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

[inflamessoilwork]

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

This statement makes me laugh, but not in a good way. I would love to hear what my aunt thinks about this sentence. Also, my aunt is the professor of medicine at the University of Michigan.

 

[Dys]

It's wrong. She doesn't have the rights of an adult, she is not a full citizen and it is therefore wrong to treat her the same way. That's the whole point of the 'minor' system, they are too young to be adults, and are protected from the adult world.

She committed premeditated murder, she is 15!
When I was 10 I knew that killing someone was wrong, at 11 I knew that killing someone was super wrong because what right do we as mere humans have to end the lives of others?

It doesn't matter if she got tried as an adult or not, she knew what she was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. The ***** should burn.

I don't disagree, so long as she's burnt as a child and treated in the same way as other children she should deal with the maximum penalty legal. However, as she isn't an adult, doesn't think or act as an adult and most importantly, isn't treated as an adult, it is wrong for her to be trailed as one.

 

[The Great Zegrool]

We are assessing this legally, and legally, she is still a child. Legally she is as responsible for that act as my fictional nine-year-old.

We need to judge on the basis of the law. If they change the law, and say fifteen-year-olds are adults and/or as responsible for their actions as one, then I wouldn't be arguing.

Also, it's a slippery slope until you start condemning thirteen-year-olds, after all, they are only two years younger. What about ten-year-olds, or nine-year-olds?

Nobody was saying that fifteen year olds are adults. They are saying this individual fifteen year old committed a crime that is on par with an adult crime and, thus, needs to be treated in the appropriate manner. Or did I miss the part where all your delusions occurred in reality?

So, why not take the cases on a person-by-person basis? Y'know, assess the mental maturity of the individual and decide whether or not s/he is competent enough to stand as an adult. Or does that not fly in your black and white world?

Your fictional nine year old needs to be assessed based on the situation.

And don't pull that 'but we generalize for everything else lol she shouldn't be tried as an adult' bull on me. Murder is an issue that deals with the loss of life. Every other murder case is taken based on the evidence. There's a difference between first and second degree murder and manslaughter. Should we just try everyone who takes a life, whether it be due to carelessness or intent, with first degree murder? That's clearly what you're saying, what with all children needing to be tried as children no matter the crime.

I would be worried if there were a group of competent individuals that had immunity no matter what the crime. It would make retribution for gang beatings and school shootings quite sad.

A woman once executed her two sons because they had developed Parkinson's and were going to suffer greatly. She felt it in their best interest for their lives to end. The woman simply got assisted suicide charges. She is a double-murderer. Cases need to be taken based on the situation. That's why the mentally retarded won't get the same sentence as a competent person could.

The girl decided that she was more human and had more of a right to exist than another person. She was more human than those of us who do not kill. She will be tried as an adult because the DA gathered the information readily available and decided on her mental state.

It's a slippery slope when you start making a generation of people immune to justice.

You know what, I think I made a mistake with the slippery slope argument, I'll admit that.

And you know what? I agree with you, this woman is a psychopath.

But the law is absolute(I'm not) and it says that she is a child until she is eighteen. I think they should throw her under the jail, except for the fact that they are trying her as an adult, when she is legally a child.

If they changed the law to say that anyone that is fifteen or older should be tried as an adult for intentional pre-meditated murder, then I would be fine with that. The fact is, they are messing with the law. She is legally a child, yet they try her as an adult. It's just a little troubling to see such inconsistencies in the law.

I don't know if that made sense or not, I'm really tired.

 

[Woem]

She planned the murder. Adult certainly.
Murder should not be trialled as a juvenile offense, ever. It shows heavy signs of instability at a young age and the person should be locked away for the safety of others.
Manslaughter can be trialled as a child though, as it is unintentional or indirect. (You cannot unintentionally murder someone on purpose can you?)

While I see how valid your point is, I don't think she should make it to Cole County jail. Can you imagine a 15 year old girl in jail? She will not fare well.

 

['orrible-Troll]

I'd like to add, if I could, my two cents on the matters.

Magrave:
You say that killing a child is pure evil, yet you yourself seem so hell bent on committing this child to death? I may have missed something, and I apologise if I have, but by that logic you yourself are pure evil?

Australian Courts debate:
In the eyes of an Australian court you are unable to have Men Rea if you are under ten, therefore you are exempt from being held accountable for your actions. (This also confers to Malice aforethought, Intention to harm, kill, or reckless disregard towards and action that could remotely cause these. Strict Liability crimes, as you are unable to foresee in the eyes of the law, what you are doing.)

