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

[Sad Robot]

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 think there are a lot more variables at play.

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

While I do think she seems guilty, the account of a mentally unstable child is hardly reliable.

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

We just have a different idea of how to go about fixing things. To me, what you're suggesting, seems like a simplification of the much larger issues at hand.

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

Not knowing all the facts and going out on a limb here, I think she should be treated like a severly disturbed 15 year old girl who murdered a 9 year old. What that entails, however, I am hardly fit to say, but I wouldn't put a bullet through her head, nor would I let her go free.

well alongside criminals in the court room are defence lawyers.

For a good reason.

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

Civil and criminal cases are two very different things, at least they are where I come from. Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but I don't view lawyers as some kind of slimy amoral assholes, which is how the American media at least seems to portray them.

Again, I agree with you on the point that the system needs constant re-evaluation to make it more fair and just for all parties. It doesn't mean that you have to discard the concept of extenuating circumstances -- by which I don't mean necessarily the length of a conviction but how it is executed.

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

Not all people "take it upon themselves" even if they do end up hurting others. Yet again, I believe there are certain basic rights that should not be taken away from anyone, no matter how they act. That doesn't mean there aren't any consequences to the actions you take.

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

Perhaps it is the lackluster linguistic training I've received but to me this sentence makes littles sense; in fact I find it to be a rather incongruous statement. That, or what you and I mean by "freedom" are two different things.

and teenage sociopaths walk the streets freely because they're protected by their age.

Naturally, I think people who have been proven to be a threat to themselves or others should be attended to and kept from harming others if possible, without resorting to the "eye for an eye" mentality.

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.

That is indeed a sad story. Fortunately, I do not live in a society where such behaviour is common. There are always singular cases. The fact that they're rare occurances doesn't comfort the victims or their loved ones but that's the price you pay in a relatively free society.

I do believe there are alternative methods to imprisonment for combatting these issues. Not to replace it but to attend to certain cases that would benefit from a different treatment.

Was evidence misinterpreted? no, they made no effort to hide what they did.

As much as you may be right here -- I can't comment, I don't know the case you're talking about -- that is not alway the case. At all.

The line between good and bad may be thin and fuzzy, but some people are clear about where they stand

I find that very few people consider themselves evil. But yes, there is a sliding scale regarding the severity of crimes, no one is refuting that.

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

Yes, bad things happen to good people and vice versa. I don't like it, and while I know you can never get rid of that fact, I certainly don't think one should do nothing about it. It's just that we believe in very different approaches to the same issues.

 

[Aesir23]

O_O That is seriously fucked up.

Personally, I think they should try her as an adult but send her to juvie obviously.

I mean, you have got to be seriously screwed up in the head to kill someone, a 9 year old child no less, just to see what it 'feels like'.

I sincerely hope she spends the next 50 or so years in prison. Or at least a maximum security mental institution, padded cell and straight jacket included.

 

[fuckwit]

(You cannot unintentionally murder someone on purpose can you?)

Then you'd be a terribly bad murderer. ^^

 

[Yopaz]

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

Wow... teens don't have depressions? Now where do you get that from? Really, do you know all the possible causes to depressions? Sometimes depressions can even be caused by a genetic defect and make someone depressed before they can even say the word. Of course it's possible for a 15 year old to be depressed, and a girl in her teens got a bigger chance of having depressions because she gets periods and can get problems with hormones.

Should she be tried like an adult? More importantly should she get a full test to see if she's mentally ill? First find out if she might have any mental problems then decide the facts about the trial. Still when she actually spent time to plan the murder I think it's clear she should be tried as an adult. Though I don't think she should go to prison. She clearly got deep problems and serving time in jail wont do her any good. She's most likely going to get worse by being in that environment, and I am against death penalty so I wont leave that as an option. It's a sick world...

 

[PuppetMaster]

While I do think she seems guilty, the account of a mentally unstable child is hardly reliable.

So you're suggesting she's not a sociopath with no value for human life who is capable of admitting her actions, but a different kind of crazy who murdered a little girl, admitted to it in detail but somehow we can't take her word for it?

