15 year old kills 9 year old neighbor, charged as adult

[L3m0n_L1m3]

"Ultimately, she stated she wanted to know what it felt like,"

When am I going to stop reading the news? I already hate people enough as it is. But this, this is just plain awful. Not to mention that it's a 9 year old girl. What the hell is wrong with society?

*ahem* Yeah. I don't like people.

 

[BattleOnion]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34025056/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Now this guy knows how to deal with sick 15 year olds

 

[JWAN]

A 9 year old is in 4th grade. A 15 year old is in high school. There is a clear difference in mental capacity and maturity. While the 9 year old would probably still get a few years in a psych ward, the 15 year old should know murder is wrong by that point in their life. They deserve a much harsher penalty than being evaluated until they are 18, then released with nothing on their record.

are you going to claim the mental maturity of a 9 year old and a 15 year old are the same?

big difference between a 9 year old and a 15 year old. This person is old enough that the government trusts her with a drivers permit.

She needs to do time and the juvenile detention system wasn't built for murderers.

We are assessing this legally, and legally, she is still a child. Legally she is as responsible for that act as my fictional nine-year-old.

We need to judge on the basis of the law. If they change the law, and say fifteen-year-olds are adults and/or as responsible for their actions as one, then I wouldn't be arguing.

Also, it's a slippery slope until you start condemning thirteen-year-olds, after all, they are only two years younger. What about ten-year-olds, or nine-year-olds?

no its not a slippery slope at all. Its premeditated murder. At 15 years old you know whats right and whats wrong. This person needs prison time.

 

[PuppetMaster]

Well, I disagree. It's less a problem of the inmates themselves than it is a problem of the circumstances.
Overcrowded prisons lead to violence and uprisings. Under proper instruction (as well as control, obviously) these types of workshops function quite well. If anything, it reduces prison violence because people got stuff to do and can work instead of constantly brooding.
I think you're underestimating the results of these programs. Proper reintegration does reduce reoccurance of crime quite a bit. The real problem is that few prisons really work towards helping to reintegrate the inmates and just kick them out the door when their term is served with no lesson learned whatsoever.

Furthermore, I also think you're overestimating the leniency of psychiatric evaluators because of a few stories you read about it.
But whatever, we stated our positions and I doubt either one will convince the other.

I agree with what you said about circumstance, and as far as the programs go, with something so newly integrated into an old system there's bound to be bugs, I'm no Ian Malcom, but it can either do nothing, work suprisingly well of fail horribly. Only time will tell

 

[wordsmith]

Bollocks... She is not an adult, she should not be tried as an adult. Doesn't matter what other factors might come into it, the legal system cannot say she is both an adult and a minor at the same time.

Yes, it was premeditated
Yes, she planned it
Yes, it would be cut and dried if she was 7 years older.

BUT SHE'S NOT.

well that's fine and good in an idyllic world republicans from the 50's talk about; white picket fences, loyal dog scrappy in the yard, mom bakes a pie ect. But here in the new millenium children are as, if not more, capable than adults to commit these crimes.

If they were in the playground and it was "oops! I fell and crushed your windpipe" I'd say something like, "that poor kid is probably traumatised" but instead it's closer to "haha i choked, stabbed and buried you" and I find myself saying "this 'child' deserves to be dragged through Salt Lake until dead."

You're right, we don't live in an idyllic world. What the child "deserves" and what the child is legally entitled to are two different things. As a minor, she is entitled to be tried as a minor. In an idyllic world she wouldn't have killed, and a 15 year old girl wouldn't be faced with people shouting about the death penalty...

 

[PuppetMaster]

Yes, because that works so well. They have capital punishment in the USA and I think the last time they had a murder over there was in the 1970s.

Hyperbole aside, I don't know what the statistics are on how well deterring works but certainly I agree people shouldn't "get away with murder" (even though they do all the time) but should get a punishment of some kind. But not because of petty vengeance, never for vengeance. It never helps anyone.

Rehabilitate and if that's not possible then, I think, for serial offenders and people clearly beyond help, life (and "life" isn't life, so perhaps consecutive sentences in the most extreme cases) in prison or other appropriate institution depending on the case. They keep the serial offender off the streets and perhaps help to deter in some cases. But if there's any doubt whether it's helpful at all to prison someone then I'd be inclined to give the person the benefit of doubt.

