July 25, 2008
-
Treating Teenage Murderers as Adults
I was reading an older article about a 14 year old boy who killed another person.
The author of the article was discussing the issue of whether a 14-year-old boy should be treated like an adult in sentencing. An adult would normally get a 30 year sentence for the same crime. The lawyers in the case were hoping for a lighter sentence because the youth involved was only 14 years old. Here is the link: Link
Do you think a 14-year-old should be given a lighter sentence than an adult if the crime is murder?
Comments (137)
No.They knew the consequences of commiting the crime when they did so. They also should not be able to pull an insanity plea out of their ass either.
If you’re going to charge him as an adult you need to have the expectations that he will in fact recieve the same sentence an adult would. It’s still murder no matter how you look at it.
i think he should get a lighter sentence
if the 14 year old can be tried as an adult – then we need to drop the voting, drinking, legal age of consent, and driving ages to 14 also. you cant “bend” the rules for one thing and then allow the others to remain the same.
I’m not sure, I want to say murder is murder no mater what age you are but 13 and 14 year olds can be so out of touch with reality, I have no idea
The murderer is a murderer. Be he 14 or 41. A lighter sentence is a compromised punishment and all because he is a youth? When “youths” commit an offense which is as reprehensible as when an adult does, why should the accountability be considered as less. It’s the same offense. If the murderer was “big and bold” enough to take the life of another human being, then he should be “big and bold” enough to take it like a man. Where the heck is rationale in this scenario? Is the victim less dead because the murderer was 14? And more dead because a murderer is an adult? Yikes…what are we thinking?
@lyricsninja - Holy crap! You are an idiot!
I honestly don’t know either. It’s sad when murder happens, teenage or adult. But really it’s still the same crime for either ages. The teenager knew what they were doing was wrong. So a great part of me wants to say NO they shouldn’t be given a lighter sentence. But at the same time…I really don’t know
@lissalinn - I agree.
Yes, because the part of their brain that helps with decision making and understanding consequences of actions is not fully developed, yet.
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - That wasn’t nice =P
Let’s face it, teenagers make bad decisions. I think they should put that kid through many years of rehabilitation. Otherwise, if he’s put in a regular jail he’s going to come out angry and just commit another crime.
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - Putting someone in jail doesn’t undo the crime. The jail time is to keep society safe from the person. A 14 year old’s brain has not finished developing, and does not have the same judgment capabilities or the ability to recognize and understand consequences as an adult brain. He should be punished, and yes it should be severe, but no amount of punishment is going to bring the dead person back to life. If he can be rehabilitated (yes, that’s an IF, as in, it’s conditional) then shouldn’t he be given the opportunity to make positive contributions to society?
It is still murder but it depends i know that osunds crazy but yes and no. My half brother is in prison now for trying to kill his father (not my father his). But he did it because his father always beat him and raped him so i don’t think he should be in prison still. To me that is unfair.
@cuteluvr21 - secretly, i love you for your brain.
@lyricsninja - It’s not so secret anymore.
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - i am an idiot, in fact. however, that has nothing to do with my comment here. it was being a sensationalist, but its hard to show sarcasm via textual convesations. the thing i am trying to point out is that our legal system in the United States is completely borked. The definition of a minor is that they have no reached legal competence, however they also state that the age should be 18 and older. The problem I see is the inherent contradiction with “legal competence” and “18 and older”. Its a very subjective thing as to say if someone is of legal competence.
basically if they are of “legal competence” to be tried for a capital crime, then id say they are of legal competence to vote, die for our country, have sex with whomever they want, consume alcohol, and drive.
@cuteluvr21 - per grapeswordsofwisdom, im an idiot. thus my revelation to you about loving you for your brain was simply a poorly thought out plot. oh wellllll
@lyricsninja - I would buy it, except that it’s bullshit, and I can get that for free.
@cuteluvr21 - /swoon.
stop giving me more reasons to love your brain!
The first answer that comes to mind is no, they shouldn’t be given a lighter sentence, they still committed murder. Children know right from wrong and I’m hoping they got morals from some place. They know life isn’t a video game and people don’t get all shot up and keep enjoying life. At 13 & 14, a child doesn’t realize everything has consequences or understand that loading a gun and shooting it at someone could kill them? This is driving me crazy.
@lyricsninja - No. I enjoy the attention way too much to do that.
It’s hard to decide. One the one hand they should know the consequences of such actions, but on the other hand they may have been conditioned to think a certain way due to how they were raised or the society in where they grew up.
I say send them to iraq or afghanistan. use their murderous propensity to go around shooting bad people. bang bang!! although i could see them turning on us and playing for the other side. dangit and I thought i was a genius.
@cuteluvr21 - bah, you know you could have my attention just about anytime you wanted it.
People don’t give young adults enough credit. Their brains are perfectly capable of thinking out consequences.
That’s one problem with society – they’ve dumbed everything down and give all kinds of excuses instead of just taking responsibility for their actions.