We just have a different idea of how to go about fixing things. To me, what you're suggesting, seems like a simplification of the much larger issues at hand.

obviously I don't know the inner workings of any given justice system to be able to point out all the specific follies, so yes I'm simplifying and generalising, but I'm on the right track

Not knowing all the facts and going out on a limb here, I think she should be treated like a severly disturbed 15 year old girl who murdered a 9 year old. What that entails, however, I am hardly fit to say, but I wouldn't put a bullet through her head, nor would I let her go free.

maybe you should read the article and some other accounts of the event then

For a good reason.

but then comes the moral dillema of "Do I let this asshole rot in prison or earn my paycheck this week?"

I don't view lawyers as some kind of slimy amoral assholes, which is how the American media at least seems to portray them.

well I'm not sure where in western europe you're from, but in Canada we have good and bad people in all types of proffesions, including law. I don't think they're greasy rat men and I certainly don't think they're wise and impartial beings of justice. They're just people with their own motivations, sadly usually following the all mighty dollar

Again, I agree with you on the point that the system needs constant re-evaluation to make it more fair and just for all parties. It doesn't mean that you have to discard the concept of extenuating circumstances -- by which I don't mean necessarily the length of a conviction but how it is executed.

Though I know this child won't recieve capital punishment, I firmly believe it's deserving in this case

Not all people "take it upon themselves" even if they do end up hurting others.

we're not talking about all people. Again, this is about murderers slipping through cracks in the legal system because of factors that don't apply to them specificly ie: children don't know any better so they can't be held accountable

Yet again, I believe there are certain basic rights that should not be taken away from anyone, no matter how they act. That doesn't mean there aren't any consequences to the actions you take.

see previous statement

what you and I mean by "freedom" are two different things.

in this case: Freedom-Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition.

Some toes might have to be stepped on in order to make all of this fall into place but it's not like "if you're gonna make an omelet you have to break a few eggs" but closer to crushing coal into diamonds, the end won't just justify the means, it'll seem like a very small price indeed

Naturally, I think people who have been proven to be a threat to themselves or others should be attended to and kept from harming others if possible, without resorting to the "eye for an eye" mentality.

in prisons that are already overcrowded? that already cost millions of dollars a year to keep running? Sometimes the quickest, most obvious solution is the best

That is indeed a sad story. Fortunately, I do not live in a society where such behaviour is common.

yes, you do. Maybe not in your city or country but you're a citizen of this planet and regardless of the cozy life you've lived it's an ugly world outside your door

that's the price you pay in a relatively free society.

freedom isn't a magical shield that justifies all the bad in the world. It's a delicate, fickle privilage that needs to be fought for, defended and have all those who abuse it removed with extreme prejudice. Saying that living in a free society allows these acts to continue is like children on the playground throwing rocks with the defence of "it's a free country, you can't stop me"

I can't comment, I don't know the case you're talking about

this>>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/06/04/edm-camrose-cat.html <<<<<<<<<
white the quotes make me disgusted by society's ignorance, the facts remain

I find that very few people consider themselves evil.

I'm not saying necissarily evil, just obviously guilty and deserving of severe punishment

we believe in very different approaches to the same issues.

that's true. perhaps it's unfair of me to expect you to see what needs to be done about the extreme injustice in our world when you have never experienced it for yourself

 

[Sad Robot]

So you're suggesting she's not a sociopath with no value for human life who is capable of admitting her actions, but a different kind of crazy who murdered a little girl, admitted to it in detail but somehow we can't take her word for it?