Fortunately, I'm not in the position to make these decisions. I'm just glad that in my country we still have some sensible people in the justice department, despite the masses often crying, in knee jerk reactions, for harsher punishments. "What if it was my child?" Well, that's entirely beside the point. I don't believe the justice system is there to satisfy the victims' and their next of kin's bloodthirst. It's there to protect people and if a conviction doesn't do that then it's pointless.

And I don't think any amount of warnings will change a psychopaths mind. Unjust things happen all the time but we are no better if we answer violence with violence.

Or am I the last person on the internet who believes criminals should be treated like human beings?

this isn't about vengence, this is about impartial justice. Human beings paying the price of concious action with an equal and opposite reaction. This little girl is some kind of sociopath, and you can't rehabilitate morals into someone who has no capacity for them. As far as serial offenders go, It's rediculous to let violent criminals back on the streets and wait to see if they do it again, especially since people learn from their mistakes and try real hard not to get caught again.

In a particular African country with a staggeringly high crime rate a law was passed giving officers the right to "shoot criminals on sight" it was radical, it was extreme, it worked beautifully. Purse snatchers were sent home to their next of kin riddled with bullets along with a bill for all the ammo police used to kill them. At the funerals, people attending were subject to questioning and anyone thought to be involved with criminal activity were also shot. Within a decade crime had gone down from the mid 90% to the single didgets

 

[PuppetMaster]

Bollocks... She is not an adult, she should not be tried as an adult. Doesn't matter what other factors might come into it, the legal system cannot say she is both an adult and a minor at the same time.

Yes, it was premeditated
Yes, she planned it
Yes, it would be cut and dried if she was 7 years older.

BUT SHE'S NOT.

well that's fine and good in an idyllic world republicans from the 50's talk about; white picket fences, loyal dog scrappy in the yard, mom bakes a pie ect. But here in the new millenium children are as, if not more, capable than adults to commit these crimes.

If they were in the playground and it was "oops! I fell and crushed your windpipe" I'd say something like, "that poor kid is probably traumatised" but instead it's closer to "haha i choked, stabbed and buried you" and I find myself saying "this 'child' deserves to be dragged through Salt Lake until dead."

You're right, we don't live in an idyllic world. What the child "deserves" and what the child is legally entitled to are two different things. As a minor, she is entitled to be tried as a minor. In an idyllic world she wouldn't have killed, and a 15 year old girl wouldn't be faced with people shouting about the death penalty...

Well she did and we are. As fun as it is to pretend there's fairness and justice in the world, we all know this kid isn't going to be euthinised for this

 

[Sad Robot]

Yes, because that works so well. They have capital punishment in the USA and I think the last time they had a murder over there was in the 1970s.

Hyperbole aside, I don't know what the statistics are on how well deterring works but certainly I agree people shouldn't "get away with murder" (even though they do all the time) but should get a punishment of some kind. But not because of petty vengeance, never for vengeance. It never helps anyone.

Rehabilitate and if that's not possible then, I think, for serial offenders and people clearly beyond help, life (and "life" isn't life, so perhaps consecutive sentences in the most extreme cases) in prison or other appropriate institution depending on the case. They keep the serial offender off the streets and perhaps help to deter in some cases. But if there's any doubt whether it's helpful at all to prison someone then I'd be inclined to give the person the benefit of doubt.

Fortunately, I'm not in the position to make these decisions. I'm just glad that in my country we still have some sensible people in the justice department, despite the masses often crying, in knee jerk reactions, for harsher punishments. "What if it was my child?" Well, that's entirely beside the point. I don't believe the justice system is there to satisfy the victims' and their next of kin's bloodthirst. It's there to protect people and if a conviction doesn't do that then it's pointless.

And I don't think any amount of warnings will change a psychopaths mind. Unjust things happen all the time but we are no better if we answer violence with violence.

Or am I the last person on the internet who believes criminals should be treated like human beings?

this isn't about vengence, this is about impartial justice. Human beings paying the price of concious action with an equal and opposite reaction. This little girl is some kind of sociopath, and you can't rehabilitate morals into someone who has no capacity for them. As far as serial offenders go, It's rediculous to let violent criminals back on the streets and wait to see if they do it again, especially since people learn from their mistakes and try real hard not to get caught again.