@TigerIly - Sometimes, the truth hurts and for some, it stings. There are those who use “intelligent” rationale and those who don’t…and those who don’t can be dangerous for society. Given lyricsninja account, well then, children would go to work, contribute to the house finances, be accountable for mortgage payments and food purchases, raise their own children, educate themselves, clothe themselves and have no authority figure over them. But that’s not “reasonable”! However, the taking of another’s life is a seriously grave matter which should be dealt with in the same manner the taking of it took place. It’s a matter of right and wrong….and even those with less mentality know it’s absolutely wrong. It’s a matter of morality…not the infusion of “emotion out of whack” which “might” hold someone back from commiting a major crime.
Jail time doesn’t bring the dead person back but for the older people here, 14 isn’t all that young; wake up and smell the coffee… We have mothers now that are about 15-16 and I’m sure there are plenty of 14 year olds smoking, drinking and committing crimes like say, murder. There are video games that promote this, music that promotes this, movies, television shows; the list goes on. A 14 year old now is not the same as when YOU were 14 years old so I think they WOULD have the capability to murder some and know fully well what they were doing and because of that awareness, they should pay for what they did. Just suck it up and take responsibility. If you thought the person you killed deserved it, than you most definitely deserve to be punished for it.
No I don’t think they should get lighter sentences. Children know that murder is wrong and the ones that have normal mental functions understand that you will be punished or rewarded for your behaviors. They know better. Do I think they should be thrown in prison with adults before they are 18, of course not.
Very few 14-year-olds have fully mature mental and emotional systems by that age. But they know the difference between right and wrong, so they should be held accountable. There should be rehabilitation along with the punishment. We call our prisons “correctional facilities,” but they impose retribution instead of rehabilitation.
I’d be more worried about placing 14-year-olds in an adult prison. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. . . .
A good amount of people say that at thirteen and fourteen, “their minds aren’t developed, or they don’t understand the consequences of their actions… blah blah blah, whatever”
Really? They don’t understand the consequences of killing someone? Oh okay. Yeah so if an older person murders someone then they get whatever the sentence is for murder, and if you’re a thirteen year old that murders someone, they get a slap on the wrist and “rehabilitation” because their minds are not all there yet.
I’m pretty damn sure that they know that killing is, you know, wrong and they should be tried just like any other murderer out their.
@ch0w - I’m 19, so I’m not that far removed from 14-year-olds. A year ago, I went to school with them. I know how fast people grow up, but I still think that 14 is a little too young to hold someone to the same standards as we would an adult.
At 14, no, I don’t think he should be tried as an adult. He should still get prison time, though.
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - The thinking is that children do not have a sufficiently developed capacity to make decisions. This is the same thinking behind statutory rape. Regardless, your accusations against lyricsninja (idiocy) could have been much better substantiated. You never addressed his central point.
@lyricsninja - Your point is perfect here.
Yes, but not that much lighter. Maybe only a year or two.
i think by 14 we all get the concept that murder is wrong and is a lawfully punishible act and his age doesn’t change the reprehensibility of the crime. it’s one thing if the deed was done in self-defense- it’s an entirely different scenario if the act was committed unprovoked upon an innocent- in the former, no time should be served, in the latter the sentence laid out for that offense should be given regardless of age. that’s what we call justice- hence the JUSTICE system, not the mercy system. Mercy is religion’s duty.
He made an adult choice, he should get adult punishment.
NO!
I think he should be sentenced to 30 years of reading inane comments on Theologian’s Cafe.
no. by 14 you know what you’re doing, especially crime-wise. i’m that age.
Yes, he should get a lighter sentence. I agree with the above points that young people’s brains are not yet developed enough to foresee and weigh the consequences of their actions, which is one reason for leniency. In addition, while an adult murderer at 25 will likely be the same person at 55, at the age of 14 a youth’s personality and character is much less fixed. The adult being punished thirty years later in prison would hardly be the same person as the child who committed the crime. Also, keep in mind that for someone so young, his environment and society’s external influences likely played a large role in influencing his actions, and as a young person he probably did not have the freedom to escape these negative surroundings like an adult would. There are many mitigating factors to consider for young offenders like this, which is why they shouldn’t receive the same sentences as adults even for murder.
@lovemonkeyy - Exactly. If you’re 14, today, you know the caliber of your actions and if you can fathom yourself taking another persons life, then you should understand the consequences behind it. And if you don’t understand them, then hello, that’s why you’re being punished. We’ve gotta keep order in this society somehow right?
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - You seem to be missing my point completely…
I will try this one last time.
The legal argument that is being set forth is the question of what is a minor. A minor is considered to be one that is not yet legally competent, ie – they do not fully comprehend the possible consequences of their actions in a legal sense. The age at which we are officially considered to be an adult is at 18. The particular case we are speaking to is one of a 14 year old.
Those are all given truths. Nothing I have said there is an opinion.
Here is my opinion: if you were to try said 14 year old as an adult then he is being held to the standards that all adults are. OK, I am fine with that. HOWEVER, then I believe he should have the additional rights that are granted to an adult. AKA – if you are going to subject someone to the laws of adulthood, then you also need to give them the rights of adulthood. You must also then adapt the current belief that 18 is the age of an adult, and change it to when someone has the legal capacity to understand, which would also need to be measured in a concrete manner. This includes, but is not limited to: the ability to drive at any time, consent to sexual encounters, working at a job without the need for working papers, the ability to vote for the president of the nation, the ability to serve for one’s country, etc.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - like i said, im still an idiot, just not for the reason she is mentioning.
