Charging an 8 year old as an adult?

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 ?