In a particular African country with a staggeringly high crime rate a law was passed giving officers the right to "shoot criminals on sight" it was radical, it was extreme, it worked beautifully. Purse snatchers were sent home to their next of kin riddled with bullets along with a bill for all the ammo police used to kill them. At the funerals, people attending were subject to questioning and anyone thought to be involved with criminal activity were also shot. Within a decade crime had gone down from the mid 90% to the single didgets

Making people "pay the price" is vengeance. There is no such thing as "impartial justice" where humans are concerned. It's an etchical decision, and thus, by definition, never impartial.

You seem to miss the entire point of what it tells about the rest of the people and the country in question if they follow the latter example you gave. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

 

[PuppetMaster]

Yes, because that works so well. They have capital punishment in the USA and I think the last time they had a murder over there was in the 1970s.

Hyperbole aside, I don't know what the statistics are on how well deterring works but certainly I agree people shouldn't "get away with murder" (even though they do all the time) but should get a punishment of some kind. But not because of petty vengeance, never for vengeance. It never helps anyone.

Rehabilitate and if that's not possible then, I think, for serial offenders and people clearly beyond help, life (and "life" isn't life, so perhaps consecutive sentences in the most extreme cases) in prison or other appropriate institution depending on the case. They keep the serial offender off the streets and perhaps help to deter in some cases. But if there's any doubt whether it's helpful at all to prison someone then I'd be inclined to give the person the benefit of doubt.

Fortunately, I'm not in the position to make these decisions. I'm just glad that in my country we still have some sensible people in the justice department, despite the masses often crying, in knee jerk reactions, for harsher punishments. "What if it was my child?" Well, that's entirely beside the point. I don't believe the justice system is there to satisfy the victims' and their next of kin's bloodthirst. It's there to protect people and if a conviction doesn't do that then it's pointless.

And I don't think any amount of warnings will change a psychopaths mind. Unjust things happen all the time but we are no better if we answer violence with violence.

Or am I the last person on the internet who believes criminals should be treated like human beings?

this isn't about vengence, this is about impartial justice. Human beings paying the price of concious action with an equal and opposite reaction. This little girl is some kind of sociopath, and you can't rehabilitate morals into someone who has no capacity for them. As far as serial offenders go, It's rediculous to let violent criminals back on the streets and wait to see if they do it again, especially since people learn from their mistakes and try real hard not to get caught again.

In a particular African country with a staggeringly high crime rate a law was passed giving officers the right to "shoot criminals on sight" it was radical, it was extreme, it worked beautifully. Purse snatchers were sent home to their next of kin riddled with bullets along with a bill for all the ammo police used to kill them. At the funerals, people attending were subject to questioning and anyone thought to be involved with criminal activity were also shot. Within a decade crime had gone down from the mid 90% to the single didgets

Making people "pay the price" is vengeance. There is no such thing as "impartial justice" where humans are concerned. It's an etchical decision, and thus, by definition, never impartial.

You seem to miss the entire point of what it tells about the rest of the people and the country in question if they follow the latter example you gave. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

no, making them pay the price is fair. take people out of the decision making process if you have to and just look at the math: X takes the life of Y without provication. X planned the act out and disposed of the body, meaning X knew the act was wrong and carried it out anyway. Due to physical limitations of Y vs X, Y was helpless to defend against X. X also used weapon Z, a factor unnecissary in the murder due to X's superiority to Y. X confessed the act to authority, claiming X wanted to know "what killing felt like" after reviewing the evidence and applying Newton's 3rd law, it is decided that X will die

I'd love to live in a country where everyone is afraid to commit crime and ascociate with those who do. as long as you don't do anything wrong, you won't get shot and killed, will you?

 

[Sad Robot]

no, making them pay the price is fair.

Again, while this dangerously veers into a semantic debate, "fairness" doesn't necessarily help anyone, aside from quenching someone's bloodthirst.

take people out of the decision making process if you have to

The trouble is, that's impossible. And pointless.

and just look at the math: X takes the life of Y without provication. X planned the act out and disposed of the body, meaning X knew the act was wrong and carried it out anyway. Due to physical limitations of Y vs X, Y was helpless to defend against X. X also used weapon Z, a factor unnecissary in the murder due to X's superiority to Y. X confessed the act to authority, claiming X wanted to know "what killing felt like" after reviewing the evidence and applying Newton's 3rd law, it is decided that X will die

I'm not saying that in this particular case the accused ought to "go free". Never did I claim that, nor do I wish to really take a stance on the matter, I'd rather leave it to the professionals.

