Charging an 8 year old as an adult?

Is probably the most retarded thing I have ever fucking heard in my life.

Quote:

---

In a sign of the emotional and legal complexities of the case, police are pushing to have the boy tried as an adult even as they investigate possible abuse, St. Johns Police Chief Roy Melnick said. If convicted as a minor, the boy could be sent to juvenile detention until he turns 18.

---

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...=mostpop_story

Whats the point of having an adult designation if you're going to try a fucking 8 year old as one?

I'm confused by this.

In reading the article, it makes it sound like having this transferred to the adult court would allow more leniency for the child - the police sound sympathetic, talking about the kid being abused, and then want him tried as an adult?

Non sequitor.

As the mother of an 8-year-old boy, my first reaction to this story was, "What did the father and that man do to that kid that was so horrible that the only way he saw out of it was to kill them?" That's still my reaction. Unless he's just a complete psychotic (ala Michael Myers) they were using him very badly somehow.

That aside, even the idea of trying somebody under the age of 13 as an adult is... the word "outrageous" can't begin to encompass the enormity of the stupidity of these people.

Don't know enough about the story to form an opinion but he's young so he'll probably get off after he turns legal age.

He just needs to be evaluated and if the kid has got some kind of Michael Myers thing going on then he needs to be institutionalized.

For those of us who don't know the case, could you post a link to the full story?

I don't know much about the case other than what we've been able to read, but the other man murdered is a man I've know for 10+ years.

He was a complete a-hole. A drug-dealing, violent, a-hole. What that has to do with this case, who knows?

He was abusive to his little girls and often had tirades during their high school basketball games.

The moment I heard he was shot my first assumption was it had something to do with how I characterize him.

My last memory of interaction with that guy was when I separated his shoulder during a basketball game. Even then people didn't like him because of his persona and he was left lying under the bleachers yelling in pain until he could get himself up and leave.

The likelihood that that boy was abused by one or both of the two men he killed is high.

It's pretty impressive that an 8 year old could take on two adult men and win. He must have been really really fearful for his life. That would be my guess.

It's fucking ridiculous to try anyone under 18 as an adult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

The likelihood that that boy was abused by one or both of the two men he killed is high.

---

I could be completely wrong.....but, I agree with you on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It's fucking ridiculous to try anyone under 18 as an adult.

---

Cant agree. There are exceptions to every rule....when I was 15, I knew I shouldnt kill people, no matter how many video games I played.

If a 15 year old kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills a 9 year old, his ass should never see the light of the sun as far as I am concerned. I dont give 2 shits whether he was sexually abused as a child, by 15, you know better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Cant agree. There are exceptions to every rule....when I was 15, I knew I shouldnt kill people, no matter how many video games I played.

If a 15 year old kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills a 9 year old, his ass should never see the light of the sun as far as I am concerned. I dont give 2 shits whether he was sexually abused as a child, by 15, you know better.

---

Then by 15 you should be able to buy booze, vote, go to strip clubs, die in war, drive a car, work full time, and do everything else an adult is entitled to do since you are old enough to make your own informed decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Then by 15 you should be able to buy booze, go to strip clubs, die in war, drive a car, work full time, and do everything else an adult is entitled to do since you are old enough to make your own informed decisions.

---

I kind of knew thats where you were going to take the argument, and really, I cant argue against it because you make fair points.

But life isnt fair. You still sign up for selective services at 18 but you cant buy a drink at a bar.

Thats why they lowered the drinking age during Vietnam...the state and federal government couldnt justify the distinction to the masses.

Like I said though, I used the 15 year old kidnapper/rapist/murderer as an example.

Not an 8 year old. Never an 8 year old. I know, I know...the exceptions start to pile up, but I think by 13 (maybe 14) depending on the nature of the crime, you can determine whether they were clueless or ruthless.

I mean, age or not, those fuckers from Columbine should have had to go to prison for what they did.....for their entire lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Then by 15 you should be able to buy booze, vote, go to strip clubs, die in war, drive a car, work full time, and do everything else an adult is entitled to do since you are old enough to make your own informed decisions.

---

That was a lame argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I. Hustle

That was a lame argument.

---

How so? Either you are mature enough to make informed decisions for yourself, or you are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Then by 15 you should be able to buy booze, vote, go to strip clubs, die in war, drive a car, work full time, and do everything else an adult is entitled to do since you are old enough to make your own informed decisions.

---

Knew this was coming a mile away. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Knew this was coming a mile away. :lol

---

So if a child is perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions on his own, what's the point of any of the protections?

Whoever decided to pass a law that states that kids between the age of 8 and 13 can be tried as adults need to be shot too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

How so? Either you are mature enough to make informed decisions for yourself, or you are not.

---

Look he is obviously a kid and his brain is not fully developed. That much we know and I am not arguing that he has the mental capacity of an adult. I still think he should be tried as an adult if AFTER evaluation tests show that this is something that he would be capable of doing again. I know it sucks and he is just a kid but some people are born without that little thing in your brain that says “Hey don’t kill! Killing is bad”.

If he is tried as an adult then evidence should be presented as to why this was done. Whether if he did it because he is a psycho ( which I doubt) or if it’s because he was being molested (which I think happened) by these guys.
I am not saying lock him up and throw away the key. I am just saying that he needs to be properly evaluated and by going to a trial people would work that much harder to dig into the case because of his age. An adult might get sentenced right away where as a child being tried as an adult might get people really looking into the case and trying to figure out what would push a child to commit these acts.

I don't have any problems charging a kid as an adult for a serious crime. Some damn well deserve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I don't have any problems charging a kid as an adult for a serious crime. Some damn well deserve it.

---

Right some do.

Here is the thing though. Just because someone is charged with a crime does not mean that they are going to get locked up or sentenced. He is just being charged so far and not sentenced.

"The boy's lawyers said they plan to file a motion to request experts to help with the investigation and will ask for access to the crime scene."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It's fucking ridiculous to try anyone under 18 as an adult.

---

Bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It's fucking ridiculous to try anyone under 18 as an adult.

---

I always thought it was rather ironic that our government would use an obvious lack of judgment as an excuse to designate someone an adult. It never made sense to me.

It is pretty clear someone is either a child or an adult. It makes no sense to say someone is old enough to think for himself with regard to punishment while saying he's incapable of understanding everything that comes with the rights granted to an adult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It is pretty clear someone is either a child or an adult. It makes no sense to say someone is old enough to think for himself with regard to punishment while saying he's incapable of understanding everything that comes with the rights granted to an adult.

---

It does make sense. Being tried as an adult means he gets the longer sentencing as opposed to being released at a certain age. In your eyes a child that has homicidal tendencies and can kill at the drop of a dime should be released after he turns 18 just because of his age?
I am not saying that this is the case with this child but depending on his mind state he might need to remain in custody for a very long time and more than likely all that means is hospitalization and psychotherapy for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Whoever decided to pass a law that states that kids between the age of 8 and 13 can be tried as adults need to be shot too.

