Is probably the most re ed thing I have ever ing heard in my life.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...=mostpop_storyIn 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.
Whats the point of having an adult designation if you're going to try a ing 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 ins utionalized.
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 ing ridiculous to try anyone under 18 as an adult.
I could be completely wrong.....but, I agree with you on this one.
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 s 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 en led 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 ers from Columbine should have had to go to prison for what they did.....for their entire lives.
That was a lame argument.
How so? Either you are mature enough to make informed decisions for yourself, or you are not.
Knew this was coming a mile away.
So if a child is perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions on his own, what's the point of any of the protections?Knew this was coming a mile away.
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.
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.
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."
Last edited by I. Hustle; 11-10-2008 at 12:56 PM.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