I'd love to live in a country where everyone is afraid to commit crime and ascociate with those who do. as long as you don't do anything wrong, you won't get shot and killed, will you?

I wouldn't want to live in a country where an accused gets shot on sight, no. Aside from the fact that the innocent sometimes end up "paying the price" as you put it, I have very serious issues even with the relatively liberal laws of my country. Murder isn't the only crime. And even if it were, I think, you can't necessarily expect other people to live up to the standard you currently live up to. Situations change, and had things gone differently I might have been that 15 year old psychopath. I feel no real compassion or mercy towards her, but I think that's beside the point. If we don't act with some sort of emotional restraint and basic respect towards the people we consider monsters, doesn't that make us monsters too?

 

[PuppetMaster]

Again, while this dangerously veers into a semantic debate, "fairness" doesn't necessarily help anyone, aside from quenching someone's bloodthirst.

you can't keep spamming bloodthirst until I sound like a barbarian, it doesn't work. "fairness" brings dangerous people out of society to protect the future

The trouble is, that's impossible. And pointless.

no it isn't, I'm no Ian Malcom but I drew up a pretty simple equasion to deal with the soft squishy emotions normally ascociated with children. X and Y could be talking rocks, or jellybeans for all that matters to the outcome

I'm not saying that in this particular case the accused ought to "go free". Never did I claim that, nor do I wish to really take a stance on the matter, I'd rather leave it to the professionals.

I may not have an arbitrary piece of paper saying I'm smarter than everyone, but I know "should be put to death" when I see it

I wouldn't want to live in a country where an accused gets shot on sight, no. Aside from the fact that the innocent sometimes end up "paying the price" as you put it, I have very serious issues even with the relatively liberal laws of my country. Murder isn't the only crime. And even if it were, I think, you can't necessarily expect other people to live up to the standard you currently live up to. Situations change, and had things gone differently I might have been that 15 year old psychopath. I feel no real compassion or mercy towards her, but I think that's beside the point. If we don't act with some sort of emotional restraint and basic respect towards the people we consider monsters, doesn't that make us monsters too?

it was an extreme solution to an out of control problem. Dispite weak stomached western worlders crying to the UN about criminals being people too, the problem was solved, and everyone thinks a little bit harder before snatching that camcorder out of a tourist's hand

 

[Sad Robot]

you can't keep spamming bloodthirst until I sound like a barbarian, it doesn't work.

That's arguable. I know that probably most people think "eye for an eye" is "fair", I think it's barbaric. Obviously we have a very different idea of what "fair" means, at any rate.

But apologies for repeating the word "bloodthirst". There's not much of an excuse, I should've come up with something a bit more varied. Alas, that's what you get when you argue in a slightly annoyed state and in what isn't your first language to begin with.

no it isn't, I'm no Ian Malcom but I drew up a pretty simple equasion to deal with the soft squishy emotions normally ascociated with children. X and Y could be talking rocks, or jellybeans for all that matters to the outcome

For me, this was never about children, but about how you seem to view people in general. What I mean with not being able to take humans out of the equation, was that these are complex ethical questions. You don't get to draw the "answers" from simple mathematical equations. Or, I mean, I guess you can, but that sense of "justice" is a lightyear away from what I perceive to be humane.

I may not have an arbitrary piece of paper saying I'm smarter than everyone, but I know "should be put to death" when I see it

It's not about some arbitrary piece of paper that says you're smarter than anyone, it's about having people who dedicate years of their lives into studying the history of a given system and careful, methodical analysis and consideration of its future applications having perhaps a more qualified opinion on the matter than a simple emotional reaction.

it was an extreme solution to an out of control problem.

While I do agree that desperate situations sometimes call for desperate measures, I do not believe that the ends always justify the means.

Dispite weak stomached western worlders crying to the UN about criminals being people too,

I may be a weak stomached western worlder, but I do think criminals are people too.

the problem was solved, and everyone thinks a little bit harder before snatching that camcorder out of a tourist's hand

I don't think it's just about "solving a problem" it's about retaining your humanity while doing so.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Indeed there are great inconsistencies here PuppetMaster. If she bombed a city, or cannibalised her entire family prior to killing them and then lept on an arresting officer and tore out his jugular (just to get inventive), she would still be a child doing it.

