Pennsylvania boy, 11, charged with killing pregnant woman

[ManxMouse]

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.

Those things are not granted at certain ages because they're "privileges you earn" by the great accomplishment of turning a certain age. They are granted because society deems your brain capable of making momentous decisions at that point, of understanding the pros and cons and weighing consequences. Having the mental and emotional maturity to make informed decisions. Before this point, children are generally deemed to lack these qualities.

That's why committing crimes falls into the same category -- the justification behind not punishing juveniles the exact same as adults. The criminal justice system has a number of goals, but when an individual is tried, the primary consideration is supposed to be his culpability. Meaning, how fully formed was the criminal intent, was he capable of understanding the finality and consequences of the action. Which is why retarded and mentally ill people have less culpability. If you can't say an 11-year old has the awareness, maturity, and impulse control to be able to join the military, get married, drink, etc., then it makes no sense that he has the same level of culpability that an adult would have in firing the gun, despite (especially because of) its seriousness.

[DeChayz]

This has nothing to do with "impluse", this was a premeditated crime. He waited until his father was at work and his sisters were out of the house. He covered the gun with a blanket so it wouldn't be seen and went up to the sleeping woman and shot her in the head. He then went outside to get on the bus, but first disposed of the weapon by throwing it in the bushes. Not to mention he'd been threatening the family in the weeks preceeding the murder.
Yeah, not a mind that's capable of knowing the implications or severity or atrocity of his actions at all.

[sputnik]

^^
so, if this same 11 year-old got raped by a 50 year-old, would it still be paedophilia? why is an 11 year-old an adult if he commits murder, but a child or a baby if he gets raped? it can't be both...

knowing right from wrong isn't the difference between a child and an adult.

[kingcap72]

Those things are not granted at certain ages because they're "privileges you earn" by the great accomplishment of turning a certain age. They are granted because society deems your brain capable of making momentous decisions at that point, of understanding the pros and cons and weighing consequences. Having the mental and emotional maturity to make informed decisions. Before this point, children are generally deemed to lack these qualities.

That's why committing crimes falls into the same category -- the justification behind not punishing juveniles the exact same as adults. The criminal justice system has a number of goals, but when an individual is tried, the primary consideration is supposed to be his culpability. Meaning, how fully formed was the criminal intent, was he capable of understanding the finality and consequences of the action. Which is why retarded and mentally ill people have less culpability. If you can't say an 11-year old has the awareness, maturity, and impulse control to be able to join the military, get married, drink, etc., then it makes no sense that he has the same level of culpability that an adult would have in firing the gun, despite (especially because of) its seriousness.

Oh, come on. Now this is just getting ridiculous.

Drinking, voting, driving, etc are not iron-clad rights, since some of them can be taken away from you, which makes them privileges. Your license can be revoked & you can lose your 'right' to vote if you're a convicted felon. And drinking, voting, getting married are not seen as crimes unless you're underage. Murder is never an age-required right or privilege, so it does not fall into the same category. If you commit murder at ANY age, it is always a crime. Impulse control does not come into play when determining charges or punishment for murder.

So, let's stop trying to make a case that children committing murder falls into the same category as voting, drinking, etc. Because it's a weak argument that doesn't hold water, since murder is not in the same category as drinking, voting, driving, getting married or joining the military.

And when a child gets charged as an adult, no one is saying the child has magically become an adult. They are still a child, but are being charged as an adult due to the severity of the crime they chose to commit. And in the case of the kid in the story, he didn't shoot the woman on an impulse. He threatened her and then patiently waited for her to go to sleep and then shot her execution-style in the head. That's not acting on an impulse, that's a calculated murder.

[ManxMouse]

Oh, come on. Now this is just getting ridiculous.

Drinking, voting, driving, etc are not iron-clad rights, since some of them can be taken away from you, which makes them privileges. Your license can be revoked & you can lose your 'right' to vote if you're a convicted felon. And drinking, voting, getting married are not seen as crimes unless you're underage. Murder is never an age-required right or privilege, so it does not fall into the same category. If you commit murder at ANY age, it is always a crime. Impulse control does not come into play when determining charges or punishment for murder.

So, let's stop trying to make a case that children committing murder falls into the same category as voting, drinking, etc. Because it's a weak argument that doesn't hold water, since murder is not in the same category as drinking, voting, driving, getting married or joining the military.

