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

[Icehearted]

All of this "as an adult" concept has always had me wondering why society presumes that we magically transform the instant our timer has hit 18, as though the difference in us mentally and physically has changed so much from 6 months to 2 years prior.

Frankly, premeditated murder is premeditated murder, and there's a life that stopped at 9; never got to fall in love, never got to graduate school or pursue dreams, never really got a chance to experience all that much life. Someone, if the facts are indeed accurate, simply chose to steal that away to gratify a curiosity, and nothing more. I knew at 5, let alone 15, that it was wrong to hurt others on purpose, and by 15 you can bet that murder was off the table.

I say, trying as an "adult" is reasonable as long as the circumstances and motive support it. That's just how I view it though, and I'm certainly not a lawyer.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

I think 15 years of age is old enough to tell if the wiring is screwed up.

Fry her ass. By the time they get around to it she'll probably be thirty anyway.

 

[brunothepig]

I don't get this charging as a minor thing... Sure, manslaughter if they're really young, and they don't actually fully understand. I think minor really should be no older than just teen, at most. But pre-meditated murder by a 15 year old. Try her as an adult, lock her in juvenile for 3 years, then throw her in jail. And for gods sake, a life sentence isn't 25 years!

 

[psychowatcher]

I don't get this charging as a minor thing... Sure, manslaughter if they're really young, and they don't actually fully understand. I think minor really should be no older than just teen, at most. But pre-meditated murder by a 15 year old. Try her as an adult, lock her in juvenile for 3 years, then throw her in jail. And for gods sake, a life sentence isn't 25 years!

This. Life without parole. Period. Not possibility of parole after 25 years. No parole. She doesn't deserve it.

 

[CancerDog]

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

<spoiler=My experience with teenage depression>
My father cheated on my mom, and destroyed my family when I was around 10. He manipulated me for another 5 years until I got so pissed I never spoke to him again. 2 years after that, still ripe with tangible anger for him, I find out he just had a massive stroke. I go to see him in the hospital with enough anger TO VIOLENTLY MURDER HIM, only to find him half brain dead laying in a hospital bed. When I came back I clearly wasn't myself anymore. I couldn't communicate normally, or even function on a basic level. My friends all left me, and my girlfriend cheated on me with one of my best friends. A few months later I unsuccessfully tried to kill myself using the medication I was on.

I dare you to try and tell me that teenage depression doesn't exist you ignorant and in-considerate Fuck.

On Topic: Looking at it from a total realistic view, expecting them to give a 15 year old a true adult sentencing is un-reasonable. She will most likely get some kind of child like punishment, hopefully with some kind of adult structuring to ensure she is monitored well into adulthood, but that's hopefully. In an ideal world she would get a proper adult sentence, but that would change the way all juveniles are charged. Many cases would point at this one saying "convict this teenager for this, and put him/her in jail for XX years." Which would not work. Parents (meaning registered voters) would be absolutely outraged at the idea that one of their children could be charged in such a way.

 

[PuppetMaster]

Fine.
It's about resocialization and reintegration. It's about getting people who were a danger to stop being one and making them a useful part of society again. Pure punishment doesn't do such things.
This is why I'm in favor of education and career planning in jails. For example, there are these programs that help inmates learn all sorts of jobs, electro-technology, mechanics, painter, varnisher, carpenter and so on.
And people who attend these have a greater probality of leaving prison and finding a job despite being an ex-con as well as reintegrating into society. They have a perspective for their future which also means that they are less likely to commit another crime.

Now, in this particular case, it's possible that she cannot be reformed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. In a cases as difficult as these, she definitely needs therapy. And if the psychiatrists deem her ready to re-enter society afterwards, I'm all for it. If they don't think she's ready, alright. Keep her locked-up.
We sometimes hear of the people that commit violent acts after being released from institutionalization but we never hear of the many people who are reintegrated into society. Overall, I trust the professionals' judgement on this.

well, as long as we're expanding to accomidate all criminals, I can say with a lot of certainty that the 1st thing a prisoner will do when put next to electronics, wood tools, chemicals or anything industrial is try to turn it into a weapon. It's not so much them as the invironment, when you're surrounded by potentially hostile people in a confined space for long periods of time anything you can use to your advantage when things hit the fan is treasured, and I've seen some impressive things built inside that put mcguyver to shame. Good idea in theory, but you always have to consider alternitive uses for the toys you hand out.

