you what some of these kids are capable of.

Oh...and as for releasing them at 21...when you try a child as a juvenile thats typically the max you can hold them. With sex oiffenders the only additional penalty would be to force them to register for life as a sexual predator. The exception would be if they were tried and found guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect.

VanceMack said:

Again...try KNOWING something about it before you try TALKING about it. And try experiencing a bit as well. It might shock you what some of these kids are capable of.

Click to expand...

If googling a link constitutes "knowing" about something, then we're all experts around here. :roll:

Let me make something very clear to you: you could be the congressman who wrote the law, but that doesn't mean jack ****. It's all anecdotal.

And, as you pointed out, the thread asks is it EVER appropriate, to which my response has been a resounding and emphatic NO. That's what's been argued here.

Now I don't give a flying rat's ass about your experience in the juvie system and it really doesn't amount to anything but anecdote when you speak about it. Give me some substance and rational argument and we might be getting somewhere. Other than that...save your breath.

VanceMack said:

I dont 'know' with certainty that he wont be rehabbed...I DO have a pretty good idea.

4 years working with the juvenile justice system...300+ sex offenders and violent criminals...recidivism rate of 70%...programs designed to warehouse, not heal and rehabilitate...would you like me to continue? I COULD get very graphic about some of the things these 12, 13, and 14 year olds have done to their victims...and to fellow inmates...and to careless guards...

The psychiatrist that interviewed him stated he felt it was highly unlikely the kid will be rehabbed.

I have an idea...we'll slap him on the wrist (because he is only 12 after all) and then he can live with you and your family. have any small children in your home? Want to take that shot?

Click to expand...

I've worked with juvenile offenders for 19 years now. There are very few violent offenders (statistically speaking) under the age of 14.

Juvenile Felony Arrests, by Age Group: 2008 - Kidsdata.org

If you currently work with juvenile sex offenders, I find it disturbing and a little sad that you apparently haven't been exposed (or haven't taken it upon yourself to do research) on the latest data on teen and adult sex offenders.

Frankly, you simply cannot look at an 11-year-old offender and definitively state that there is no hope for this person to not re-offend. If that is your view of these young people, you shouldn't even be working with them.

There are certain modalities of treatment that have been shown to be effective with sex offenders. With any offender, there is a considerable responsibility on those in the system to assess that individual's risk factors and determine his/her level of risk to the community. One certainly cannot make sweeping generalizations that young offenders cannot be salvaged. That's ABSURD.

Please do your homework. Here are some helpful links that deal with the research surrounding this issue and best practices.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/treatment_brief.pdf
SEXUAL OFFENDER TREATMENT: Timothy Fortney et al.
Treatment of Adult Sex Offenders

Catz Part Deux said:

I've worked with juvenile offenders for 19 years now. There are very few violent offenders (statistically speaking) under the age of 14.

Juvenile Felony Arrests, by Age Group: 2008 - Kidsdata.org

If you currently work with juvenile sex offenders, I find it disturbing and a little sad that you apparently haven't been exposed (or haven't taken it upon yourself to do research) on the latest data on teen and adult sex offenders.

Frankly, you simply cannot look at an 11-year-old offender and definitively state that there is no hope for this person to not re-offend. If that is your view of these young people, you shouldn't even be working with them.

There are certain modalities of treatment that have been shown to be effective with sex offenders. With any offender, there is a considerable responsibility on those in the system to assess that individual's risk factors and determine his/her level of risk to the community. One certainly cannot make sweeping generalizations that young offenders cannot be salvaged. That's ABSURD.

Please do your homework. Here are some helpful links that deal with the research surrounding this issue and best practices.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/treatment_brief.pdf
SEXUAL OFFENDER TREATMENT: Timothy Fortney et al.
Treatment of Adult Sex Offenders

Click to expand...

But god forbid we let a little rationality, objectivity, and fact influence the discussion. :doh

Gipper said:

Unless affected by some level of mental retardation, an 11 year old brain is fully aware of the conceptuality of right and wrong.

This kid should be tried as an adult.

Click to expand...

If this is true, why don't we let 11-year-olds drive? Or vote? Or sign contracts? Or give consent to sex or get married?

Because they aren't adults. And they shouldn't be tried as adults just because we arbitrarily declare a few of them to be adults every once in a while.

If you want to change the age of adulthood, propose it. But it should apply to all crimes, and all other responsibilities and privileges of adulthood.

jallman said:

But god forbid we let a little rationality, objectivity, and fact influence the discussion. :doh

Click to expand...

Just imagine if he was an illegal immigrant. :roll:

Catz Part Deux said:

Just imagine if he was an illegal immigrant. :roll:

Click to expand...

They'd have already hung him. After giving him 40 minus one lashes.

I don't know...I just cannot fathom treating children and the mentally defective with the same laws we treat sound minded adults. It seems barbaric. Don't even get me started about Texas and the death penalty for retards.

Catz Part Deux said:

I've worked with juvenile offenders for 19 years now. There are very few violent offenders (statistically speaking) under the age of 14.

Juvenile Felony Arrests, by Age Group: 2008 - Kidsdata.org

If you currently work with juvenile sex offenders, I find it disturbing and a little sad that you apparently haven't been exposed (or haven't taken it upon yourself to do research) on the latest data on teen and adult sex offenders.

Frankly, you simply cannot look at an 11-year-old offender and definitively state that there is no hope for this person to not re-offend. If that is your view of these young people, you shouldn't even be working with them.