No. By 14, a person knows basic right and wrong, and shuold know that killing person is wrong and has consequences.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I’ve got a question, rehtorical as it is, but how many other 14 year olds will feel thay have license to kill as a result of this kid getting off lightly? This was a commission of his own “free will” and he “chose” to do someone in. That there is a disparity between a 14 year old and an 18 year old is merely chronological. You are defending a youth under the premise his brain hasn’t matured to know the serious consequences of taking another’s life. I take umbrage with that…and it is offensive to those 14 year old kids who actually do the right thing in the same given circumstances. There are “reasons” and then there are excuses.
What do you say to the family and friends of the victim? How do you account for the perp who gets a lighter sentence, when the victim is gone forever and the family still suffers? Or do we just “forget” about that matter entirely? Getting hit with a wet noodle for killing someone and getting a light sentence or getting off because he was only a “youth” is an outrage. There is a serious consequence…or should be…for those with that kind of malice in their souls…be they 14 or 41.
Rehabilitation?? There are but only a ‘few’ of those who do jail time that don’t come back again and again. Usually, they are old men by the time rehabilitation takes roots…and they served out their time.
I’m not really sure about this.
I don’t know how I’d feel if I was a family member of someone that was murdered in cold blood by a teenager.
The problem is where to draw the line. Looking at the other case cited in that article, it appears that the death caused by the other 14 year old, the one who was sentenced to life in prison, was accidental. So, if ‘accidental’ deaths caused by children are punishable by adult standards, then it stands to reason that when a child plans and carries out a murder he too should be tried as an adult.
Yes, children are still in their formative stages, especially as far as their decision making abilities are concerned. But, it is also true that some children develope the ability to make choices sooner than others, and that sometimes these abilities are influenced or hampered by gender, or sadly even ecomomic or educational surroundings. So, if the decision to try a child as an adult is based on their developement, then every case would have to fall under heavy scrutiny, with psychological exams, investigations into every aspect of the child’s upbringing and background, and the whole deal would become a legal mess for all involved. Not to mention the cost, which would ulitmately fall to the tax payers.
There are too many grey areas.
Perhaps the most logical answer then, would be, what does the law say? If someone under the age of 18 commits a crime, what is that state’s law for punishment? Once that is established, there should be no veering from the law. That is, after all, why it is a law. As harsh or as lax as this may sound, there should be no room for wishy-washy, case-by-case open interpretation of the laws.
No.
How else is he going to express his emotions if adults dont want to get on his 14yr old level..
Its sometimes what society has shown him/her to get things taken care of so…he just wants to do whats best…
And dont blame the rap music anymore… blame society’s past ‘generashuns’
@SpiritualBattlefield - aaaah! the rap music IS sociatal. “Blame society’s past ‘generations?” What about today? The “now in the present, living and breathing?” Why do you want to “blame” past generations for the act of one person…who is guilty? Lay “BLAME” where it lies….not on a society or a generation…but one the perp. No one twisted this kid’s arm to kill another human being. He did it all by himself. With your explanation…we should all be criminals and there would be no hope.
It seems to me that conservatives are looking at this from the “Murder is murder” point of view,
(Damn compassionate coservatism)
Where as the liberals are looking at this from the is-the-teen-salvageable point of view.
@lyricsninja - I got your point very clearly, however, I think you may have missed mine. It’s not in the “bending” of law….as you suggested…mine was in the obedience to the law. The law is the law and there is no mercy. It applies to everyone…as a very famous lawmaker once stated to me.
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - I don’t know of anyone – aged 14 or otherwise – who decide to go out on killing sprees because Brian Nichols is going to walk.
At what point do you think the brain has matured enough to completely understand the consequences of murder? Birth? 2? 5? 10? Saying that 14-year-olds in general haven’t matured enough to know the difference is not offensive to those 14-year-olds who are particularly precocious. If anything, it would be offensive that they are still considered children for the sake of legal contacts and whatnot.
Either you’re old enough to think and understand the consequences of your actions or you’re not. If you are old enough to think and understand the consequences of murder at 14, then you must also be old enough to think and understand the consequences of drinking, driving, or voting, right? Where’s the fundamental difference between the capacity required to drink, drive, or vote, and the capacity required to decide whether to commit murder? And, if someone has that capacity, why should the government deny it? With maturity and understanding come great freedom and great responsibility. Trying to give someone all the responsibility and none of the freedom simply isn’t right.
I don’t understand why friends and family need to be vindicated by tossing the a murderer in jail forever. But I DO THINK that a 14-year-old who commits murder should be imprisoned, as I said in my comment. I simply don’t think they should be held to the same standards as an adult (which often comes with mandatory minimum sentences)
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - one must first respect the law to be fully obedient. and if you cant understand the law, you cant do either of those things. if the child was 7 and committed murder would we be having the same argument?
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - Actually, the law does not apply equally to children. A five-year-old who steals candy from the store will not be jailed as a 50-year-old might. A 15-year-old caught driving alone might be fined or jailed, while a 16-year-old probably would not.