From the age of ten to twelve you can be prosecuted if they can prove that you knew what you were doing was wrong (and therefore prove Mens Rea) then you can be held accountable for you actions, however from not having the foresight of what the consequences are for said actions you may only be charged as a child

From then to eighteen you can be charged as long as you actually have Mens Rea and Actus reus (Or malice aforethought and Actus Reus) or if you commit a strict liability crime. From here the court sees that you can decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. but you may not see the consequences of your actions fully so you are therefore tried as a child (circumstances permitting)

Teens don't get depression:
Well, that is just crap. Annoying scene people are not Depressed, they are idiots, please do not confuse the two.

Psychopathy:
Psychopathic people, are people who lack Empathy (this was inferred but not confirmed in the article)
Psychosis is where one looses contact with reality (Here I would like to point out that death is a reality)

My view on the entire thing? I don't know her, I've never been around a murder, I've never had to see someone with murderous intentions, leave it to the professionals.

 

[Thaius]

Part of me thinks that since she's not an adult, she shouldn't be tried as one. But this was premeditated murder: it's not like she should be let off just because she was young and didn't have proper judgement or anything. She knew what she was doing, and she took a life for no other reason than because she wanted to "know what it felt like." That's messed up; to be completely honest, that's the makings of a serial killer there. In some places capital punishment would be applied, and I'm not sure I would be completely against it.

 

[Sad Robot]

I'd like to add, if I could, my two cents on the matters.

Magrave:
You say that killing a child is pure evil, yet you yourself seem so hell bent on committing this child to death? I may have missed something, and I apologise if I have, but by that logic you yourself are pure evil?

Australian Courts debate:
In the eyes of an Australian court you are unable to have Men Rea if you are under ten, therefore you are exempt from being held accountable for your actions. (This also confers to Malice aforethought, Intention to harm, kill, or reckless disregard towards and action that could remotely cause these. Strict Liability crimes, as you are unable to foresee in the eyes of the law, what you are doing.)

From the age of ten to twelve you can be prosecuted if they can prove that you knew what you were doing was wrong (and therefore prove Mens Rea) then you can be held accountable for you actions, however from not having the foresight of what the consequences are for said actions you may only be charged as a child

From then to eighteen you can be charged as long as you actually have Mens Rea and Actus reus (Or malice aforethought and Actus Reus) or if you commit a strict liability crime. From here the court sees that you can decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. but you may not see the consequences of your actions fully so you are therefore tried as a child (circumstances permitting)

Teens don't get depression:
Well, that is just crap. Annoying scene people are not Depressed, they are idiots, please do not confuse the two.

Psychopathy:
Psychopathic people, are people who lack Empathy (this was inferred but not confirmed in the article)
Psychosis is where one looses contact with reality (Here I would like to point out that death is a reality)

My view on the entire thing? I don't know her, I've never been around a murder, I've never had to see someone with murderous intentions, leave it to the professionals.

Another sensible post. You're not much of a troll, are you?

 

[Scaredpanther0101]

Even if she is a "minor" she's 15, she should know what happens when you murder someone and if she planned it out then she should certainly be tried as an adult.

 

[yeliw]

She deserves to be tried as an adult.

She SHOULD be tried as a minor, however. She has none of the privileges of being an adult, so legally speaking she should not be treated as one. Were it something closer like 17 then maybe this would be up for discussion, but simply put this is not how the justice system works. Maybe in this particular case this is how it should work, but this precedent will tear a lot of laws apart. If you're old enough to murder then you're old enough to vote, right?

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

why bend the rules for 1 girl?
she should obviously be tried as a minor.

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

are you retarded?

 

[Sad Robot]

She ended a child's life permanently, the least we can do is do the same for her, to show her "how it feels".

First of all, we can't make her feel the way her victim did. Secondly, if we could, why should we? Would that make things right? Would that take away the pain of the parents who lost their daughter? Would that bring the dead child back to life? How would that not make us just as petty, violent and cruel as the criminal in question?

I'm inclined to think her place would be in a mental institution of some kind, perhaps for the rest of her life. But don't quote me on that, it's just a thought. I'd rather leave it to the professionals. What I hate is all these knee-jerk reactions from people who don't know all the facts, have no qualifications to understand the facts and seem to discard common logic entirely.

 

['orrible-Troll]

Sad-Robot: Thanks.