There are certain modalities of treatment that have been shown to be effective with sex offenders. With any offender, there is a considerable responsibility on those in the system to assess that individual's risk factors and determine his/her level of risk to the community. One certainly cannot make sweeping generalizations that young offenders cannot be salvaged. That's ABSURD.

Please do your homework. Here are some helpful links that deal with the research surrounding this issue and best practices.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/treatment_brief.pdf
SEXUAL OFFENDER TREATMENT: Timothy Fortney et al.
Treatment of Adult Sex Offenders

Click to expand...

Wow...did you pull that straw right out of your ass? Where did I say there were 'large numbers' of violent offenders under the age of 14? You make a total argument out of THAT??? My only assertion was that MOST violent offenders DONT rehab...and this particular one has been assessed as 'unlikely'
to be rehabbed. Age is nothing but a number.

The isolated juvenile sex offender population made up 1/3 of the population of the facilities I worked at. The other two thirds were divided into court ordered O/A and juvenile incarceration. The ones that were there were in isolation because they were violent and dangerous to others.

The Samenow method (Im sure you know it...the wall...the mask...auto...etc...)or some form of it was used pretty much exclusively. I disagree with its use...but that doesnt change the reality. Teach them 'what they are'. The recividism rate of violent juvenile offenders pretty much mirrors the adult population.

Now...if you can set your kneejerk response down for just a tiny second...go back to what I said from the beginning. TYPICALLY they cant be rehabbed. Ive not met THIS 11 year old, but the psych that assessed him found him incorrigible. And truth be told...Ive not met THIS kid...but I've met several of his twins. I HOPE this one can. I HOPE they all can. Ive seen some that DO change...some of the more horrific offenders. And Ive seen a LOT...the majority...that dont.

But hey...you got a little 'thanks' pop from your buddy...so it wasnt a totaL failed effort.

jallman said:

In other words, you want subjectivity to come into play when your revulsion eclipses your sound judgment. This is exactly the type of emotional response that the law attempts to restrict, especially when it comes to minors.

Click to expand...

It is pretty telling that you are going out of your way to ignore the bulk of my statements and take 1 or 2 out of context.

I don't care one way or the other. I am going purely by the limited evidence we have at our disposal. What part of that are you missing? Why do you choose to ignore this? Do you want it to be some kind of emotional bull****

VanceMack said:

You keep talking about the law as if you actually know something about it. of course...if it were against the law the state of Pennsylvania would not be having the discussion. And the OP was simply a poll as to if it is EVER APPROPRIATE.

"Since the early 1990s many states have adopted a "get tough" approach to juvenile justice as a response to the increasingly violent crimes committed by children. As of 2003 many states had adopted legislation that permits more children to be tried as adults. All states have a provision allowing prosecutors to try juveniles as young as 14 as adults under certain circumstances. In some states, such as Indiana, South Dakota, and Vermont, children as young as 10 can be tried as adults.

An example of a "get tough" law is Michigan's Juvenile Waiver Law of 1997. This measure lowered the age that juveniles can automatically be tried as adults. In adopting this law, the state has taken away some of the judge's discretion in deciding whether a minor should be tried as a child or as an adult. Factors such as criminal history, psychiatric evaluation, and the nature of the offender's actions carry less weight when the judge is forced to enter an automatic adult plea."

Http://law.jrank.org/pages/7957/Juvenile-Law-Trying-Juveniles-Adults.html#ixzz0kLatLlTc

Again...try KNOWING something about it before you try TALKING about it. And try experiencing a bit as well. It might shock you what some of these kids are capable of.

Oh...and as for releasing them at 21...when you try a child as a juvenile thats typically the max you can hold them. With sex oiffenders the only additional penalty would be to force them to register for life as a sexual predator. The exception would be if they were tried and found guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I was working directly with gang members when these laws passed. The problem is...legislators generally know very little about juvenile crime, and are responding in a knee-jerk fashion to appear as if they are doing something about a perceived problem. And, while juvenile crime was quite high in the late 80s-early 90s, it has since dropped by a considerable margin, for reasons that we haven't even been able to coherently explain yet.

The problem is that adult facilities, for the most part, aren't adequately equipped to handle 10 year old offenders. It poses a safety risk to the young offender, and in some cases, to older offenders.

Furthermore, very few juveniles commit violent crimes ALONE. The vast majority of juveniles arrested for felony offenses are arrested in the company of adult perpetrators.

You're treating this subject in a very generalized and slipshod fashion that i find disturbing coming from a professional in the field of juvenile justice.

jallman said:

In other words, you want subjectivity to come into play when your revulsion eclipses your sound judgment. This is exactly the type of emotional response that the law attempts to restrict, especially when it comes to minors.

Click to expand...

It is pretty telling that you are going out of your way to ignore the bulk of my statements and take 1 or 2 out of context.

I don't care one way or the other. I am going purely by the limited evidence we have at our disposal. What part of that are you missing? Why do you choose to ignore this?

Do you want it to be some kind of emotional bull**** so you can justify your lack of argument?

jallman said:

They'd have already hung him. After giving him 40 minus one lashes.

I don't know...I just cannot fathom treating children and the mentally defective with the same laws we treat sound minded adults. It seems barbaric. Don't even get me started about Texas and the death penalty for retards.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way. It's just abhorrent to me.