@nidan - And the anarchists are looking at it from the logical point of view.
Actually, I’m betting lyricsninja isn’t an anarchist. But he might as well be on this point, because he’s expecting the government to do something reasonable!
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - There is hope, but its a dead end..
I will explain.
We cant get it right. We have done everything under the sun to make everything perfect.
Everything but listen. Its always been that a person is supposed to be seen not heard and teens have been put on the back burner since the beginning of teens.
No, not all of them but, the ones that do murder and commit most crimes..all races included; have been shown the wrong ways to settle things.
Those are the generation ones that I am talking about. Not the ones that have nurtured and took time to love and teach their children.
Every time I speak of blame…I am talking about those that didnt really care to teach their kids.The ones that hated their kids. The ones that thought more of their own personal pleasure and not that of the childs.People misunderstand what I say all the time.
And it was sarcasm about the rap music because I am tired of people blaming anything and everything but themselves. Its not the music that is to blame, people write those songs for what they have lived or are living.
Its not a “lets see if we can get kids to turn bad with some evil words and make them destroy themselves and every one that loves them”…
…
I should maybe write a post about what I have seen and what I was not given as a child.
And also that I have not murdred anyone but …I have wanted to.
I remember wishing that my parents would have listened at many times in my life.
We should (again,those whom dont take the time,mind you…)Listen to what teens really need. People should step back INSIDE and show their kids some attention, teach them and stop worrying what they are missing.. because seriously,when they (the parents) are more up into the world’s ass than caring for their own, they are then missing more than life itself and so is the child..
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - It may apply to everyone but even the law sometimes bend for themselves.
Not reallyyy…
but then again, some kids seem to be a bit more likely to learn from their mistakes than some adults…
@la_faerie_joyeuse - you, miss, are full of win.
@SpiritualBattlefield - !!!!! wow its been forever since ive seen you!
@la_faerie_joyeuse - ???
“And the anarchists are looking at it from the logical point of view.”
Only if you identify with the anachists. You are mistaking if you think I do.
@lyricsninja - Haha I know right.
I went to your site yesterday just to make sure that it was you. You had a different profile pic,no?..
How are you?!?!?
Come say hi when you can.!
I have to get back to work, hope to see you again.
Ciao`
No.
@SpiritualBattlefield - we have some talking to do for sure. drop me a message (or give a call or whatever works best)
@nidan - No, I know you’re not an anarchist. That would be me.
I was trying to imply that you left out some viewpoints, while poking some fun at standard conservative and liberal values.
@lyricsninja - i completely agree with you.
@lyricsninja - Why, thank you, but I’m not sure whether to be grateful or offended. You did say that the Grapies lady was right in her cursory evaluation of your intellect. So, theoretically, if you’re trying to live up to that standard, all your comments should be taken to mean that the opposite is true.
(I jest)
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - When “youths” commit an offense which is as reprehensible as when an adult does, why should the accountability be considered as less. It’s the same offense.
At some point, though, we would have to draw the line.
If a five-year-old smothers his infant sister with a pillow, should this person be tried as an adult? To be fully morally culpable for a crime, the persom must fully comprehend the act and its ultimate concenquences. Until some age, children don’t have the context and faculties to make a measured judgement.
This question is really hard to answer. Instead of asking us in all of your entry, I want to know what do you think Dan?
My opinion may be completely left of center, but I think if a person (no matter what age he/she is) commits the crime of murder than that person needs to be shown that there are consequences for heinous actions. There are a lot of things that could be going on here – indeed, the part of his brain that makes such decisions may not be fully developed yet but, then again, it may NEVER be fully developed since this could be construed as the precursor to an antisocial personality in which case a lifetime of crime MIGHT just occur anyway. The boy is/was young, if he gets the help he needs and serves adult time to show him the consequences, it may save another life in the future.
@lyricsninja - if the 14 year old can be tried as an adult – then we need to drop the voting, drinking, legal age of consent, and driving ages to 14 also. you cant “bend” the rules for one thing and then allow the others to remain the same.
This is a superficial point. Because of these mentioned activities– murder, drinking, voting– carries vastly different concenquences, both in timber and severity, they need to be looked very differently.
Another thing is that you’d note that the “age limit” for each of the activities is different. Drinking might be 21, and driving might be 16; but why can’t we set murder at 14?
I’m sure that you, in your mind, have more reasons behind your position of not trying the 14-year-old as an adult.
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - that was just rude.
trying teens like adults doesn’t do any good for them if no one ever makes an effort to get to the root of the problem. so sure, he could serve a 30 yr sentence, but what kind of man is that going to produce?
@cuteluvr21 - He should be punished, and yes it should be severe, but no amount of punishment is going to bring the dead person back to life. If he can be rehabilitated (yes, that’s an IF, as in, it’s conditional) then shouldn’t he be given the opportunity to make positive contributions to society?
Yes: and the longer the person stays in jail, the more of his life is taken from him; and the harder it will be for him to reintegrate into society once he gets out.
@lyricsninja - I totally agree with you….