I'm not a psychologist, psychiatrist or any other kind of expert, nor have I done extensive research on the matter -- or this particular case -- on my own; I'm not going to get into an argument about the specifics of her mental state. What I meant was that things are not always how they seem to the casual observer. As much as no statement can be taken as more then circumstantial evidence in a situation as serious as this, it is even less reliable coming from a mentally disturbed person. Just because someone tells you they're guilty doesn't always mean they are. Even if in this case they were.

obviously I don't know the inner workings of any given justice system to be able to point out all the specific follies, so yes I'm simplifying and generalising, but I'm on the right track

We all believe we're "on the right track" -- it's a non-argument. But the point I made was that complex social issues deserve careful consideration, not simplification.

maybe you should read the article and some other accounts of the event then

Accounts and evidence such as the ones the legal professionals of the case have access to? I certainly don't have that access and even if I did I don't feel I'd be qualified to give an educated analysis on the case. That is what I mean by "not knowing all the facts".

but then comes the moral dillema of "Do I let this asshole rot in prison or earn my paycheck this week?"

Defence lawyers are never there to "let assholes rot in prison". If they do so, they are corrupt. Also, they are not the only people present in court and definitely not the ones who make the decisions.

well I'm not sure where in western europe you're from, but in Canada we have good and bad people in all types of proffesions, including law. I don't think they're greasy rat men and I certainly don't think they're wise and impartial beings of justice. They're just people with their own motivations, sadly usually following the all mighty dollar

I am fairly certain that's true everywhere in the world. However, as for their role in legal procedings, see above.

Though I know this child won't recieve capital punishment, I firmly believe it's deserving in this case

I understand you firmly believe that, as much as I'm firmly against capital punishment altogether.

we're not talking about all people. Again, this is about murderers slipping through cracks in the legal system because of factors that don't apply to them specificly ie: children don't know any better so they can't be held accountable

I fail to see how you can discard the fact that not all people who commit crimes are responsible for their actions to the same degree, that not all people have equal legal rights and that sometimes innocent people are falsely convicted. But perhaps that is my shortcoming.

Yet again, I believe there are certain basic rights that should not be taken away from anyone, no matter how they act. That doesn't mean there aren't any consequences to the actions you take.

see previous statement

I honestly don't understand your point.

what you and I mean by "freedom" are two different things.

in this case: Freedom-Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition.

Mine is something akin, but not limited, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Some toes might have to be stepped on in order to make all of this fall into place but it's not like "if you're gonna make an omelet you have to break a few eggs" but closer to crushing coal into diamonds, the end won't just justify the means, it'll seem like a very small price indeed

Not to me.

in prisons that are already overcrowded?

I don't think everyone who's in prison deserves to be there. That said, you could always build more.

that already cost millions of dollars a year to keep running?

Yeah... I value human life and what I consider ethical ideology more than money. I'm funny that way.

Sometimes the quickest, most obvious solution is the best

Sometimes, not always.

That is indeed a sad story. Fortunately, I do not live in a society where such behaviour is common.

yes, you do. Maybe not in your city or country but you're a citizen of this planet and regardless of the cozy life you've lived it's an ugly world outside your door

Given that I'm debating about something that's happening on the other side of the world I do understand the sentiment. I try to do my part. I fail to see how promoting what I perceive as the relatively high standard of life I enjoy should be undone by the fact that other systems in other human societies are perhaps more unjust.

that's the price you pay in a relatively free society.

freedom isn't a magical shield that justifies all the bad in the world.

No, it isn't, that's not the point. It's about preference. I'll take the freedom of my country or that of Sweden or France or the Netherlands or several other places over a more "secure" state any day.

It's a delicate, fickle privilage that needs to be fought for, defended

Absolutely.

and have all those who abuse it removed with extreme prejudice. Saying that living in a free society allows these acts to continue is like children on the playground throwing rocks with the defence of "it's a free country, you can't stop me"

I have not at any point claimed that nothing should be done about criminal behaviour. Whatever you may think, I am not entirely removed from reality.

I can't comment, I don't know the case you're talking about

this>>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/06/04/edm-camrose-cat.html <<<<<<<<<
white the quotes make me disgusted by society's ignorance, the facts remain

I refer to my third reply in this post.

perhaps it's unfair of me to expect you to see what needs to be done about the extreme injustice in our world when you have never experienced it for yourself

Perhaps it's unfair of me to promote an ideal and a system, which while flawed and in eternal need of re-evaluation, I perceive to be a relatively high standard of living, one that I and many others enjoy, because other systems in other human societies are perhaps more unjust.