Charging an 8 year old as an adult?

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.