Child murderers

[kylakae]

Poll

Why do you feel that way?

My question is prompted by this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/14/juvenile.killer/index.html

Comments

[ferret]

As cold as it makes me, I've never been able to justify "excusing" murder due to age, voluntary impairment (alcohol/drugs), or uncontrollable rage.

Self defense is another matter - defense of property or life (which I know doesn't sit well with many people. but I was raised in the "frontier" of Alaska, so some of my views are "dated" by many folks viewpoints.)

Thats a "quick" answer to a broad question, and doesn't approach this specific case - I don't know enough about it beyond a snippet of a webstory to have a specific opinion of the case.

[captspastic]

Really

[tigerknight]

He apparently knew enough about what he was doing and how bad it was that he tried to burn the house down and run away by stealing the family car. I don't care who you are, how old you are, or how mentally unstable - when you exhibit that string of actions you are aware of your actions and should be held responsible for them.

[captspastic]

I don't know. As a general, blanket statement, that just doesn't wash.

Circumstances DO and should play a role in either guilt or innocence, as well as motivation.

If circumstances can, and does, indeed apply to evidence in a case, it should also be weighed into the overall equation and decision of guilt or innocence. Not doing so, isn't really justice. It's a witch hunt.

An action committed out of a reflex response related to the base human survival instinct does not always and necessarily indicate cognitive ability in the same situation. Particularly in times of emotional distress.

There's a difference between someone not KNOWING what they are doing, and someone having the reasoning ability and logistical awareness of the long term impact of a complex action and situation.

You don't use the same logic and reasoning ability in deciding whether or not to go take a crap, as you do to sit down and reason out a financial plan spanning over a period of 30 years.

[millysdaughter]

12 is not really old enough to fully understand the very finality of their actions. And they do not have much impulse control at that age. I do not think they can be treated as an adult...no matter WHAT the circumstances. Lock him up for life as a juvenile offender, fine--but not charged as an adult.

[captspastic]

I agree with you in part.

I don't agree that locking up a 12 year old for the entire rest of his life however, is a reasonable, fair and just punishment. People seem to forget very often these days that there IS a part of our Constitution that PROHIBITS, unfair, unreasonable and unjust punishment.

Locking up a 12 year old for life, is NOT a fair and just punishment. Nor is it a reasonable one. His life hasn't even BEGUN yet, and is being taken away based upon circumstances he is NOT entirely responsible for.

How is that justice?

[tigerknight]

He's not being locked away for life. He was locked away for the minimum sentence of 30 years without parole.

[davev1968]

In this particular case, I say yes. I don't buy the defense.

I think that when there is a question of whether or not one should be tried as an adult, said one should be evaluated by an independent authority to determine if that one had an adult understanding of the crime of which he is accused.

[gooroo]

It depends on the circumstances - was he/she being abused, for instance.

[red_tanya]

It depends on the 12 year old and the nature of the crime. I haven't read the story yet, but some crimes are more disturbing than others.

[popfiend]

Yes. The unfortunate truth is that the 12 year old brain is still growing and in development physically. There are legit reasons why a kid that age may not understand.

And that's enough to sway me to my answer.

[red_tanya]

absolutely. Having now read the case, I'd have to say "I don't know the kid well enough to judge his competence in this matter, but I'll bet someone else who talked to him could determine that."