I just don’t know about sentencing a child as an adult….I know murder is murder but do their circumstances matter at all. What about second chances.
To me they are still children and sending them to prison with adults because they made a mistake is not going to make society a better place for any of us. I agree he will need some sort of punishment but also he needs help.
I just don’t think it’s right to sentence a 14-year-old like an adult. They’re so far from adulthood and adult understandings of situations! Many 14-year-olds are slowly gaining an understanding of the adult world, but most of them will lash out in irrational and sometimes even violent ways (on themselves and others). I think there needs to be heavy psych-evaluations and some years of rehabilitation with harsh, but not adult, punishment. Kids like Nathaniel Brazill need to spend time with the victim’s family, they need to gain the understanding that their victim was a real person. Most 14-year-olds can’t see beyond themselves enough to realize other people are living this existence just like them; I doubt that he had the capability to fully realize what he was doing. He should be up for parole at 18 & then if he has little remorse, he can go to an adult prison.
18 is very, very different from 14– and you’re fooling yourself if you think there is no gap.
@ch0w - Jail time doesn’t bring the dead person back but for the older people here, 14 isn’t all that young; wake up and smell the coffee… We have mothers now that are about 15-16 and I’m sure there are plenty of 14 year olds smoking, drinking and committing crimes like say, murder….
To a large extent, we’re all judging the development and potential of a 14 year through the lense of our own experiences. While I personally agree with your view, the subjectiveness of our assessments uneasies me. I would love to hear from the professional judgement of a neurologist or child psychologist.
Nope. Hang ‘em high!
Yes I think age should be played into the sentence. The mind of a 14 year old boy is drastically different than the mind of say… a 30 year old. Although the crime may have been the same, there is a different way you could approach his “treatment” and “punishment”…
Lighter sentences. Ah, how about just a slap on the wrist? (Sarcasm)
Doing that will be like parents that do not know how to discipline their children. Let’s cut the method that create irresponsible children and turn to the ways that help people to become more sensible and mature adults.
I think, that even though he’s only 14 years old, he should still be treated like an adult. This crime, isn’t a light crime, like steeling or running a red light. He killed another human being. He did a very serious thing and it’s an adult crime, so he should be tried as an adult. Back in the old days, it was an eye for an eye kind of a thing, so he would of been killed himself.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - im just categorized as an idiot due to having a differing and somewhat raw (unfinished?) view on a lot of things.
i think im decently intelligent at least. but i do some stupid things for the fun of it
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - This was a commission of his own “free will” and he “chose” to do someone in. That there is a disparity between a 14 year old and an 18 year old is merely chronological.
I don’t think anyone would disagree with the spirit of your assessment: A 14-year-old would know “right” from “wrong.” But this isn’t enough.
The morality of an action, though, is much more than knowing whether reaching your hand into the cookie jar is “good” or “bad.” To a very large extent, moral responsiblity stems from understanding an action and the entirity of its eventual concenquence. Consider that any 14 year old would have less than a fourth of your life experiences and thoughts.
Children live in their own bubbles. Most fourteen-year-olds spend hours a day in front of the TV and playing World of Warcraft. There is a strong disconnection from the real world. Their understanding of life and murder is more grounded in fantasy– movies and tv– than ours. As adults, we’ve worked, attended high school (and some college), and raised families. Still looking to mommy and daddy, fourteen year olds don’t have the same context we do for his actions.
No one is saying the child should get away scotch-free. Murder is still murder. The fourteen-year-old’s understanding of it, though, is only a fraction of our’s. A reduced sentence is both fair and proportional.
if i was his momma, i would think no freakin’ way!! unless momma did teach him from right and wrong. And the reasons behind it should be considered into what kind of punishment a child should take.
Like say, in self-esteem, then no. In anger, YES! For no reason, or because you’re bored or think this is fun, something to try out, then YES…
The story only says he killed his teacher, I am gonna take a wild guess he killed him cuz the teacher gave him a B.
But as a momma, if I tried my best and he still didn’t listen, then yes I would encourage this crime, because I have tried my best. But then again, if as a momma, I didn’t do anything to teach him the d ifferences, then I would be hoping not, cuz it would have been my fault.
Now since I am not his mother. The story was not exactly speicfic on why he killed the teacher. If the teacher was taunting him, threatening him or just being mean like being abusive, calling him names and such, then I can kinda see why he just lost it and killed the teacher.
But once again as I mentioned earlier. If it was over stupid report card, then he got what coming to him.
50-50, I feel sorry for the kid and ANYONE t hat made this wrong move. 50-50 I don’t give a rat’s ass about those who took a person’s life for no or stupid reasons!
@huginn - my argument comes back to the same point – definition of a minor. if we define a minor as below 18, then we hold it to that standard for all crimes. but we seem to have this grey area that is becoming larger and larger with what a minor is versus what an adult is. i suppose all i would be looking for, in the long run, is some clear definition as to who is “legally competent” and who is not. and yes, i do understand that its tough to do anyhow since our legel system is ever evolving.
@lyricsninja - Being different surely isn’t a qualification for being an idiot. And having unfinished or unrefined ideas doesn’t qualify you for idiocy, either, just ignorance (unless you’re unable or unwilling to refine your ideas further.)