Stepping around the issue of her age and arguing she is mentally as evil and despicable as adult criminals ignores the fact that she is a minor by multiple years. The inverse of that, that adults are exempt from trial when they carry out childish crimes is not held up as law. Large jumps in due process are being carried out here. The citizens of any country should think seriously about standing by while any child, no matter the crime, is sentenced to death.

Course this won't occur to anyone caught up in the populism. Mob justice is fickle and bends the rule of law to suit the emotional sway of the times.

 

[PuppetMaster]

sorry I've been away, but I'm back to continue the fight

That's arguable. I know that probably most people think "eye for an eye" is "fair", I think it's barbaric. Obviously we have a very different idea of what "fair" means, at any rate.

barbaric is maliciously killing a small child to see if it's your thing or not. While "eye for an eye" doesn't solve anything, it prevents reoccurances of hideous acts upon our society, even more so by acting as a sort of "head on a pike" for anyone who thinks to test their status (such as underage loopholes) against a system that so far has protected the guilty by preying on the mercy of the public

For me, this was never about children, but about how you seem to view people in general. What I mean with not being able to take humans out of the equation, was that these are complex ethical questions. You don't get to draw the "answers" from simple mathematical equations. Or, I mean, I guess you can, but that sense of "justice" is a lightyear away from what I perceive to be humane.

you're right, it isn't humane, humans are flawed. humans are easily misled. humans are what the justice system is supposed to protect us from and continue to fail in that endevour. Call it cold, unfeeling, or whatever word sits well with you but when it comes down to the final moment justice will undeniably be served if we take emotions out of the decision making process

It's not about some arbitrary piece of paper that says you're smarter than anyone, it's about having people who dedicate years of their lives into studying the history of a given system and careful, methodical analysis and consideration of its future applications having perhaps a more qualified opinion on the matter than a simple emotional reaction.

the world has evolved, crimes are smarter and the guilty are learning to work the system to their advantage. The laws which guide society have to change with the times, especially when it comes to holding young people accountable

I may be a weak stomached western worlder, but I do think criminals are people to.

I'm sure that's a language barrier again

I don't think it's just about "solving a problem" it's about retaining your humanity while doing so.

I'll have all the time in the world to retain my humanity when innocent people's basic rights are being observed and respected. The right to property, the right to freedom, religion, life without fear. Those who can't let others have those rights deserve to have theirs taken away

 

[PuppetMaster]

Indeed there are great inconsistencies here PuppetMaster. If she bombed a city, or cannibalised her entire family prior to killing them and then lept on an arresting officer and tore out his jugular (just to get inventive), she would still be a child doing it.

Stepping around the issue of her age and arguing she is mentally as evil and despicable as adult criminals ignores the fact that she is a minor by multiple years. The inverse of that, that adults are exempt from trial when they carry out childish crimes is not held up as law. Large jumps in due process are being carried out here. The citizens of any country should think seriously about standing by while any child, no matter the crime, is sentenced to death.

Course this won't occur to anyone caught up in the populism. Mob justice is fickle and bends the rule of law to suit the emotional sway of the times.

a new challenger? very well.
your 1st statement I find disturbing. You're not suggesting that children are excempt from the laws of the world they live in because they're innocent little angels? when a child ignores the mental and emotional limitations of their age, allowing them to commit these acts then it's only logical to ignore the age in turn. Similarily adults have a mental and emotional capacity that we expect them to live up to, failure to do so can cause processes to be skipped to avoid wasting time. But you're right, society should think very long and hard about a child being sentenced to death. It represents the death of innocence we have held in our mind for so long; that children are the future, a shining becon of hope. Here we see one of those prodegies guilty of a viscious murder of someone even more young and full of innocence than her shocking assailant. Our eyes need to open to the REAL mental capacity of the youth to commit evil and in turn close our hearts to what they are not

 

[Sad Robot]

barbaric is maliciously killing a small child to see if it's your thing or not.

That too, although I do think it implies a myriad of mental health problems.

While "eye for an eye" doesn't solve anything, it prevents reoccurances of hideous acts upon our society, even more so by acting as a sort of "head on a pike" for anyone who thinks to test their status (such as underage loopholes) against a system that so far has protected the guilty by preying on the mercy of the public

Nevermind if someone innocent gets executed? The truth is, I just personally am not ready to accept the idea that "an eye for an eye" really is the cure for the apathy and seemingly amoral behaviour in our society. I'm a creature of emotion as well as reason; I'm from a country that has the highest homicide rates in Western Europe, yet I can't imagine anything that would drive me to advocate harsher punishments, such as the death penalty.

you're right, it isn't humane, humans are flawed.