---

Yes, by a 7 year old to ensure they are not charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I. Hustle

It does make sense. Being tried as an adult means he gets the longer sentencing as opposed to being released at a certain age. In your eyes a child that has homicidal tendencies and can kill at the drop of a dime should be released after he turns 18 just because of his age?
I am not saying that this is the case with this child but depending on his mind state he might need to remain in custody for a very long time and more than likely all that means is hospitalization and psychotherapy for him.

---

Then why have an adult child designation to begin with? It doesn't make any sense because the designation is in place because children inherently are not adult do not display the same judgement as adults and are not held to the same starndards adults are held to.

An incident where a child may or may not have committed a crime does not show that such a child is capable of making decisions on the level of an adult so why are they in turn are they stripped of protections that are there for that very reason? It makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I always thought it was rather ironic that our government would use an obvious lack of judgment as an excuse to designate someone an adult. It never made sense to me.

---

Not all acts are an "obvious lack of judgement", IMO. Some kids, granted not 8, but 14 and up know damn well what they are doing is wrong and therefore not a lack of judgement but an intentional act of harm.

An intentional act of harm is a lack of judgement.

If you're saying that kids are ok to be tried at 14 for murder, then you should also, I feel, think that they are perfectly capable of joining the military at such an age too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

An intentional act of harm is a lack of judgement.

---

Columbine? Were those just kids with bad judgement, or homicidal maniacs who planned and executed other students while in school?

The point is, there are exceptions. An 8 year old is NOT the exception, so dont think I am arguing on behalf of convicting an 8 year old as an adult.

But 13? 14? 15? Kidnap/rape/torture/murder?

No, their age IMO does not excuse their intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Then why have an adult child designation to begin with? It doesn't make any sense because the designation is in place because children inherently are not adult do not display the same judgement as adults and are not held to the same starndards adults are held to.

An incident where a child may or may not have committed a crime does not show that such a child is capable of making decisions on the level of an adult so why are they in turn are they stripped of protections that are there for that very reason? It makes no sense.

---

Are you guys just choosing to read part of my posts and ignoring the rest? My main point is that along with the investigation this child needs to be evaluated. This kid COULD suffer from some type of mental illness and need to be institutionalized or he could have just been tired of being abused. Being tried as an adult doesn't mean that he is going to be thrown in the state penitentiary.
Y'all are letting his age blind you. You are either saying no no no he just a baby and they should let him be free or he killed people and needs to fry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

If you're saying that kids are ok to be tried at 14 for murder, then you should also, I feel, think that they are perfectly capable of joining the military at such an age too.

---

Disagree. Couldnt disgaree more.

Mental illness maybe. Definately should be evaluated. Tried as an adult...no way no matter how fucked up he is he's still only 8.

Knowing right from wrong still wouldn't convince me that he was developed enough to make rational decisions.

I tell my 3 year old.

You know not to hit your sister right? You know its wrong.

Yes dad I know its wrong to do it.

Just because he knows right from wrong doesn't mean he's mentally developed enough to execute proper decision making. I can see where some teens who perform premeditated acts of violence might be tried as adults but 8 is just absurd. This world is fucking out of control. Prison time for porn and 8 year olds being tried as adults. Fucking sad the state of affairs we live in.

It's those damn video games....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath Ledger

It's those damn video games....

---

:lmao I've been playing Gears of War and the boy plops down next to me every night.

Shoot them dad Shoot the monsters.

My wife is like "uh should he be watching that" :as I'm chainsawing through a bad guy:

yeah probably not but I can promise you I'm not turning it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

An intentional act of harm is a lack of judgement.

---

An intentional lack of judgment which shows a disregard for the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BacktoBasics

Mental illness maybe. Definately should be evaluated. Tried as an adult...no way no matter how fucked up he is he's still only 8.

Knowing right from wrong still wouldn't convince me that he was developed enough to make rational decisions.

I tell my 3 year old.

You know not to hit your sister right? You know its wrong.

Yes dad I know its wrong to do it.

Just because he knows right from wrong doesn't mean he's mentally developed enough to execute proper decision making. I can see where some teens who perform premeditated acts of violence might be tried as adults but 8 is just absurd. This world is fucking out of control. Prison time for porn and 8 year olds being tried as adults. Fucking sad the state of affairs we live in.

---

Well hell, then who is to say that any age is mentally developed enough to execute proper decision making? If that were the case we'd have no crime at all because as adults, we should all be developed enough to make proper decision making and that is simply not the case.

ANY time one commits a crime you can say it was "A lack of judgment".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

ANY time one commits a crime you can say it was "A lack of judgment".

---

No shit? Thats my point Joe. Why should such an act be a sign that someone has the judgment capabilities of an adult?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Well hell, then who is to say that any age is mentally developed enough to execute proper decision making? If that were the case we'd have no crime at all because as adults, we should all be developed enough to make proper decision making and that is simply not the case.

---

Oh I don't know, the people who study human development maybe? We have legal ages set already, 18 and 21. Why not stick to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I. Hustle

Are you guys just choosing to read part of my posts and ignoring the rest? My main point is that along with the investigation this child needs to be evaluated. This kid COULD suffer from some type of mental illness and need to be institutionalized or he could have just been tired of being abused. Being tried as an adult doesn't mean that he is going to be thrown in the state penitentiary.
Y'all are letting his age blind you. You are either saying no no no he just a baby and they should let him be free or he killed people and needs to fry.

---

Ok? I don't know what I ever said that was contradictory to the child being evaluated. There just is simply no circumstance under which an 8 year old child should fit any legal definition of adulthood whether he has a mental illness or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Columbine? Were those just kids with bad judgement, or homicidal maniacs who planned and executed other students while in school?

The point is, there are exceptions. An 8 year old is NOT the exception, so dont think I am arguing on behalf of convicting an 8 year old as an adult.

But 13? 14? 15? Kidnap/rape/torture/murder?

No, their age IMO does not excuse their intent.

---

I don't get where trying someone as a child because they are not an adult yet is excusing their intent. You do understand that trying children as adults is put into place in order to achieve stronger penalties and does not mean they get to run free.

It makes absolutely no sense to have a set of protections for children in legal cases and then remove them when there is public or political pressure to do so.

Those of you in favor of trying children as adults, can you explain to me the justification for not trying everyone as an adult? Why is there a system in place to view children differently than adults?

Joe

biology and science have told us that a normal adult reaches functioning adulthood around the age of 18. Some obviously mature at different rates but a normal human develops enough to rationally and logically determine right from wrong in the mid teen years. Although humans learn basic right from wrong at an early age the brain is typically not developed enough to function at a full adult capacity. That capacity develops around the mid teen years.

How or why they determine legality at 18 probably has more to do with people being more functional post HS than anything. Which happens around 18. That isn't an exact biological science but more of a product of society. This is why they sometimes try 14,15,17 year olds like adults. They attempt and I say attempt to determine how physically and biologically the teen has developed which helps determine how responsible they should be for their actions. A lot of it boils down to the crime being premeditated. Which shows the ability to plan and execute actions while full well knowing the consequences. That development is said to reach its maturity in the mid teen years. Usually before the body reaches the age of 18.