Assuming these are criminals of situation (guy robs liquorstore to feed family) then yes, education and job oppertunities are important, but it's rediculous to wait until they're in the system to decide to train them or not. Besides that, educating a prisoner only decreases their chance of returning to jail by around 20%, assuming they get some sort of arbitrary piece of paper like a diploma or degree to pretty up the fact it was earned inside. This however, does not mean they're less likely to comit a crime. Judicial systems are leniant towards certain offences based on things such as recent employment. exe:my co-worker was pinched for a grow-op a while ago but only got house arrest because he's been working full time and has a baby on the way. Significant, but subjective.

coming back to the situation at hand; I'm sure a quick psychological evaluation will clear the little girl except from the snag of premeditated murder without remorse, deeming her some exception in need of study. And I'm sure in 4-6 years she'll pass with flying colors by telling the doctors what they want to hear, and she'll be free to move next door to you or a loved one, while her parole officers and psychs exchange pats on the back and dutch rudders for a job well done. Who knows, she might never do it again, but for such a young person to do it so easily makes me shudder at the thought of her as an adult. If anyone remembers a sweet little number by the name of Karla Homolka, A woman who brutally murdered teen girls but got away with it by cutting a deal with the law showing them where the videotapes of the murders were and throwing her husband under the bus for it.
If you think she won't plan things better at 30 than she did at 9 then you're crazier than she is

 

[PuppetMaster]

If it was my 9 year child
The 15 year old would not be on trial, i would of killed her myself

/end story

I think I love you

 

[SultanP]

I'm for trying everyone as adults for crimes as serious as this. Murder shouldn't be excused just because you're young.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Questions like this I find amusing. This case can be answered via three questions. Is it the purpose of said law to carry out the law? Yes. Is the child an adult? No, she is a child according to the laws of the country as to what a child is. Therefore what court should she be tried and judged in according to the dictates of the law of the country? A children's court.

If you alter the law whenever pathos (emotion) takes hold, you do not have a system of law. Instead it is a fickle changing mess. I am not a lawyer, this is logic; and adhering to the principles of the law.

Of course people have emotionally strong opinions, but unless you have a clause in your code of law that reads "we can ignore the age of a person and send them to whatever court we wish as determined by the furious populace and interest groups active around the time of the offending crime", she should be tried in a children's court due to her age.

 

[psychowatcher]

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.

Okay, I'm just going to make one comment here. Trying a minor as an adult on the basis of their crime is nothing new. It's happened before. Legally she's a child, but she committed a crime that was far beyond what the juvenile system usually would be covering. Hence, being tried as an adult.

As for inconsistencies in the law, those are everywhere. The only analogy that comes to mind is like at school (since I need to be there in a few hours). Doing something bad gets a punishment. The worse thing you do, the harsher the punishment. Do something really bad and the police get involved. In this case, Juvenile court wasn't suited for this case, so they went to the normal court system. Nothing new.

 

[PuppetMaster]

that's entirely possible. I simply assumed you thought it was shallow or narrow minded of me to declare the plight and situation of a human being a waste of time and energy
if I'm wrong, elaborate

Let me get this straight: you consider a society decent, fair and ethical if it were to have its underaged criminals... pulled apart by wild horses?

that's me overexadurating.
what I literally mean is if I see, over the course of my life, 50-60 people run across 6 lanes of traffic and not get hit I might think it possible, even practical to do. If everyone I ever seen try to do it was graphicly splattered across the pavement I'd consider 45 seconds at the crosswalk a worthwhile investment.

make examples out of the guilty to detour others

 

[zauxz]

A shame that theese are banned.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

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

Yes Teens do. Im a youth Advisor and I would willingly punch any man,woman or child who says "Kids/Teens do not get depression", Here's sending a virtual punch to the balls for you, ya' ignorant git.

With that over with: The fact that she planned it says guilty. If your 15, planning a murder, clearly you ARE aware of it, no bullshitting emotion or whatnot is going to make you seem any innocent. Thats like a Soldier throwing a grenade into a house of innocent civilians.