Oh, and something I forgot earlier:
The legal system works of basic principals. To stop re-offending (punishment and rehab), to safe-guard the community (Take the person away from the 'temptation'), Discourage others from offending (and thereby showing the courts disdain for such crimes.) A punishment that fits the crime may not be remotely linked to the crime at all. If there have been a swathe of car thefts then the court will more then likely give a harsher penalty. Not because this car was more important, but because the matter was important. (And safe guarding the community from such actions happening again)

You also have to consider that the courts themselves are bound, a judge cannot merely decide that this person shall loose their life because of their choice, they must stick with precedent (which in this case does seem to be that you can have a loss of life) Also, you aren't allowed to start from the top, you have to start from the very minimum and ask yourself, is this enough? If you are biased then you shouldn't be in the legal system at all. It's not as easy as it looks. In my legal Studies class we had a test, one that almost everyone failed. We were given a situation (I think it was a drink driver who crashed and killed a pregnant lady and her baby) We were then asked how much we would sentence her too. We all hit between the mark of minimum and maximum for manslaughter (as it was described to us) but we failed for why we gave the sentence. We didn't consider the lower and therefore our judgements had room for appeal. It really isn't as easy as it looks.

So if you look at a case and go, they deserve the chair, or to spend their entire life in prison (both of which aren't legal solutions where I come from, 'Life' is twenty five years.) then you judgement is legally invalid, you must work from the bottom, consider the facts, and slowly work your way through it. Thoughts like 'The ***** should burn' and 'Gas Chamber' would influence your judgement from the facts. That being said I would find it hard not to look at this and feel emotional.

 

[spartan773]

Well technically she can be tried as an adult, as she was fully aware of what she was doing. I think she should be tried as an adult for what she did.

 

[ethaninja]

It's wrong. She doesn't have the rights of an adult, she is not a full citizen and it is therefore wrong to treat her the same way. That's the whole point of the 'minor' system, they are too young to be adults, and are protected from the adult world.

Her parents should have been charged for not being "responsible" as she was just a minor. But the fact that she took somebody elses life, is just unbelievable, and should be dealt with no matter WHO they are.

 

[Sad Robot]

Sad-Robot: Thanks.

Oh, and something I forgot earlier:
The legal system works of basic principals. To stop re-offending (punishment and rehab), to safe-guard the community (Take the person away from the 'temptation'), Discourage others from offending (and thereby showing the courts disdain for such crimes.) A punishment that fits the crime may not be remotely linked to the crime at all. If there have been a swathe of car thefts then the court will more then likely give a harsher penalty. Not because this car was more important, but because the matter was important. (And safe guarding the community from such actions happening again)

You also have to consider that the courts themselves are bound, a judge cannot merely decide that this person shall loose their life because of their choice, they must stick with precedent (which in this case does seem to be that you can have a loss of life) Also, you aren't allowed to start from the top, you have to start from the very minimum and ask yourself, is this enough? If you are biased then you shouldn't be in the legal system at all. It's not as easy as it looks. In my legal Studies class we had a test, one that almost everyone failed. We were given a situation (I think it was a drink driver who crashed and killed a pregnant lady and her baby) We were then asked how much we would sentence her too. We all hit between the mark of minimum and maximum for manslaughter (as it was described to us) but we failed for why we gave the sentence. We didn't consider the lower and therefore our judgements had room for appeal. It really isn't as easy as it looks.

So if you look at a case and go, they deserve the chair, or to spend their entire life in prison (both of which aren't legal solutions where I come from, 'Life' is twenty five years.) then you judgement is legally invalid, you must work from the bottom, consider the facts, and slowly work your way through it. Thoughts like 'The ***** should burn' and 'Gas Chamber' would influence your judgement from the facts. That being said I would find it hard not to look at this and feel emotional.

Well put.

She ended a child's life permanently, the least we can do is do the same for her, to show her "how it feels".

First of all, we can't make her feel the way her victim did. Secondly, if we could, why should we? Would that make things right? Would that take away the pain of the parents who lost their daughter? Would that bring the dead child back to life? How would that not make us just as petty, violent and cruel as the criminal in question?

I'm inclined to think her place would be in a mental institution of some kind, perhaps for the rest of her life. But don't quote me on that, it's just a thought. I'd rather leave it to the professionals. What I hate is all these knee-jerk reactions from people who don't know all the facts, have no qualifications to understand the facts and seem to discard common logic entirely.

1. this is not a knee jerk reaction.
2. And eye for an eye, she ended a child's life, lets at least stop her from using hers

She had her chance, she wasted it and destroyed another in the process. Really? you think premeditated murder deserves a second chance, all the steps of the murder are like little chances for her to say to herself "hmm, maybe this isn't the best idea"

She did something bad, she deserves the full punishment.

If that's truly how you think the legal system should work, then... Well, that's how you think it should work. I'd thought humanity had figured out a long time ago that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Even though I'm from a fairly liberal country, I'm pretty sure that not one country in the western world goes by the code of Hammurabi.

 

[duchaked]

I don't think the Justice system is at fault...entirely. This is one of those situations where it's like, even if you think she deserves a second chance, imagine her living her second chance near you.

Hm...you may wonder, maybe she IS crazy.
I don't know, the whole point of the minors system is to "fix" them.
But mental and psychological repair is always tricky.