Actually for men you really don't finish until around 25. Women happen a bit earlier but they're closer to 20-22.

I'm too lazy to find links right now, but yeah.

I also got the impression that the police wanted to try him as an adult in order to get a more lenient sentence, perhaps self defense statutes are more protective in Arizona for adults? Hmmm..i'll do some research

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Disagree. Couldnt disgaree more.

---

Why? What makes the decision to kill someone different from the decision to join the military? Why does one take more maturity than the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan

I also got the impression that the police wanted to try him as an adult in order to get a more lenient sentence, perhaps self defense statutes are more protective in Arizona for adults? Hmmm..i'll do some research

---

I've heard this mentioned a few times and it could very well be the case of the police actually trying to look out for the child and I leave that possibility open but I do feel it is less likely than some overzealous DA trying to make a name for himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Those of you in favor of trying children as adults, can you explain to me the justification for not trying everyone as an adult? Why is there a system in place to view children differently than adults?

---

The only explanation I can see to certify this kid is to carry out a sentence that goes past his 18th birthday.

Arizona's laws with regard to juvenile crime appear to be different from Texas. In Texas, we have a determinate sentencing option for juveniles that allows a judge to sentence an offender to a sentence that extends beyond the offender's 18th birthday. The first part of the sentence is carried out in a Texas Youth Commission facility and then, after the juvenile's 18th birthday, the offender is transferred to a Texas Department of Corrections facility. For example, at age 16 you could get a 20 year sentence (I think the max is 40 for capital cases and some first degree felonies) and spend your first 2 or 3 years in TYC and then get transferred to TDC for the remainder. That's not to say that the above is how the case would be handled here in Texas. The "juvenile justice" section of the Texas Family Code does not apply to juveniles under the age of ten.

There does not appear to be a similar determinate sentencing option in Arizona. Basically, unless you get certified as an adult (for which you have to be at least 14 years old), you are going to be released from detention, prison, probation, etc. on your 18th birthday.

I have to wonder what options they are considering in Arizona, other than prolonged detention, that are only available to this kid if he is certified as an adult. Options such as a mental health evaluation, placement in a treatment facility, counseling, psychiatric care, detention, etc. are all available and quite common in the juvenile system.

Interesting case.

Actually, I have a huge problem with our juvenile justice system. In my opinion, many of our courts are overzealous when it comes to juveniles. I know that the probation officers, prosecutors, and judges mean well and feel as if they are teaching a juvenile a lesson by being strict, but when kids are getting tagged as felons for tagging, the system is indeed overzealous.

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold kids responsible for their actions and I'm not saying that serious offenses don't warrant intervention and punishment from the state. My concern is that we are bringing kids into the criminal justice system for things that were previously handled within the home or within the school. I worry about the effect of getting so many kids into the system at such young ages.

Fighting at school is a good example. When I was growing up, if you got into a fight at school, you got detention (at school, not at a juvenile facility) or maybe, suspension. Now, thirteen year-old kids are taken into police custody and end up in court. As a result of their dispositions in court, many of the kids will end up on probation, with a probation officer checking in on them every so often. All of this for a fight at school.

The other problem that I have with the juvenile system is that in many of the cases that I see, it is the parents that should receive punishment, and not the kid. I've seen parents who know their kid is smoking marijuana is his room and yet, the parents do nothing. I've seen kids in court for violations of conditions of probation (curfew is a common one) and it was the parents that allowed the juvenile to violate the condition. Who gets punished? Not the parent who allowed Timmy to walk the streets at 11:00 pm with his friends. It's Timmy, for not being able to refrain from doing something his parents said was OK.

People people people I think we have strayed too far from the most important question. This question is not his age or mental capacity. The question is... what race is he?


I said it.

It seems that there is nearly universal agreement that a child at SOME age has less ability to comprehend their actions than one of SOME older age. It also serves to reason that this development is linear and continuous rather than suddenly not existing and then suddenly existing at the turn of a calendar. Yes?

Then why not have an age set (let us say age 12 for the purpose of an argument), and at that point a percentage of the adult min/max sentences/penalties can be applied. Perhaps at 12, a maximum of 25% of the adult sentence is used. Death Penalty is off the table for the sake of the argument. Then, using a simple ratio calculation, have the percentage increase until it becomes 100% at age 18.

This solves the question of the arbitrary nature of child/adult sentences. The only remaining question is what age to begin applying the percentage, and what percentage to begin at. Of course, if the Juvenile sentence would exceed the percentage, then the local jurisdiction would have the right to choose an adult or juvenile charge.

Psychological evaluations will still be performed on the minor defendants, but then again they are performed on adults as well.

The whole concept of trying someone for their crime has two different meanings. One is to get justice for the alleged victims and victims' families, one is to punish the person who has committed a wrong.

Under the latter model, there is no reason why an 8 year old should not be punished for a crime, just like an adult.

But the prison system fails miserably when it is viewed as simply a punishment model.
Unfortunately this is how it is viewed much of the time. If you view it through a rehabilitation model, then you have to base your decision about who to try and what standards to try them under in terms of their capacity to understand their crime. This includes their age, but also their IQ, their sanity, etc.

Under a punishment model, all we do is put innocent men, remorseless guilty men, and remorseful guilty men in together, and force them to live together until we tell them they can leave, or tell them they'll never leave. Or we kill them. And all this does is create violent living conditions inside, often replicating the violent conditions they've come from on the outside.

If a 14 yr old intentionally kills an innocent person they should have their life taken in return.

An 8 yr old mishandling a gun they found, I can understand that. A 14 yr old killing some old lady? Fry him.

In response to SuperGirl, I would like to argue that my primary source of interest in the "justice" system is neither of the options, but simply the protection of others in society. Some level of punishment works as a deterrent, thus protecting those in society from a higher level of crime. However, above a level that empirically works as a deterrent, our primary motivation should be rehabilitation (as you said), but in no way should the motivation be justice or revenge, because I think it is very hard to separate the two in most people's minds.

Given all we've learned about how the human mind is not completely developed until the early 20's in males, it's irresponsible for the DA's to keep pushing to try children as adults.

There are terrible people in the world. Sometimes they do terrible things. There needs to be accountability. No one questions this. But to take someone who has only lived 8 years on this earth and put them through a criminal proceeding the same way you would an adult is a pathetic comment on the state of our justice system.

At some point, this country is going to have to come to terms with the fact that we're criminalizing today's youth and sending them the message that laws don't matter because you're always wrong and there are no second chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

Given all we've learned about how the human mind is not completely developed until the early 20's in males, it's irresponsible for the DA's to keep pushing to try children as adults.

There are terrible people in the world. Sometimes they do terrible things. There needs to be accountability. No one questions this. But to take someone who has only lived 8 years on this earth and put them through a criminal proceeding the same way you would an adult is a pathetic comment on the state of our justice system.