And doing stupid things, as long as you don’t have stupid motivations for doing them, also wouldn’t qualify you. Sorry, you fail to meet my stringent standards for the idiocy award. Maybe next time.
@lyricsninja - Lawfully, the age limit to restricted activities are different. There is some merit to hand waving the whole idea of “minors.”
I don’t disagree with you, I just think you’re arguing your points in a way that misses the heart of the matter.
Each action are acted upon differently while carrying different concquences. We generally classify anyone under 21 (or 18) a minor. The drinking age is set to 21 for a reason. The driving age is set to 16, well under 21, but not to 12 or 13 for a reason. To stick to this retoric “minors” and for “legal consistnecy” muddles the fine points of each action.
Absolutely!!!! At 14 you KNOW the implications of murder. You should be treated as an adult and receive the same punishment.
Now, if the kid was 6 and was curious about his dad’s gun and accidentally shot someone, I wouldn’t be saying the same thing. But a teenager? Come on. He knows what he did.
@momma2babies34@revelife - Or, maybe, he got “all Fs, took it to tha teacher desk, [and said] ‘Slap some D’s on that, bitch!’”
And then she refused. Following perfectly in Soulja Boy’s footsteps, the student must have replied, “
If you keep talkin crazy imma slap you in yo mouth! i’m dat nigga datz gon put you out yo misery”
When she called him out on the threat, he began to “take yo arm and pull the trigga finger you know wat im sayin. shoot! let me get em. shoot!”
@huginn - well played.i couldnt find the correct wording and you managed to. i will bow to that comment.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - Actually the ideas wouldn’t be ignorance either really. They are constant works in progress that keep me pushing to find more concrete answers. Basically I never stop questioning life, and it unnerves some people. *shrug*
And my motivation for doing a lot of what I do is simply to try new things, and enjoy life – within the bounds of my moral code of course.
@lyricsninja - that’s so true. no double standards in this country, that’s for damn sure.
What a tough question.
Underage crimes get lesser punishments because people assume that young people do not have enough knowledge/experience/life know-how to be able to fully comprehend their actions. Also, they believe that younger crime-doers will be easier to “fix” in all their naivite.
I think it all depends on the mental state of the the offender and how well his lawyer can present his case. Is he “just too young to understand” or is he “old enough to know what the hell he’s doing?”
I don’t believe in capital punishment.
It depends on the reasons and circumstances of that murder.
If you murder someone you should remain in jail in a) the victim returns to life and gets to do all the things they would have missed out on if they have not died so soon, b) evrryone who has every known of loved the vistim is no longer hurt when reminded of the crime. As soon as one of those things happens, the murder shoudl automatically be allowed go free.
@huginn - You wrote:
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - When “youths” commit an offense which is as reprehensible as when an adult does, why should the accountability be considered as less. It’s the same offense.
At some point, though, we would have to draw the line.
I absolutely concur! A child of 5 is just that…an innocent. And there are some people over the legal age who are not mentally matured or able to be in society either. Case in mind: my neice was murdered, sawed up, and put between the sheet rock in an apartment house wall which was owned and condemmed by the Housing Authority in NYC….until it was bought with intention of bringing up to luxurious standards. That was in 1983. She had been a recent graduate of Hunter college with a very bright future. She would have been married three short months later. Her mother lost the will to live and succumbed. Her father was outraged when they finally caught the perp…18 months later and he was but a fragile 17 then. He got 7 years. When he got out he established himself as a pimp…and began this endeavor by pimping his 15, 14, 11, and 9 year old sisters out. Guess what he did? He killed his 9 year old sister, this time in New Jersey, exactly the same way he did my neice in. He was 27 then and barely 6 months out of prison, however, when he got out of prison….it was with a psychologists approval that he had successfully passed the litmus test in “anger management.” This guy was a sociopath….and he went unrecognized as such. Origninally, at his sentencing, the claim was for leniency..because he was just a kid when did the crime.
@GrapiesWordsofWisdom - The supreme court decided that anyone under the age of 16 cannot be tried as an adult. The man in your story missed the cut-off date by two years.
Given the ghastliness of the story, seven years seem much too lienent.
well murder is murder the consequences should be the same for everyone.
A 14 year old who commits murder knew his choices and made the wrong one – same as an adult. He should get the same sentence.
If you don’t know that murder is wrong at 14 then you get no sympathy from me. I say treat him like an adult.
I found an interesting case on Wikipedia:
——————————-
The “Sasebo slashing”[1] refers to the murder of a 12-year-old Japanese schoolgirl, Satomi Mitarai (御手洗 怜美, Mitarai Satomi?), by an 11-year-old classmate.[2] The murder occurred on June 1, 2004 at an elementary school in Sasebo, Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan, and involved the slitting of Mitarai’s throat and arms with a box cutter.[3]
…The murder sparked an ongoing debate in Japan about whether the age of criminal responsibility, shifted from 16 to 14 in 2000 due to the 1997 Sakakibara Seito murders in Kobe, needed to be shifted again.[17] The killer was considered to be normal before the incident,[18] which made the public more anxious.[19]…
…The Nagasaki family court in 2004 originally sentenced her to two-years of involuntary commitment, but it sentenced her to additional two-years of involuntary commitment in September 2006.[15] On May 29, 2008, local authorities announced they will lift the restrictions of freedom on her.[16]…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasebo_slashing
———————————
This is an good test case for two reasons: 1.) Instead of an African-Amerian male, the minor in question is a Japanese schoolgirl, and 2.) Instead of being 14, the girl is 11-yeas-old.