Well, that's certainly a massive philosophical question there I won't attempt to address.

humans are easily misled. humans are what the justice system is supposed to protect us from and continue to fail in that endevour.

And will always fail to some degree.

Call it cold, unfeeling, or whatever word sits well with you

I certainly wouldn't call it unfeeling, I sense we both feel passionately about this, but both the compassion and anger we feel aren't distributed in the same way.

but when it comes down to the final moment justice will undeniably be served if we take emotions out of the decision making process

That is, however, impossible. Surely you realize this? A justice system is always based on a given set of moral values that gradually change over time. I have a set of values as do you, they're just different.

the world has evolved, crimes are smarter and the guilty are learning to work the system to their advantage. The laws which guide society have to change with the times, especially when it comes to holding young people accountable

Our society has indeed evolved, as has our judicial system. It's not based on ancient Babylonian laws. I don't know what you're basing the "crimes are smarter" argument on, though.

I'm sure that's a language barrier again

Perhaps. Care to elaborate?

I'll have all the time in the world to retain my humanity when innocent people's basic rights are being observed and respected. The right to property, the right to freedom, religion, life without fear. Those who can't let others have those rights deserve to have theirs taken away

Again, it's a sliding scale of how much freedom you're willing to give up for security. Personally, I'm not willing to give up a whole lot.

And at any rate, a right isn't a right if someone can take it away from you.

EDIT: fixed a couple of typos.

 

[PuppetMaster]

That too, although I do think it implies a myriad of mental health problems.

The point being? If someone has a psychotic breakdown for some reason, let's say... schitsophrenia, and goes on a gun toting rampage before collapsing in a crying ball on the street. Adressing the fact this person has a mental illness might justify their actions, but does nothing to prevent a future occurance. Take for instance "Of Mice and Men"

Nevermind if someone innocent gets executed?

surely you jest. This girl is miles away from innocent

And will always fail to some degree.

while at the same time I accept that, I don't like it. recognisising there is in fact a problem does very little to solve it

I certainly wouldn't call it unfeeling, I sense we both feel passionately about this, but both the compassion and anger we feel aren't distributed in the same way.

fair enough

That is, however, impossible. Surely you realize this? A justice system is always based on a given set of moral values

she wears a blindfold for a reason. Justice is unsseing to everything except balance. race, age, religion ect. It's high time people were reminded of that

I don't know what you're basing the "crimes are smarter" argument on

crimes done in passion, anger, mental failure ect are still new to the legal system and therefore can slip through cracks

Perhaps. Care to elaborate?

This

Dispite weak stomached western worlders crying to the UN about criminals being people too

I may be a weak stomached western worlder, but I do think criminals are people to.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
we basicly said the exact same thing, but it was almost as if you were trying to dissagree

Again, it's a sliding scale of how much freedom you're willing to give up for security. Personally, I'm not willing to give up a whole lot.

And at any rate, a right isn't a right if someone can take it away from you.

there's a lot of abuse of human rights, and yes they can be taken away from you. It's not giving up freedom, it's liberation. Where criminals live in fear rather than the public. I don't know about you, but I miss waliking around my neighbourhood at midnight. I miss taking a walk home instead of a cab from a concert, but it's tough when a knife wielding or gun toting bozo decides you're going to buy his next fix

 

[Sad Robot]

The point being? If someone has a psychotic breakdown for some reason, let's say... schitsophrenia, and goes on a gun toting rampage before collapsing in a crying ball on the street. Adressing the fact this person has a mental illness might justify their actions, but does nothing to prevent a future occurance. Take for instance "Of Mice and Men"

In my eyes, it's not about what justifies their actions in a case like that but how to properly treat them and the situation in general. Never did I imply that people should "go free" because they're mentally ill. Quite the opposite. Naturally in these cases deterrence isn't a viable option to begin with.

surely you jest. This girl is miles away from innocent

I didn't realize we were still talking about the girl. No, she doesn't seem innocent at all. However, I don't know that.

while at the same time I accept that, I don't like it. recognisising there is in fact a problem does very little to solve it

It's the first step. However, I don't believe we've achieved a "perfect" system, it's a work in progress, will always be.