At some point, this country is going to have to come to terms with the fact that we're criminalizing today's youth and sending them the message that laws don't matter because you're always wrong and there are no second chances.

---

I completely agree.....but DAs want to appear though on crime, it's what gets them elected and re-elected to State and Federal judiciaries, but it is a sad, sad perversion of our criminal justice system...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

It seems that there is nearly universal agreement that a child at SOME age has less ability to comprehend their actions than one of SOME older age. It also serves to reason that this development is linear and continuous rather than suddenly not existing and then suddenly existing at the turn of a calendar. Yes?

Then why not have an age set (let us say age 12 for the purpose of an argument), and at that point a percentage of the adult min/max sentences/penalties can be applied. Perhaps at 12, a maximum of 25% of the adult sentence is used. Death Penalty is off the table for the sake of the argument. Then, using a simple ratio calculation, have the percentage increase until it becomes 100% at age 18.

This solves the question of the arbitrary nature of child/adult sentences. The only remaining question is what age to begin applying the percentage, and what percentage to begin at. Of course, if the Juvenile sentence would exceed the percentage, then the local jurisdiction would have the right to choose an adult or juvenile charge.

Psychological evaluations will still be performed on the minor defendants, but then again they are performed on adults as well.

---

Again, there's already a mechanism like that here in Texas. For certain felonies, a juvenile can be sentenced to a "determinate" sentence that can go beyond his 18th birthday. That maximum sentence is capped at 10 years for third-degree felonies, on up to 40 years for some first degree felonies and capital offenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

Given all we've learned about how the human mind is not completely developed until the early 20's in males, it's irresponsible for the DA's to keep pushing to try children as adults.

There are terrible people in the world. Sometimes they do terrible things. There needs to be accountability. No one questions this. But to take someone who has only lived 8 years on this earth and put them through a criminal proceeding the same way you would an adult is a pathetic comment on the state of our justice system.

At some point, this country is going to have to come to terms with the fact that we're criminalizing today's youth and sending them the message that laws don't matter because you're always wrong and there are no second chances.

---

I understand your argument...for an 8 year old. An 8 year old should not be charged as an adult under any circumstances whatsoever.

I hate to keep harping on this, but the plain truth of it is, teenagers can be the most brutal, psychopathic members of society under the right conditions.

Consider this: the kids from Columbine did not ultimately commit suicide, but were apprehended by the authorities.

How should they be charged? One of the most brutal, premeditated attacks on civilians in American history.

Should they be protected as minors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

I understand your argument...for an 8 year old. An 8 year old should not be charged as an adult under any circumstances whatsoever.

I hate to keep harping on this, but the plain truth of it is, teenagers can be the most brutal, psychopathic members of society under the right conditions.

Consider this: the kids from Columbine did not ultimately commit suicide, but were apprehended by the authorities.

How should they be charged? One of the most brutal, premeditated attacks on civilians in American history.

Should they be protected as minors?

---

If the law on the books says under 18, then yes. Maybe we can change the sentencing structure for certain crimes children commit. But trying them as an adult defeats the very purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I don't get where trying someone as a child because they are not an adult yet is excusing their intent. You do understand that trying children as adults is put into place in order to achieve stronger penalties and does not mean they get to run free.

---

Right. You said "trying children as adults is put into place in order to achieve stronger penalties and does not mean they get to run free." Exactly. Some crimes are so horrific and brutal, just because youre under 18 (but not 8 years old, thats just cruel) doesnt excuse you from the full brunt of the law.

Yes, you are not old enough to be drafted or vote or buy alcohol. But you are damn well old enough to know you cant commit murder. Obviously, if the child was/is abused, has mental health issues, etc...those things should be considered when attempting to try them as an adult.

But if you are a clean, sane, unabused teenager who commits the most serious of crimes this land has, I have no sympathy.

Being a minor, in my eyes of the law, excuses you from petty crimes, even felony theft. Not murder. Thats very basic human/societal instinct that killing another human is the highest crime. The highest.

Again, were they abused? Are they sane? Do they have mental health issues? Are they retarded (seriously)? There are a number of factors that have to be weighed in those cases.

But I'll use myself as a 13 year old. Unabused, sane and being undiagnosed retarded, I was hunting and killing deer every year since I was seven (I was out with my family since seven, I should say). I knew how to breakdown, clean, reassemble, load and fire all of my family's guns.

If I go on the nut at school, or even premeditate to kill my family for whatever reason, I should be tried as a minor? I knew what I was doing, I knew what death was, Ive seen the pain and agony of a kicking, muling deer thats been hit in the spine, I knew all the bloody details of what happens on the business end of a firearm.

I would have no excuse, IMO, in the eyes of the law. Hell, I'd say I was worse because I was sane and that I did have the knowledge of what actual killing looks like. Farm boys can probably agree as well, when you have to slaughter chickens and cows. Its a horrible business that no video game can quite relate.

No excuses. None. Not IMO anyway.

Quote:

---

It makes absolutely no sense to have a set of protections for children in legal cases and then remove them when there is public or political pressure to do so.

---

Yes it does. For petty crime or even felony crime (theft, sexual assault, etc). Thats where you can use the minor argument.

1st degree murder (depending on the circumstances I have named before) is no exception, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

If the law on the books says under 18, then yes. Maybe we can change the sentencing structure for certain crimes children commit. But trying them as an adult defeats the very purpose.

---

That protection, IMO, is reserved for crime of something less than 1st degree murder.

Even rape and sexual assault, you could protect them as aminor in the eyes of the law.

But 1st degree murder? No, not in my opinion (again, unless some of the conditions I have mentioned before are met...I will continue to repeat this so that there is no misunderstanding).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

That protection, IMO, is reserved for crime of something less than 1st degree murder.

Even rape and sexual assault, you could protect them as aminor in the eyes of the law.

But 1st degree murder? No, not in my opinion (again, unless some of the conditions I have mentioned before are met...I will continue to repeat this so that there is no misunderstanding).

---

What do you base a separation on to begin with DR? What qualifies a child for different treatment under other acts but not 1st degree murder?

Still? OK have we determined the race?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

That protection, IMO, is reserved for crime of something less than 1st degree murder.

Even rape and sexual assault, you could protect them as aminor in the eyes of the law.

But 1st degree murder? No, not in my opinion (again, unless some of the conditions I have mentioned before are met...I will continue to repeat this so that there is no misunderstanding).

---

Hence why I said changing the sentencing structure to allow for specific crimes without trying them specifically as an adult. That just goes against the grain of the law. Better to state that, at a certain age, a child can be held to one or two particular crimes.

A question though: why would you allow rape to go through and not murder? Loss of life? To me, rape is a far more heinous crime. A murder can occur within seconds, in the heat of the moment. A rape is a continuous action against an unwilling participant.. It would seem to me that, if anything, they are both just as horrible. The child who rapes surely has as much maturity/knowledge as the child who commits homicide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

What do you base a separation on to begin with DR? What qualifies a child for different treatment under other acts but not 1st degree murder?