And when a child gets charged as an adult, no one is saying the child has magically become an adult. They are still a child, but are being charged as an adult due to the severity of the crime they chose to commit. And in the case of the kid in the story, he didn't shoot the woman on an impulse. He threatened her and then patiently waited for her to go to sleep and then shot her execution-style in the head. That's not acting on an impulse, that's a calculated murder.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? The analogy is that children are afforded protection from themselves in all of those areas AND in the juvenile justice arena because they don't have the full capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. It's really not that complicated. Same reason why, as Sputnik alluded, adults are punished for having sex with children, even if those children were fully willing. And this:
Impulse control does not come into play when determining charges or punishment for murder. is absolutely incorrect.

Lord, smash this kid who has yet to see a single pube into oblivion if you will, I don't much care. But don't pretend that charging preteens as adults is anything other than an emotional reaction to the crime rather than any logic consistent with how we treat the underage in society.

[kingcap72]

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? The analogy is that children are afforded protection from themselves in all of those areas AND in the juvenile justice arena because they don't have the full capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. It's really not that complicated. Same reason why, as Sputnik alluded, adults are punished for having sex with children, even if those children were fully willing. And this:
Impulse control does not come into play when determining charges or punishment for murder. is absolutely incorrect.

Lord, smash this kid who has yet to see a single pube into oblivion if you will, I don't much care. But don't pretend that charging preteens as adults is anything other than an emotional reaction to the crime rather than any logic consistent with how we treat the underage in society.

Don't give me the 'are you trying to be obtuse' bullshit because you can't effectively make your case without trying to compare being old enough to drink, drive, vote, etc to murder. Gimme a break. Either come up with a stronger argument or drop it.

Bottom line, if all kids lacked the ability or capacity to control their impulses then all kids would be running around completely wild, robbing, killing and giving in to every single impulse. But that's not what we see happening is it? No. Some kids have impulse control and some don't. Because those kids who don't give into every impulse have an understanding about the consequences of their actions, which is the flaw in your argument about all kids lacking understanding & impulse control. The kids that lack impulse control don't know, or care, about the consequences of their actions and grow up to be adults who lack impulse control.

And if the law afforded kids protection and believed that they didn't understand the consequences of their actions, then why does the law allow for some minors to be charged as adults? Because if your point about the law understanding that kids never understand the consequences of their actions was true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation about an 11-year-old being tried as an adult, now would we?

[ManxMouse]

Bottom line, if all kids lacked the ability or capacity to control their impulses then all kids would be running around completely wild, robbing, killing and giving in to every single impulse. But that's not what we see happening is it? No.

Yes. You don't usually see kids committing violent acts because there generally needs to be something additionally wrong with them. But you absolutely see kids throwing tantrums and acting out, whereas I doubt you see many adults in the mall kicking and screaming on the floor and hitting each other, much as they may want to.

Some kids have impulse control and some don't. Because those kids who don't give into every impulse have an understanding about the consequences of their actions, which is the flaw in your argument about all kids lacking understanding & impulse control. The kids that lack impulse control don't know, or care, about the consequences of their actions and grow up to be adults who lack impulse control.

Brain Development in Tweens: How Your Child's Thoughts and Behaviour Changes
There are certain truths about the way the brain develops. There are neural connections made that simply don't exist in childhood but are formed from adolescence onward. The law has always recognized children as having diminished capacity, just as the mentally retarded are not as capable as normal adults of controlling/understanding their behavior. And I ask again, why are minors not allowed to consent to sex with adults?

And if the law afforded kids protection and believed that they didn't understand the consequences of their actions, then why does the law allow for some minors to be charged as adults? Because if your point about the law understanding that kids never understand the consequences of their actions was true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation about an 11-year-old being tried as an adult, now would we?

Easy---laws are made by elected officials. And prosecution decisions are made by prosecutors who are elected officials. And elected officials pander to the public in order to remain elected officials. This coming from a former prosecutor, lol. This whole thing about charging pre-pubescents as adults with possible life sentences is a relatively recent development.

I didn't say an underage offender should NEVER be treated as an adult. But if pre-puberty is not off-limits, how low would you go? Could a six year old be treated as a full-grown adult? A three year-old? If not, what would be the reasoning?

[kingcap72]

Bottom line, if all kids lacked the ability or capacity to control their impulses then all kids would be running around completely wild, robbing, killing and giving in to every single impulse. But that's not what we see happening is it? No.

[/i]Yes. You don't usually see kids committing violent acts because there generally needs to be something additionally wrong with them. But you absolutely see kids throwing tantrums and acting out, whereas I doubt you see many adults in the mall kicking and screaming on the floor, much as they may want to.[/i]

Some kids have impulse control and some don't. Because those kids who don't give into every impulse have an understanding about the consequences of their actions, which is the flaw in your argument about all kids lacking understanding & impulse control. The kids that lack impulse control don't know, or care, about the consequences of their actions and grow up to be adults who lack impulse control.