 

[PuppetMaster]

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.

Okay, I'm just going to make one comment here. Trying a minor as an adult on the basis of their crime is nothing new. It's happened before. Legally she's a child, but she committed a crime that was far beyond what the juvenile system usually would be covering. Hence, being tried as an adult.

As for inconsistencies in the law, those are everywhere. The only analogy that comes to mind is like at school (since I need to be there in a few hours). Doing something bad gets a punishment. The worse thing you do, the harsher the punishment. Do something really bad and the police get involved. In this case, Juvenile court wasn't suited for this case, so they went to the normal court system. Nothing new.

you're forgetting these laws were written in a time when children were innocent, dinner was on the table when you got home and colored folk had their own school to go to
when times change ideas and boundries have to follow. This includes laws about children and murder

 

[Dommo1988]

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Very wise words from a very wise man.

However, he died in 1948 so that does make those words rather outdated. So let me bring Gandhi's wisdom into the 21st Century.

"An eye for an eye and maybe 15 year olds will think twice before committing the pre-meditated murder of a 9 year old."

Or perhaps combining Gandhi with the Economist and Author of "Freakonomics" Steven Levitt; "An eye for an eye and let's watch that crime rate fall"!

 

[psychowatcher]

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

<spoiler=My experience with teenage depression>
My father cheated on my mom, and destroyed my family when I was around 10. He manipulated me for another 5 years until I got so pissed I never spoke to him again. 2 years after that, still ripe with tangible anger for him, I find out he just had a massive stroke. I go to see him in the hospital with enough anger TO VIOLENTLY MURDER HIM, only to find him half brain dead laying in a hospital bed. When I came back I clearly wasn't myself anymore. I couldn't communicate normally, or even function on a basic level. My friends all left me, and my girlfriend cheated on me with one of my best friends. A few months later I unsuccessfully tried to kill myself using the medication I was on.

I dare you to try and tell me that teenage depression doesn't exist you ignorant and in-considerate Fuck.

On Topic: Looking at it from a total realistic view, expecting them to give a 15 year old a true adult sentencing is un-reasonable. She will most likely get some kind of child like punishment, hopefully with some kind of adult structuring to ensure she is monitored well into adulthood, but that's hopefully. In an ideal world she would get a proper adult sentence, but that would change the way all juveniles are charged. Many cases would point at this one saying "convict this teenager for this, and put him/her in jail for XX years." Which would not work. Parents (meaning registered voters) would be absolutely outraged at the idea that one of their children could be charged in such a way.

Well, since you brought up the parent angle...

Which would parents find more outraging?: The idea that their children can be charged as adults for committing a crime that is as extreme as premeditated murder? Or that the murderer of their child can get away with a slap on the wrist because they were a juvenile when the committed said murder?

 

[Saltiness]

Questions like this I find amusing. This case can be answered via three questions. Is it the purpose of said law to carry out the law? Yes. Is the child an adult? No, she is a child according to the laws of the country as to what a child is. Therefore what court should she be tried and judged in according to the dictates of the law of the country? A children's court.

If you alter the law whenever pathos (emotion) takes hold, you do not have a system of law. Instead it is a fickle changing mess. I am not a lawyer, this is logic; and adhering to the principles of the law.

Of course people have emotionally strong opinions, but unless you have a clause in your code of law that reads "we can ignore the age of a person and send them to whatever court we wish as determined by the furious populace and interest groups active around the time of the offending crime", she should be tried in a children's court due to her age.

And thus is why there is the advent of the ability to raise the level of judicial inquiry to a higher level when the case dictates. Yes, its an emotive response, no it's not outside the boundary of the law when previsions have been written into it to account for "extreme" cases. Do you qualify this as an extreme case? Or would the girl need to perhaps build a bomb and place it in a playground? Or go on a rampage with a firearm in a school? When is too much enough to elevate the crimes of the young and deranged from childrens court to an adults one in your eyes?

We don't exist in a world where everyone is sweet and innocent till they hit a magic number. People can be vile, disgusting and deserving of severe punishment, and that doesn't have a switch that magically comes on when you graduate or blow out the candles.