---

Because murder is murder. You dont have to be an adult to know killing another human being is wrong (again, with none of the circumstances).

At 13 you know better. You know damn well that killing people is bad. Ever watch a scary movie as a child? All those people so afraid of being killed by Jason/Freddy/whothefuckever?

Its very very basic. Kill = Death. Not assault, not rape or sexual interaction. Those are very gray areas for undeveloped mind. But murder? Death? Finality?

Ive known that since my memory started, when I used to hide under the sheets at night because the boogey man would kill me. Its basic, its simple, and outside the conditions mentioned before, 1st degree murder is 1st degree murder.

Again, not for an eight year old. Not even a 10 year old.

While I very much believe an 8 eight year old and a 10 year old know its wrong or whatever, I just cant see convicting a child of murder as an adult.

But 13? 14 and up? Hell yes. I am not talking about 2nd degree or manslaughter. I am talking about predemitated murder. They planned, they schemed and then they executed. You are a sick twisted little sonofabitch who probably damn-well knew he/she could probably get away with it because he/she is a minor.

I dont get how people dont see that. Teenagers are not nearly as dumb as people think they are, they just know they can fuck up because theyre teenagers.

Look, I played a lot of video games as a kid. From Atari on. I was playing some violent shit at a very young age (wolfenstein at 12). I was hunting. I knew firearms and how to use them. But I never once considered killing someone for any reason, even though I had the means and know how.

Being a minor is not an excuse for first degree murder for kids 13+, IMO.

Its that simple for me. I remember who and what I was when I was 12 and 13. I have videos and pictures and so on that I just recently watched (actually). I wasnt stupid or naive, I wasnt violent or weird. I certainly didnt act or sound like someone who didnt know, that oh yeah, plotting to kill another human being is OK and the worse that happens is I get grounded.

No excuses, Im sorry. Do they have access to television? Do they watch movies that involve Law Enforcement of any kind? Do they have normal, non-abusive parents?

I mean, there are just too many sources of influential information (internet, TV, radio, newspapers, parents, teachers, neighbors, friends, etc) that would have clued you to the fact that murder is wrong looooong before you ever come close to 13 years old.

Its just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Hence why I said changing the sentencing structure to allow for specific crimes without trying them specifically as an adult. That just goes against the grain of the law. Better to state that, at a certain age, a child can be held to one or two particular crimes.

---

Ahhh, good call. My opinion dont mean shit, but that is something I would definitely agree to. I have only held this "try a kid as an adult" under the 1st degree murder blanket.

Ive never asked to extend it.

Quote:

---

A question though: why would you allow rape to go through and not murder? Loss of life?

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

To me, rape is a far more heinous crime. A murder can occur within seconds, in the heat of the moment. A rape is a continuous action against an unwilling participant.. It would seem to me that, if anything, they are both just as horrible. The child who rapes surely has as much maturity/knowledge as the child who commits homicide?

---

Well then, youre probably a person who thinks rapists should be executed (by the state), which is another thread all together and something I vehemently disagree with.

Now, if the victim of the crime murdered the offender or even one of the victim's family members killed the offender, I dont have a problem with that. Although, that person will be charged with a crime (Im not sure which one though, Im no lawyer).

But the state should not execute rapists (unless they murder at least once) for two reasons:

1) Theyre rapists, not murderers.
2) You set a bad precedent when the law allows execution for crimes outside treason and murder.

DR no one is ever talking about excusing anything. Obviously there needs to be action taken and I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I don't believe anyone here has said that the child is normal and that we should go about as though none of this has ever happened so what is the point behind you implying anyone here is excusing this simply because they have a different perspective on how the governments reaction should be carried out.

I have issue with the notion that this is a simply matter and that he should simply "know better". What exactly does that encompass and why should he know better on murder and not other crimes? What delineates that distinction? I'm not trying to do anything here other than to get to the core reasoning behind your opinio, btw. I say that just in case it comes off as though I am attacking you which is not the case. I am simply questioning your logic and trying to understand it.

I think most people will agree that any normal human in our society should understand that killing another person is wrong. I don't see that as the end all be all of these situations, however. My main reasoning is because humanity as a whole does not avoid certain actions because they are wrong, but rather because of the repercussions and i don't think a 13 or 14 year old is capable of understanding the ramifications of their actions until much later in life and I believe that most scientists who study human behavior and development would agree with both of these assertions.

I do not advocate that children not be held accountable of their actions, but I think our society recognizes that a child is NOT the same as an adult and because of that has them treated differently by the criminal justice system in the vast majority of circumstances. That then begs the question why do we do this? Why do we hold children on a separate plane than a normal fully developed human? Why do we not allow children to drive until a certain age and why do we not allow them to own weapons or make their own decisions until a certain age? The answer of course is because we understand that children are not capable of making the same decisions as an adult is.

So, given that, why is it that when a child makes a decision that almost everyone would universally decry as a poor decision are they suddenly elevated to a stature that says they are capable of making sound decisions? Its fundamentally at odds with itself and it makes absolutely no sense when viewed in the context of what the delineation between a child and an adult in the criminal justice system is meant to represent.

its not about excusing anything, its about allowing children the protections they are entitled to under the law. We do not strip people of their rights simply because the level of the crime repulses society so why are we doing this to children?

This brings up a person who popped into my head yesterday. He was 14 years old when he, along with two other friends (one 18, one 17), raped and stabbed a 13-year-old girl to death in 1994.

I knew the 14-year-old well (we used to play football and basketball together for a couple of years at the same apartment complex growing up). He (Jesus Ogden) fully understood the consequences of his actions. Some months before the murder, he and I drifted apart as he became more of a baby banger, so I know he understood the differences between right and wrong, as well as the mental capacity to make rational decisions.

He was charged as a juvenile and sentenced to 40 years in prison, IIRC. When he turned 18, he was transferred from TYC to TDCJ, as far as I know (I can't get the TDCJ Web site to work).

The story for some background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by San Antonio Express-News

Teen sentenced to 40 years in raped girl's death
San Antonio Express-News - Thursday, April 13, 1995
James Coburn / Express-News Staff Writer

Fifteen-year-old Jesus Ogden was given the maximum sentence Wednesday of 40 years for capital murder of a 13-year-old girl who was raped and stabbed to death by suspected gang members.

The jury of eight women and four men returned the verdict after deliberating for 2-1/2 hours, following a daylong sentencing hearing before 289th District Court Judge Carmen Kelsey in the Bexar County Juvenile Justice Center at 600 Mission Road.

The same jury deliberated eight hours before finding the San Antonio youth guilty Tuesday night after a trial that began March 28 in the slaying of Khrisha Ryder of the 12900 block of La Quinta Street.

Two others charged with capital murder of the girl, whose body was found Sept. 3 in a brushy area near Ingram Park Mall, are awaiting trial as adults.

