Pennsylvania boy, 11, charged with killing pregnant woman

[kingcap72]

Sorry, but the vote, married, go to war, drinking points don't hold up in this case, because being able to vote, get married, drink, go to war, etc are all privileges that you earn when you reach a certain age, minus gay marriage. Committing murder is not a privilege that you get to earn when you reach a certain age. It is a crime, plain and simple.

Prosecutors have to take certain factors into consideration when they consider charging kids as adults. Such as the nature of the crime (premeditated murder) and whether putting the kid into juvenile detention and letting him/her out in a few years is good for the society as a whole if he/she is going to be a repeat offender as an adult.

The crime this kid committed wasn't some prank gone wrong. The kid had already been threatening the woman and he knew enough to wait until she was asleep and then shoot her in the head. He's a sociopath, and sociopaths don't mellow with age. So, putting this kid into juvenile detention and letting him out when he becomes an adult isn't helping anyone. He may stay low-key when he gets out of juvi, but then snap again when someone or something sets him off.

[sputnik]

maybe he is a sociopath. but he is an 11 year-old sociopath thus legally a child. it still makes no sense to try him as an adult.

[ConstanceSpry]

The kid is evil, normal kids don't do this kind of shit. Destroy him, end of story and no worries about repeat crimes.

[kingcap72]

maybe he is a sociopath. but he is an 11 year-old sociopath thus legally a child. it still makes no sense to try him as an adult.

Well, you know who else was a child? The unborn baby that was one month away from taking a first breath until this little 11-year-old sociopath decided to snuff it out. It doesn't legally make sense for a child to snuff out the lives of a pregnant woman and an unborn child, but that's what happened. Murder is a capital crime, and in this case it was a double murder.

[sputnik]

so? it still doesn't change the fact that the little sociopath is 11 years old.

[kingcap72]

So? You seem to be so concerned about the welfare of the 11-year-old double murderer, but all you can say is 'so' about the unborn child that he killed.

Unfortunately, 'so' isn't an effective argument against whether or not a minor should be charged as an adult.

[sputnik]

i'm not concerned with his welfare. my concern is that there shouldn't be double standards in the legal system. it's not because i feel sorry for the poor little sociopath. it's about the fact that there is a juvenile system and an adult one. and that the distinction between the two should be based on the criminal's age, not the crime he commits.
a child is either a child or he isn't. the deciding factor is his age, not his actions. that's my concern. don't try to make it about me being more concerned about the child sociopath than his victims. this is about stopping a practice (trying minors as adults) which i think makes a travesty out of the justice system.

[DeChayz]

Things aren't always B&W, nor should they be. So if the kid was 17 and a half, he should be tried as a minor, but had he waited a few months to kill someone, he'd be an adult? Personally I think they should fry the little fucker, which is why I could never be a judge.

[kingcap72]

Sput, you can't keep going on and on about how "he's a child" and then say "so" when it comes to the fact that the child murdered another child. It undercuts your entire "he's a child" argument by brushing aside the fact that he killed another child.

And the 'either you're a child or an adult' factor doesn't come into play when talking about a capital crime. The law is pretty specific on murder. There's no age requirement, or statute of limitation, when it comes to murder. In some cases, depending on the circumstances, the prosecutors may just opt to try the kid as a juvenile. In other cases, depending on circumstances, they opt to try the kid as an adult.

Either way, the fact remains that this child CHOSE to plan and execute a bloody double murder. His age didn't stop him from doing it, so why should his age keep him from being tried as an adult?

[sputnik]

^^^
i didn't say 'so'. i gave my reasoning for why i think it's retarded to charge an 11 year-old as an adult.
let me post it again, in case you didn't see it the first time :

i'm not concerned with his welfare. my concern is that there shouldn't be double standards in the legal system. it's not because i feel sorry for the poor little sociopath. it's about the fact that there is a juvenile system and an adult one. and that the distinction between the two should be based on the criminal's age, not the crime he commits.
a child is either a child or he isn't. the deciding factor is his age, not his actions. that's my concern. don't try to make it about me being more concerned about the child sociopath than his victims. this is about stopping a practice (trying minors as adults) which i think makes a travesty out of the justice system.

Things aren't always B&W, nor should they be. So if the kid was 17 and a half, he should be tried as a minor, but had he waited a few months to kill someone, he'd be an adult? Personally I think they should fry the little fucker, which is why I could never be a judge.

would you let a kid who's 17 and a half join the military? vote?
so should the US let kids who are 20 and a half buy alcohol? i mean, their birthday is only a few months away...

you have to draw the line somewhere. and the law seems to be that 18 means you're an adult. the same legal system can't then backtrack and essentially say you're not an adult until the day you turn 18, unless you do something really bad in which case you're an adult even if you're 11...

[DeChayz]

Found this:

If a minor is fourteen years or older and has committed a serious crime he can be tried as an adult. That means he can face all of the penalties that an adult would face if he committed the same crime, except the death penalty. Thus a minor could be imprisoned in a state prison for the rest of his life for a crime committed when he was under the age of eighteen.

So it appears the conditions for adult trial are NOT so cut and dry.

[kingcap72]

Sput, why are you going back to the voting, military, drinking arguments, when I already pointed out that those things are privileges that you earn? Murder is NOT a privilege that you earn when you reach a certain age like drinking, voting, etc are, so those things don't come into play when discussing whether a minor should be charged as an adult.

Now, when murder becomes an age-required privilege like drinking, voting, etc, then you can use those points.

Edit: What do you mean you didn't say 'so?'

Well, you know who else was a child? The unborn baby that was one month away from taking a first breath until this little 11-year-old sociopath decided to snuff it out. It doesn't legally make sense for a child to snuff out the lives of a pregnant woman and an unborn child, but that's what happened. Murder is a capital crime, and in this case it was a double murder.

so? it still doesn't change the fact that the little sociopath is 11 years old.

[sputnik]

^^^
yes, i said it the first time but not in the subsequent post that i then quoted again for you, explaining my reasoning.
i think it's ridiculous that the US allows minors to be tried as adults. i don't think it should ever be allowed. you're either a minor, or an adult.

[kingcap72]

So, I guess you see where you, in fact, did say 'so,' when the unborn child was pointed out? And explaining your reasoning doesn't change the fact that your initial response was 'so.'

[sputnik]

yes. but i then elaborated on that 'so'.