Brain Development in Tweens: How Your Child's Thoughts and Behaviour Changes
There are certain truths about the way the brain develops. There are neural connections made that simply don't exist in childhood but are formed from adolescence onward. The law has always recognized children as having diminished capacity, just as the mentally retarded are not as capable as normal adults of controlling/understanding their behavior. And I ask again, why are minors not allowed to consent to sex with adults?

And if the law afforded kids protection and believed that they didn't understand the consequences of their actions, then why does the law allow for some minors to be charged as adults? Because if your point about the law understanding that kids never understand the consequences of their actions was true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation about an 11-year-old being tried as an adult, now would we?

Easy---laws are made by elected officials. And prosecution decisions are made by prosecutors who are elected officials. And elected officials pander to the public in order to remain elected officials. This coming from a former prosecutor, lol.

I didn't say an underage offender should NEVER be treated as an adult. But if pre-puberty is not off-limits, how low would you go? Could a six year old be treated as a full-grown adult? A three year-old? If not, what would be the reasoning?

There's a HUGE difference between a kid throwing a tantrum in the mall and a kid pointing a rifle at a sleeping pregnant woman and shooting her in the head. I mean, come on. As for the 3 and 6-year-olds, when they start running around killing people in cold blood then we'll revisit that.

Now, you made the point that kids are afforded protection in the juvenile justice arena because they don't have the full capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. Now if that were always true, then we wouldn't hear about cases where minors are tried as adults, so that destroys the point that kids are seen as not having the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. Because if that were always the case then minors would ALWAYS be charged as minors, no exceptions.

And you can post all the studies that you want, but that doesn't stop the justice system from making the decision to charge a minor as an adult when they believe the circumstances warrant it. And if your point about elected officials making those exceptions just to pander to the public is true, then that means that you have little to no chance of seeing the law change about charging minors as adults in certain instances.

[McJag]

It might be best if King & Mnx never sit on the same jury.

[kingcap72]

Mistrial!

[McJag]

Mistrial!

Or the first jury to beat the hell out of each other!

[kingcap72]

Or the first jury to beat the hell out of each other!

Which leads to a mistrial. So, we all get to go home early. It's the circle of life.

[buttmunch]

The kid is a fat little asshole, and perhaps a born sociopath, we don't know. However, it makes NO sense to say that kids don't fully understand finality and consequences and don't have impulse control EXCEPT when the crime they commit is a really serious one. It's just the opposite---the more serious and final the outcome of an action is, the less a child can be deemed to fully grasp the reality of it. Any other viewpoint baffles me, and I don't understand why we charge kids who aren't even teens as adults. Why have a juvenile justice system at all then--just to deal with petty crimes? With which the kids probably had more of a grasp as to their motive and cause/effect? There is no consistency in this way of thinking.

I think a related issue is swirling in the Supreme Court, that is, whether to extend the 8th Amendment's cruel and unusual clause's prohibition against executing offenders who were underage (as it was held to apply a few years ago) to life sentences for underage offenders. Maybe it will trickle down to charging decisions as well.

Very, very well said.

[MrsDark]

Didn't kids used to fight and die in wars, work on farms and in factories (and if doing all this probably drink as well) once upon a time? It's only in the last hundred years or so that we've decided that they were "babies" and incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions until years after puberty. Hell, in the last few decades we've relegated 20somethings to "children" insofar as what we expect from them.

We don't expect as much out of children anymore period. And that's part of why they're so feral and without conscience, sometimes to the point of being sociopathic. Especially when you've gone a couple of generations of these types of "kids" now raising kids of their own.

[sputnik]

Didn't kids used to fight and die in wars, work on farms and in factories (and if doing all this probably drink as well) once upon a time? It's only in the last hundred years or so that we've decided that they were "babies" and incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions until years after puberty. Hell, in the last few decades we've relegated 20somethings to "children" insofar as what we expect from them.

yeah, we used to have slaves too, and women couldn't vote. but you make it sound like the good old days were a good thing. they weren't. the vast majority of people had very rough, short and unhappy lives back then, without expectations.
and children still fight wars and die in factories in places like africa and asia. and it's considered a bad thing.


i guess i shouldn't be surprised anymore since a lot of people seem to share this attitude that the world is going to hell and that things were so much better before those pesky human rights came along and human thought evolved and things like children not fighting wars and dying in factories became a thing of the past... silly me.