They are Luis Manuel Flores, 18, and Robert Martinez, 17, both of the 2400 block of Oak Hill Drive, being held on $500,000 bond each.

The slain girl's father, Jeff Ryder, urged youths to resist gangs in a Sept. 14 San Antonio Express-News article.

"Stay away from gangs," he said. "Just don't get involved with it, and you probably won't get hurt."

He said his daughter had good grades at Wood Middle School but had developed a fascination with gang symbols and terminology.

Assistant District Attorney Bert Richardson, who prosecuted Ogden, said 40 years is the maximum sentence for a juvenile under the Determinate Sentencing Act.

Richardson said Ogden, who was 14 at the time, confessed to stabbing Ryder twice.

He said Ogden would remain in Texas Youth Commission facilities until just before he's 18, when he will be brought before a judge for a hearing.

According to the act, Richardson said the judge has three sentencing options in that hearing: Release the youth; send the youth back to TYC facilities until age 21, at which time he or she is released; or send the youth to adult prison to serve the remainder of the sentence, which then is subject to reduction for good behavior.

Richardson said Ogden denied raping the girl, but said he had consensual sex with her earlier at another location.

The prosecutor said he was pleased the jury gave Ogden the maximum sentence.

"It's a very vicious crime. I wished it could have been more. I don't think 40 years is enough for capital murder," the prosecutor said.

Richardson said there was testimony Ryder was stabbed to death after she threatened to file rape charges when an older youth raped her.

Richardson claimed the older youth also stabbed her twice.

According to police, Ryder was taken to where a drainage tunnel opens into a ditch behind the 2700 block of War Arrow Street and raped about 1 a.m. Aug. 31.

A detective said the murder scene was found Sept. 9, based on statements given the previous night.

---

Here is the bottom line for me, and I understand that most people will not agree with me. There are only two options regarding crime (as I see it).

1. For the majority of people in the world who believe 100% in deities, good and evil is their catch-all. Someone who does something wrong is under the influence of the devil's forces, or whatever name the devil has in their minds, and that evil deserves punishment.

2. Then there are people like me who do not believe in a God 100%, if we believe at all. And for us, the good and evil cop out doesn't hold. We can't just accept that the devil made someone do it. If you hold this position, then we are not spirits of good and evil, we are just living beings made of meat. And everything from the beat of a heart to innerspace psychology all comes down to meat. If someone is acting abnormal, then the meat has encountered problems. This become extremely problematic in cases of children where the meat isn't done cooking.

Society demands personal responsibility and accountability. But we're not ancient man anymore. Medical science and modern psychology have given us knowledge we can't take back. It might go against our instincts to examine deeper causes when someone commits heinous acts, but it's our burden of responsibility in the name of justice. Right now, science has given us just enough to question and not enough to fix or fully understand. I suspect these things will be much easier for future generations who'll have superior knowledge and discovery, but we can't just put everything off until then.

Our penal system is set up to punish and not to rehabilitate. For some people there is no rehabilitating -- they are just broken and don't belong in modern society. And while such individuals can be identified by their adult actions, I just don't believe we know enough to say the same in children and young adults.

Those kids from Columbine? Yes, they should have been observed, institutionalized, evaluated (well beyond their 18th birthday, imho). But they should not have been held to the same standards under penalty of law that adults face. As we get closer to understanding brain development, I think there is going to be a need for a third tier of law: child, adult, and X. I agree that childish acts of innocence, impulse and non-understanding are not the same as two teenagers strapping on automatic weapons to go pull a Jeremy. But those two, as much as they anger and repulse us, are not adults, either.

I believe that violence and cruelty is based on abnormality and sickness. I've had to come to that conclusion because I don't believe in good and evil. Look at the advancements we've made regarding schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression and how once those behaviors were thought to be exhibitions of evil spirits, etc. Until we can identify and control/cure broken people, I understand we have to what is best for society and separate them from others they could harm. But I struggle with my conscious when we talk about punishing someone for things they may well not be able to control.

But, seriously, even had the child committed the most repugnant acts I can think of, an 8 year-old is not up for debate. 8 is not a teenager. 8 is not an adult. And the ADA trying the case as well as the DA that signed off on it should both be held accountable for such a gross misapplication of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

I believe that violence and cruelty is based on abnormality and sickness. I've had to come to that conclusion because I don't believe in good and evil. Look at the advancements we've made regarding schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression and how once those behaviors were thought to be exhibitions of evil spirits, etc. Until we can identify and control/cure broken people, I understand we have to what is best for society and separate them from others they could harm. But I struggle with my conscious when we talk about punishing someone for things they may well not be able to control.

But, seriously, even had the child committed the most repugnant acts I can think of, an 8 year-old is not up for debate. 8 is not a teenager. 8 is not an adult. And the ADA trying the case as well as the DA that signed off on it should both be held accountable for such a gross misapplication of the law.

---

:rollin You should have just said this part. The rest was just retarded and you tried to hard to pretend to be smart. I saw right through it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I. Hustle

:rollin You should have just said this part. The rest was just retarded and you tried to hard to pretend to be smart. I saw right through it.

---

You saw right through the reasoning I openly presented to explain a personal point of view? WTG, Kreskin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

You saw right through the reasoning I openly presented to explain a personal point of view? WTG, Kreskin.

---

:lol @ your hurt feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I. Hustle

:lol @ your hurt feelings.

---

:[email protected] your :jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

:[email protected] your :jack

---

Don't watch





I just thought it was funny how you tried to twist it into a religious ordeal.
What was the point of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

Here is the bottom line for me, and I understand that most people will not agree with me. There are only two options regarding crime (as I see it).

1. For the majority of people in the world who believe 100% in deities, good and evil is their catch-all. Someone who does something wrong is under the influence of the devil's forces, or whatever name the devil has in their minds, and that evil deserves punishment.

2. Then there are people like me who do not believe in a God 100%, if we believe at all. And for us, the good and evil cop out doesn't hold. We can't just accept that the devil made someone do it. If you hold this position, then we are not spirits of good and evil, we are just living beings made of meat. And everything from the beat of a heart to innerspace psychology all comes down to meat. If someone is acting abnormal, then the meat has encountered problems. This become extremely problematic in cases of children where the meat isn't done cooking.

Society demands personal responsibility and accountability. But we're not ancient man anymore. Medical science and modern psychology have given us knowledge we can't take back. It might go against our instincts to examine deeper causes when someone commits heinous acts, but it's our burden of responsibility in the name of justice. Right now, science has given us just enough to question and not enough to fix or fully understand. I suspect these things will be much easier for future generations who'll have superior knowledge and discovery, but we can't just put everything off until then.

Our penal system is set up to punish and not to rehabilitate. For some people there is no rehabilitating -- they are just broken and don't belong in modern society. And while such individuals can be identified by their adult actions, I just don't believe we know enough to say the same in children and young adults.