I think everyone should get the same sentence, unless you murder someone out of self defense or it was an accident or something.
only a slightly lighter sentence. theres a chance this kid will change and still have a chance for a good future but it sucks if his life starts at 44…
@sarahb_86 - to assume they know the consequences of 30 yrs in jail is to assume they are educated and smart enough to know better. I think they SHOULD HAVE know better, but one never knows. A punishment should be in order, but also it should be revisited when he turns 21. Lets not lock up all the kids forever.
I know I’m being optimistic, and it’s true, he’s probably lost to the gangs, but maybe he could come out as a grown adult and learned something.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - Just that those are the viewpoints I generally poke fun of.
@Revolving_Dragons - Well, allow me to retort with this: if, as you say, they are “lost to the gangs” then they have already been taught the consequences of their actions. That is if you get caught you go to jail. That is all they need to know thereby proving that they know the consequences of killing someone.
You are assuming that 14 year olds are ignorant of basic social norms. The truth is that grade school children know the consequences of killing or hurting another living thing. It has nothing to do with the fact that teenagers do not think clearly. I don’t know anyone , tennager or adult, who is thinking clearly who handles a gun with the intent of killing anything not used for food. Thinking clearly about killing someone and knowing the consequences of doing so are two different things. If someone was not thinkign clearly about the consequences then they would not run and hide after doing so.
Why should we revisit it when they are 21? So they can rant about how they didn’t mean to do it and they were young and stupid? I’ll give them the young and stupid part but not the other. You meant to do it, that’s why you did it, you have just found out how much it sucks to be in jail being punished for it and now you want out so you can go and do something else to end up right back inside. That’s right most people who claim such things end up being let out only to be put right back in jail. It is a proven fact.
I don’t care how old you are, and I mea that to the full extent, if you commit the crime then you need to be punished for it. Maybe, if we punish you hard enough, take away yard time and tv’s and radios in the cells, you will realize how good you had it on the outside and not do such ignorant things to get put in jail in the first place.
Lol. Sorry, this is funny.
…but still, the reality of the matter is that we all grew up too fast, and our generation (say the teenagers of our time) learned everything too quickly.
So, I don’t really know, but I would say that he should still be tried as an adult. Other rules shouldn’t be bent though, there is a necessary alteration on specific rules.
@sarahb_86 - “going to jail” isn’t exactly the same as 30 yrs to life. I’m not saying they don’t deserve to be punished. Did u ever do anything dumb when you were 14?
And wait, why doesn’t the 14 yr old get the same 2nd chance as say… OJ? Oh, wait, OJ had money. Sorry, wrong post.
When your 14, saying your going to go to jail for 30 yrs is incomprehensible. they don’t have that concept of time. If you grow up with that kind of violence, how do you grow to know the severity of the crime? The kids don’t see it as a big deal. Sad but true. 6 yrs later or maybe 15 yrs later, well that’s a different story.
And as you said, if the jails were severe enough maybe they’d think twice. But not if you “ingnorant” or not taught these lessons. My parents raised me not to kill people. Maybe his didn’t? That is the real problem. We need to TEACH, not just lock em up and throw away the key. I’m thinking that yes, they deserve to be punished, but the system isn’t working.
There are no right answers I don’t think. And I kinda jumped around alot. Sorry. But it’s just too hard to say this is black and white without some grey areas.
Lastly, we are concentrating on murder with a gun. In the article Lionel Tate just got life without parole for killing a little girl practicing wrestling moves. What would ever make that kid think she would die when it is protrayed that nobody ever dies and nobody ever gets hurt? Why should he get life without parole for a non-premditated murder???
I say charge his ass as an adult. He took the life of someone’s kid.
yes, kids are more prone to acting without thinking about the consequences. and chances are, if he wound up in jail, he may come out even more angered and troubled than before rather than rehabilitated.
No, a 14 year old should get treated the same as an adult. I will gladly pay to jail a 14 year old for the rest of their life should they commit gang related murder.
Be a victim a few times, when they are out of the heat of the moment they are a 14 year old, but absolute disregard for human life should have severe consequences regardless of age.
Get beat down and chased a few times. I felt like a man last time, next time I will die for it.
It depends on the circumstances:
Intent
Evidence
Type of murder (was it violent, etc.)
Basically, based on what happened…
@lyricsninja - I don’t necessarily agree, but I think you make a good point. We assume that a teen knows what it means to kill, but can we assume a teen knows the responsibilities behind voting, drinking, sex, etc? Very thought provoking.
@Revolving_Dragons - The OJ thing made me laugh. In a good way though.