That is, however, impossible. Surely you realize this? A justice system is always based on a given set of moral values

she wears a blindfold for a reason. Justice is unsseing to everything except balance. race, age, religion ect. It's high time people were reminded of that

This is of course entirely irrelevant to the point I was expressing. But to address the point you raise: age does affect behaviour and understanding to a far greater degree than race or religion. There's also the fact that has been mentioned that children aren't treated as equals in any other sense either, due to said fact.

I don't know what you're basing the "crimes are smarter" argument on

crimes done in passion, anger, mental failure ect are still new to the legal system and therefore can slip through cracks

Erm. What? Do you mean that people haven't committed crimes in passion, anger, mental failure ect. before and that they're somehow smarter than other types of crimes? Or do you suggest that these factors are irrelevant? Or that the system we have isn't perfect in how it deals with these situations? I agree only with the last part.

we basicly said the exact same thing, but it was almost as if you were trying to dissagree

I didn't want to come off as some retarded contrarian, what I meant was that while you may indeed view the idea that all people, criminal or not, deserving to be treated with some kind of basic respect preposterous, I do not, and that I do describe to the mentality we both described there.

there's a lot of abuse of human rights, and yes they can be taken away from you.

It was a philosophical and linguistical observation, nevermind.

It's not giving up freedom, it's liberation.

Well I certainly do not agree with your conclusion but I do understand that some people value security over freedom.

Where criminals live in fear rather than the public.

Well, there's a lot of variety in criminals. Good men go to prison because of absurd laws, innocent people go to prison because of misinterpretation of the evidence and unknown circumstances. Were it so easy to divide people into the good and the bad but it isn't.

I don't know about you, but I miss waliking around my neighbourhood at midnight. I miss taking a walk home instead of a cab from a concert, but it's tough when a knife wielding or gun toting bozo decides you're going to buy his next fix

Unfortunately I can't really relate. I'm rather young, 23, but I have never in my life gotten into a situation where I'd've felt physically threatened, I walk home in the middle of the night, I take the subway, I mind my surroundings and the company I'm in. None of my friends have ever been assaulted. The only time someone in my family has been in a relatively threatening situation was when I was a child and a couple of junkies broke into our house looking for loot. My mother locked us children into the bathroom, called the cops, my father exchanged a couple of words and punches with the meth heads. Nothing bad happened. Granted, in that sense I'm one of the lucky ones.

 

[PuppetMaster]

In my eyes, it's not about what justifies their actions in a case like that but how to properly treat them and the situation in general. Never did I imply that people should "go free" because they're mentally ill. Quite the opposite. Naturally in these cases deterrence isn't a viable option to begin with.

I'm not saying every Lenny that breaks a neck should have a bullet put in them, but they definately should be removed from the public

I didn't realize we were still talking about the girl. No, she doesn't seem innocent at all. However, I don't know that.

though we have indeed gotten side tracked, yes this is still about the girl. Even if you don't know it, she made no attempt to deny it

It's the first step. However, I don't believe we've achieved a "perfect" system, it's a work in progress, will always be.

well the next step to a work in progress is fixing the issue. If people are going to keep trying to bend the system to get away with their crimes then it's time to stiffen it up

This is of course entirely irrelevant to the point I was expressing. But to address the point you raise: age does affect behaviour and understanding to a far greater degree than race or religion. There's also the fact that has been mentioned that children aren't treated as equals in any other sense either, due to said fact.

this girl doesn't behave like a girl. she behaves like a murderer and in the blind eyes of justice should be treated like a murderer

Erm. What? Do you mean that people haven't committed crimes in passion, anger, mental failure ect. before and that they're somehow smarter than other types of crimes? Or do you suggest that these factors are irrelevant? Or that the system we have isn't perfect in how it deals with these situations? I agree only with the last part.

well alongside criminals in the court room are defence lawyers. In todays society people sue over petty reasons so everyone gets lots of practice batting for both teams, some of them get lucky enough to defend a guilty, guilty person. It's the job of this lawyer to do everything in their power to make sure their client is treated as lightly as possible. Details as small as a fuzzy memory can be used as evidence to insanity or some such loophole. So while the crimes may not be smarter, those who can look at it from a slightly different angle have an advantage in court

I didn't want to come off as some retarded contrarian, what I meant was that while you may indeed view the idea that all people, criminal or not, deserving to be treated with some kind of basic respect preposterous, I do not, and that I do describe to the mentality we both described there.

no, I believe everyone should be treated with extreme respect and courtesy. until they take it upon themselves to impede on the rights of others

Well I certainly do not agree with your conclusion but I do understand that some people value security over freedom.