Those kids from Columbine? Yes, they should have been observed, institutionalized, evaluated (well beyond their 18th birthday, imho). But they should not have been held to the same standards under penalty of law that adults face. As we get closer to understanding brain development, I think there is going to be a need for a third tier of law: child, adult, and X. I agree that childish acts of innocence, impulse and non-understanding are not the same as two teenagers strapping on automatic weapons to go pull a Jeremy. But those two, as much as they anger and repulse us, are not adults, either.

I believe that violence and cruelty is based on abnormality and sickness. I've had to come to that conclusion because I don't believe in good and evil. Look at the advancements we've made regarding schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression and how once those behaviors were thought to be exhibitions of evil spirits, etc. Until we can identify and control/cure broken people, I understand we have to what is best for society and separate them from others they could harm. But I struggle with my conscious when we talk about punishing someone for things they may well not be able to control.

But, seriously, even had the child committed the most repugnant acts I can think of, an 8 year-old is not up for debate. 8 is not a teenager. 8 is not an adult. And the ADA trying the case as well as the DA that signed off on it should both be held accountable for such a gross misapplication of the law.

---

Good lord - I hope you never run for public officer or service. Please stay in retail or fast food. you say we are teaching kids there are no 2nd chances? Our politically correct - PROGRESSIVE society is ALL about 2nd chances. "Don't use red to correct papers" - this whole concept for "effort based grading " - Don't say "that's gay" when you think something is bad... "everyone gets a trophy" " we are all winners" man this whole politically correct -- coddling of our youth is making us the weakest nation on the planet. I can see you are one of those who want to label everything. ADHD ..etc.. Medication... Find out why Colombine happened... I mean there had to be a reason - maybe his daddy was mean to him -- or mommy didn't breastfeed him. Who cares? We all have challenges - obstacles - srappy experiences. You still know what is right and what is wrong ( well maybe you don't) Unfreaking believable - Socialism -- the nanny staters. Just WOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I. Hustle

I just thought it was funny how you tried to twist it into a religious ordeal. What was the point of that?

---

Because religion has bearing. Good/evil are legitimate reasons for those who believe in God. For the rest of us, we don't get that rug to sweep the uncomfortable things under. I grew up thinking "some people are just evil." But, as I gained adulthood I realized I don't believe in "evil." So I had to ask the deeper question - if there's no "good" or "evil," then why do some people do bad things?

If you can see right through me you shouldn't need to ask such questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by implacable44

:soapbox:

---

Don't you ever get tired of putting words into other people's mouths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

Don't you ever get tired of putting words into other people's mouths?

---

I didn't put any words in your mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by implacable44

I didn't put any words in your mouth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by implacable44

I can see you are one of those who want to label everything. ADHD ..etc.. Medication..

---

Quote:

---

"An 8-year-old Arizona boy charged with premeditated murder in the deaths of his father and another man shot each victim at least four times with a .22-caliber rifle, methodically stopping and reloading as he killed them execution style, prosecutors said Monday."


"Prosecutors said the murder weapon was a single-action .22-caliber hunting rifle that requires reloading before each shot. “He had to eject the shell from the rifle and put in a new shell each time he fired,” Mr. Carlyon said."

---

NY Times

Geez.....the kid probably watched too many MAX Hardcore videos

Quote:

---

"On the "Today" show, Melnick said there were no indications the boy had been in trouble before.

"There's no record of any problems in school, no reported abuse," he said.

Wood indicated to KPHO that he, too, had not heard any assertions the boy had been abused, despite media assertions that abuse could be related to a motive in the case.

"At this point in time, we haven't seen anything indicating abuse," Wood said. "We haven't heard of anything; we're not aware of anything

---

CNN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

Because religion has bearing. Good/evil are legitimate reasons for those who believe in God. For the rest of us, we don't get that rug to sweep the uncomfortable things under. I grew up thinking "some people are just evil." But, as I gained adulthood I realized I don't believe in "evil." So I had to ask the deeper question - if there's no "good" or "evil," then why do some people do bad things?

If you can see right through me you shouldn't need to ask such questions.

---

:lol I wasn't really asking.

I just don't remember anyone posting how this kid has the devil in him.
I just think it's funny that you saw the "need" to bring it up.

Maybe some link to child custody?

Quote:

---

"Because both their parents were divorced, they wanted to make sure their marriage lasted until death, and it did," Sauter said.

Romero had full custody of the 8-year-old boy and the marriage made Tiffany Romero his stepmother. The boy's mother had visited St. Johns from Mississippi last weekend and returned to Arizona after the shootings that took place Wednesday, said Apache County Attorney Brad Carlyon.

---

AbC News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I. Hustle

:lol I wasn't really asking.

I just don't remember anyone posting how this kid has the devil in him.
I just think it's funny that you saw the "need" to bring it up.

---

I never claimed anyone said he was possessed. I said that in coming to my own understanding of how to approach these types of situations I had to set aside my youthful views of "good" and "evil" because they were based on religious concepts I didn't hold to. Once I got passed "good" and "evil" I was left with science and medicine and the human mind and many complicated questions.

I'm not sure what you're reading into the background I gave on my point of view but my "need" to bring it up was the same as anyone else's "need" to post an opinion on the topic. Or, in your case, the "need" to attack other people instead of ideas.

I'd have to say that I strongly agree with MAKG on the moral relativism scale. When I was younger, I was indoctrinated with very strict, literal Catholic Dogma. I knew what was right and wrong and everything was so clear and easy. Then, once I realized that I believed in determinism (non-relgious btw), I could no longer even conceive of good and evil.

The point is this - If all we are is a product of our genetic predispositions and the environment/peers/experiences we run into (from the first moment our mind begins to absorb stimuli and process it), then why do we hold people responsible? All free will can be is a masterful illusion - we believe we are deciding, but the whole of our past experiences and the genetic/physical predispositions and characteristics that decide the interpretation of the interaction has already weighed the scales for us.

I know I mentioned this in another post, but it might be easier to explain simply by referencing the thought-experiment of LaPlace's Daemon. The idea is that if a being of superior and complete mathematical precision was able to guage the path/interactions of all the matter in the universe (both organic and inorganic), it would be able to predict the future. Now quantum physics may make that a false premise, but it wouldn't eliminate the thought-experiment's bearing on the concept of free will.

Our job should be to make society as safe and encouraging as possible, but there is absolutely no usefulness in continuing to punish people who have been rehabilitated or who committed crimes of passion. The latter group, assuming that they can be counseled, may have simply been exposed to a series of events that would have made a large number (or even majority) of non-felons and "regular people" commit the same or similar crime.

/rant

how quickly you forget that you said ,:

"I believe that violence and cruelty is based on abnormality and sickness. I've had to come to that conclusion because I don't believe in good and evil. Look at the advancements we've made regarding schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression and how once those behaviors were thought to be exhibitions of evil spirits, etc. Until we can identify and control/cure broken people, I understand we have to what is best for society and separate them from others they could harm. But I struggle with my conscious when we talk about punishing someone for things they may well not be able to control."