Sadly the system isnt working I will agree with you completely there. Irregardles of what your parents teach you or not, not murdering someone is a social rule and can be learned outside the home. I actually have to disagree with what you said about growing up with it and not knowing the difference. I have a friend who did grow up around it in Chicago and she herself has told me that growing up around this just made her even more afraid of it and the consequences. (Believe it or not we actually had a conversation similar to this.)
I have to disagree with you on your last point as well. I have never known wrestling to ever be portrayed as “safe” irregardless of if it is fake or not. They have warnings telling people not to do them and to disregard that is irresponsible.Coaches emphasise the fact that if the moves are not done correctly that you could get hurt or worse. He disregarded those warnings and ended up doing something that killed another human being.
On a side note, sorry if I come of as hostile about this but I really do feel that people get off way to easy for things and that criminals in jail are treated like kings with all of the amenities they are allowed. Needless to say my conversations get heated when it comes to this.
That totally depends on the kid. More times than not though, I think they should get life just as an adult. Most of these types of kids aren’t exactly going to grow up to be law abiding citizens.
@lyricsninja - It unnerves me when people DO stop questioning! But yes, I’d say that any ideas you hold which you will later change due to new evidence, are indeed held in ignorance. But there’s nothing wrong with ignorance, as long as you work to correct it. You will always be ignorant of many things.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - i suppose it matters the connotation that ignorance is being spoken in. in this case i would agree, i am ignorant to many things.
I think that a normal 14 year old is capable of understanding the implications of taking a life. That being said they should understand the repercussions of that same act. So, no I do not think the court should go easy on them.
@lyricsninja - I generally don’t see the negative connotation to “ignorance” that most people do. As a scientist, I know that ignorance provides the greatest opportunity for new understanding. The only bad part is when you’re utterly ignorant and happy about it (which usually implies idiocy).
@la_faerie_joyeuse - being that im not much of a scientist, i see the term as a more negative. however your use of it is something i will take into consideration and move forward with
I consider the goal of the American judicial system to keep dangerous people off the streets and from bothering pro-social citizens. With that being said, the guy is dangerous, he has a temper and he has not qualms about getting a gun and pulling the trigger. I don’t really care that he’s 14. Forget his age, he is a menace. If I were a judge, I would have to acknowledge his youth and potential, but come to terms with him being a killer and then lock him up. For life if I could.
Murder is murder… if some states are willing to KILL people over it (the death sentence of course) then why would a minor get away with it?
If some fourteen year old hasn’t caught on yet that they mustn’t kill people, then they’re too stupid to wander around without a keeper.
Hasn’t that kid ever seen Terminator 2???
to murder is one of the most hideous crime. i don’t care who it is. we can thank the parents and the culture of violence that we have today. i feel that many of us can not distinguish between reality and fiction.
@lyricsninja - I would have to agree with Grapies words of wisdom, though the comment was not nice, it was not wrong either. How can a crime, especially one as heinous as murder, be compared to a priveledge we are given when we are of an age to make an informed decision? Even then it would be a choice to vote. We won’t be arrested for not voting, or for voting for the “wrong” candidate. Murder falls into the category of crimes against humanity, right along with rape, child molestation, criminal sexual conduct with a minor, or any other crime that damages the body, mind, or even sould of another human being. Just because the person who deliberately takes the life of another is a kid, does not give him/her the right to have a lighter jail sentence. Hell, if I were the judge, I would treat them JUST LIKE an adult and give them the death penalty…..so you see, in many cases, because of the age, they are treated differently, they get life instead. No body said the judicial system gets it right all of the time either!
Depends on race.
@lyricsninja - great argument!
If the juvenile wilfully and intentionally committed the murder without justification, then yes, he should be tried as an adult, if it was an accident he should be treated as someone his age would normally be.
I can’t believe that anyone even has to consider this for more than 2 seconds. If they do the crime, they should do the time! This idea that their brain is not developed is a bunch of dung!!! My kids both knew long before age 14 that killing someone was wrong and the reason it was so. Had my kids brains developed sooner than the norm? I doubt it. They simply were taught, apparently unlike some of the losers about which we are speaking. Sheesh!
yeah i mean who cares how old you are you kill someone on purpose than it should be the same .. we all are equal ..
No. They did the same thing, with the same general intent. There’s no way you can get past maybe eleven years old without learning the consequences of killing another person.. especially if you’re of the mind to do it.
Kids aren’t the same as they were when the outlines for how what to do with them were being created. They totally understand that they can do it and get off easy. The whole thing needs to be redone so they get the same justice as the “grown ups” who commit the same crimes.
A lighter prison sentence maybe, only to be buckled down with some serious psychiatric evaluation–at that age, the gray matter of the brain hasn’t fully matured…that, and I mean, c’mon, he’s fourteen. Committing a murder then means so much more than some whacked-out thirty year-old; he’s still a kid.
maybe the parents should be sentenced also. i believe murder is murder no matter how old you are.
He fucking killed someone. Why give him a lighter sentence? He still ended someone’s life. He can’t even be forgiven for that. They’re dead.
Yes.
If the sentence is lessened, it shouldn’t be by much. Murder is still a grave crime.
No. Actions have consequences and too many times people think they can do whatever they want without any consequences.