I'm not promoting martial law, just saying that if freedom can't be observed properly then security should be enforced until it can

Well, there's a lot of variety in criminals. Good men go to prison because of absurd laws, innocent people go to prison because of misinterpretation of the evidence and unknown circumstances. Were it so easy to divide people into the good and the bad but it isn't.

and teenage sociopaths walk the streets freely because they're protected by their age.
Last year in a town not far from mine 3 boys, ages 12 to 16 broke into a house. days later they broke in again, took the resident's pet cat and killed it in the microwave before boasting about it with spraypaint on the walls.
Their names weren't released to the public, and spent no time in prison. They aren't allowed to own pets but beond that nothing happened to them.
Did the obsurd laws send these monsters to prison? NO! they're protected by obsurd laws. could they be my neighbor? easily, the names were never released and to my understanding all three families moved away out of shame.
Was evidence misinterpreted? no, they made no effort to hide what they did.
The line between good and bad may be thin and fuzzy, but some people are clear about where they stand

Unfortunately I can't really relate. I'm rather young, 23, but I have never in my life gotten into a situation where I'd've felt physically threatened, I walk home in the middle of the night, I take the subway, I mind my surroundings and the company I'm in. None of my friends have ever been assaulted. The only time someone in my family has been in a relatively threatening situation was when I was a child and a couple of junkies broke into our house looking for loot. My mother locked us children into the bathroom, called the cops, my father exchanged a couple of words and punches with the meth heads. Nothing bad happened. Granted, in that sense I'm one of the lucky ones.

yes, you should consider yourself very lucky indeed. While I live far from what would be called the worst of neighbourhoods there's things that happen all over the place to good people. Some would say I have nothing to complain about by comparison, but that doesn't make it right for people to get away with what they do

 

[CancerDog]

No fucking teens have depression. Don't even start.

<spoiler=My experience with teenage depression>
My father cheated on my mom, and destroyed my family when I was around 10. He manipulated me for another 5 years until I got so pissed I never spoke to him again. 2 years after that, still ripe with tangible anger for him, I find out he just had a massive stroke. I go to see him in the hospital with enough anger TO VIOLENTLY MURDER HIM, only to find him half brain dead laying in a hospital bed. When I came back I clearly wasn't myself anymore. I couldn't communicate normally, or even function on a basic level. My friends all left me, and my girlfriend cheated on me with one of my best friends. A few months later I unsuccessfully tried to kill myself using the medication I was on.

I dare you to try and tell me that teenage depression doesn't exist you ignorant and in-considerate Fuck.

On Topic: Looking at it from a total realistic view, expecting them to give a 15 year old a true adult sentencing is un-reasonable. She will most likely get some kind of child like punishment, hopefully with some kind of adult structuring to ensure she is monitored well into adulthood, but that's hopefully. In an ideal world she would get a proper adult sentence, but that would change the way all juveniles are charged. Many cases would point at this one saying "convict this teenager for this, and put him/her in jail for XX years." Which would not work. Parents (meaning registered voters) would be absolutely outraged at the idea that one of their children could be charged in such a way.

Well, since you brought up the parent angle...

Which would parents find more outraging?: The idea that their children can be charged as adults for committing a crime that is as extreme as premeditated murder? Or that the murderer of their child can get away with a slap on the wrist because they were a juvenile when the committed said murder?

Thing is, 9.9 times out of ten, this is not going to be a situation a parent will actually be in. They will hear about it through the media and get outraged by the idea itself. People, especially parents, can be counted on for getting extremely worked up over something they won't even have happen to them. Because you are right, if a parent was actually put in that position, assuming they're of sound mind, would not want their child to get off with a slap on wrist. What I'm saying is parents hearing about this and freaking out about it before anything even happened. As a general rule, most parents are concerned for their childrens well being, so hearing about something that seems ridiculous, and may put their child in danger would outrage them yes. Money that you're right in the context of a parent actually being in that situation. Also, on a different point, I more so meant that a child of 15 could be charged as an adult, thus juvenile punishment. I say this because other cases that may not be so severe could also point to this case, which means a teenager of 15 could be charged as an adult for robbing a store, getting upwards of 5 years and being put in Real jail.