How does any of that equal what you said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

I'd have to say that I strongly agree with MAKG on the moral relativism scale. When I was younger, I was indoctrinated with very strict, literal Catholic Dogma. I knew what was right and wrong and everything was so clear and easy. Then, once I realized that I believed in determinism (non-relgious btw), I could no longer even conceive of good and evil.

The point is this - If all we are is a product of our genetic predispositions and the environment/peers/experiences we run into (from the first moment our mind begins to absorb stimuli and process it), then why do we hold people responsible? All free will can be is a masterful illusion - we believe we are deciding, but the whole of our past experiences and the genetic/physical predispositions and characteristics that decide the interpretation of the interaction has already weighed the scales for us.

I know I mentioned this in another post, but it might be easier to explain simply by referencing the thought-experiment of LaPlace's Daemon. The idea is that if a being of superior and complete mathematical precision was able to guage the path/interactions of all the matter in the universe (both organic and inorganic), it would be able to predict the future. Now quantum physics may make that a false premise, but it wouldn't eliminate the thought-experiment's bearing on the concept of free will.

Our job should be to make society as safe and encouraging as possible, but there is absolutely no usefulness in continuing to punish people who have been rehabilitated or who committed crimes of passion. The latter group, assuming that they can be counseled, may have simply been exposed to a series of events that would have made a large number (or even majority) of non-felons and "regular people" commit the same or similar crime.

/rant

---

and here is that type of "mind" that will pull for legalized bestiality - NAMBLA -- no personal accountability -- just simply AMAZING. I mean - I read that crap you just wrote and I wanted to hurt you -- but I didn't -- in spite of all the Violent movies and the mistreatment I have endured - my hardships - all the genetics - the pre-ordained .. I am able to overcome all of it and not seek you out. Amazing how personal accountability trumps all that other stuff.

You fail so hard at comprehending the post. This forum is a daily (sometimes hourly) reminder of how low the literacy rate of our nation actually is. Also, I think NAMBLA is the new Nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Ahhh, good call. My opinion dont mean shit, but that is something I would definitely agree to. I have only held this "try a kid as an adult" under the 1st degree murder blanket.

Ive never asked to extend it.



Yep.



Well then, youre probably a person who thinks rapists should be executed (by the state), which is another thread all together and something I vehemently disagree with.

Now, if the victim of the crime murdered the offender or even one of the victim's family members killed the offender, I dont have a problem with that. Although, that person will be charged with a crime (Im not sure which one though, Im no lawyer).

But the state should not execute rapists (unless they murder at least once) for two reasons:

1) Theyre rapists, not murderers.
2) You set a bad precedent when the law allows execution for crimes outside treason and murder.

---

Just for note: I'm of two minds on the death penalty, and my "no deaths" barely outweighs the "deaths" side. It's cynical, but the only reason I'd be for the death penalty is to reduce the cost on a society. I am against the death penalty for a few reasons:
1) I would hate to condemn a man to death, even if proven guilty, because in some cases DNA evidence has found men innocent.
2) I think that jail should not be a 'punishment', but a means to protect the rest of society safe.

We weigh rape and murder on different moral scales. That's cool. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You fail so hard at comprehending the post. This forum is a daily (sometimes hourly) reminder of how low the literacy rate of our nation actually is. Also, I think NAMBLA is the new Nazi.

---

everytime I read your logic - I am in total agreement with those thoughts you expressed above.

It means a lot to me when someone who misses the point of any post more than 4 lines long says that. No really. You should have just gone with "I know you are but what am I".

So, implacable, why don't you argue the argument instead of using personal anecdotal evidence and taboos that appeal to "common sense"?

I say this while generally ascribing to the quote (attributed to Einstein) - "Common sense is merely the aggregation of all prejudices acquired before the age of 18"

You also miss my point - IF you can rehabilitate someone, that should be the only goal. If there is no way that they can be rehabilitated, then protecting society from them is key. Yes, NAMBLA members are preying on children. If they can be helped, then that should be the goal. If not, they should be restrained in some way from ever coming near children. Hence, I do not disagree with some results of our justice system, but instead disagree with its goals and pre-suppositions.

Just because one doesn't believe in free will or absolute morality doesn't mean one believes in anarchy or approval of all actions that subjugate the will (perceived or otherwise) of another human outside of that person's autonomous submission to the first's personal jurisdiction. Even if free will is an illusion, the fact that it is all-encompassing at least means the harm principle should be worked in on a pragmatic level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

It means a lot to me when someone who misses the point of any post more than 4 lines long says that. No really. You should have just gone with "I know you are but what am I".

---

you think ? You might be right.. in the future I will resort to that or the you're rubber and I'm glue classic. Make it easier for you to understand - or perhaos I will expound on the topic and use lots of 5 cent words and analogies that would be cool to eh?

ya big dummy

There is a large segment of our population who don't want to think of criminals as normal people with problems. They would much rather think of them as lacking morality or simply as evil because it is a way to elevate themselves to a higher plane of humanity. Its so evident whenever you bring about the any thread regarding the punishment of criminals whether it be this, capital punishment, or prison reform.

As far as I know there is no scientific proof for a case to be made on that front. While I've never been one to delve too deeply into human behavioral studies nothing that I've ever read points in that direction so if implacable has anything in that regard I'm open to it but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by implacable44

you think ? You might be right.. in the future I will resort to that or the you're rubber and I'm glue classic. Make it easier for you to understand - or perhaos I will expound on the topic and use lots of 5 cent words and analogies that would be cool to eh?

ya big dummy

---

As long as you manage to mix in something about deviant sexual behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

So, implacable, why don't you argue the argument instead of using personal anecdotal evidence and taboos that appeal to "common sense"?

I say this while generally ascribing to the quote (attributed to Einstein) - "Common sense is merely the aggregation of all prejudices acquired before the age of 18"

You also miss my point - IF you can rehabilitate someone, that should be the only goal. If there is no way that they can be rehabilitated, then protecting society from them is key. Yes, NAMBLA members are preying on children. If they can be helped, then that should be the goal. If not, they should be restrained in some way from ever coming near children. Hence, I do not disagree with some results of our justice system, but instead disagree with its goals and pre-suppositions.

Just because one doesn't believe in free will or absolute morality doesn't mean one believes in anarchy or approval of all actions that subjugate the will (perceived or otherwise) of another human outside of that person's autonomous submission to the first's personal jurisdiction. Even if free will is an illusion, the fact that it is all-encompassing at least means the harm principle should be worked in on a pragmatic level.

---

So it is your choice to rehabilitate and if they cannot be rehabilitated - which would already be determined based on their past and present condition then what should happen to them ? How will society be protected from them ?


I mean -- in a nutshell you are an incompatibilist -- who believes in hard determinism, is that correct ? You believe that every event - every action and thought is pre-determined by a never ending chain of events.. that the past and the present work together to determine future actions ?

For example -- lets say you have a daughter and she is violently raped, beaten and left for dead... what would your thoughts be then ? Would you be concerned with the past of the offender and how mommy didn't hug him enough ? or how he got picked last for kickball ?