I am sure that if someone had an honest discussion with the boy before he killed his stepmother, he would know what dying means to her. He could have told you the effect it would have on his father and on her family. He could have told you want dying means to his unborn sibling and the loss of a life that never got a chance.
Is he as aware of the morality surrounding murder as he will be at 16? Of course not. Just like an 18 year-old doesn't have the same moral maturity as a 25 year-old. And yet (most) of us are comfortably trying an 18 year-old as an adult. The fact that he is still going to develop is not a factor in deciding what court to try him in. As previously mentioned, the brain continues developing until the age of 25.
And I don't know you, but you seem shockingly mature and intelligent for a 16 year-old. I highly doubt you would have murdered someone five years ago.
First off thanks for the compliment, but you must have a poor opinion of teens if you think I'm particularly mature and intelligent. :mrgreen: Part of the problem teens have is communicating with people because the adult world seldom listens and just thinks we are dumb. It is only on boards like this we can express ourselves, and even then I am reluctant to advertise my age. I am flattered by your confidence in the 11 year old me, but I'm sorry to say it is not justified. I was a very wild kid, and by the time I was 13 I had got into serious trouble - nothing which would have sent me to prison, but pretty serious trouble all the same. The point of telling you this is to demonstrate that not only the terminally dumb get in trouble, but also my experiences have helped me learn about human consequences. That is why I feel so strongly about this subject.
Of course I can't be sure about this, but I honestly doubt he had a clear idea of what dying is, and its consequences to those who loved his victim. I was considered a pretty bright kid by everyone - my mum, my relatives, my teachers, etc. when I was his age, but I dunno if I really had much of a handle on death at that time. I have never been around guns (not even my dad's service revolver or his fowling pieces,) but I cannot be certain that I would not have killed someone by accident, or in a rage, if I had access to firearms when I was 11. And I come from a stable, non-abusive home.
And I mean no disrespect to your views when I say that it just seems improper to try this kid, or any kid his age, as an adult. I have discussed this with my uncle who is a Queen's Council in London, and he tells me that would be an impossibility in any civilised jurisdiction. He drew my attention to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in particular to the articles that say no one under 18 shall be subject to the adult penal code, failing which, the establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law, irrespective of the crime, is mandatory. But the convention specifies 18.
Unfortunately, the only two societies on earth which have refused to ratify this convention are Somalia and the United States of America. :unsure13:
