kraftdinner
|
posted on January 15, 2003 05:40:43 PM new
I just read that the Malvo boy (17) involved in the sniper case will be tried as an adult. Do you think that's fair?
|
KatyD
|
posted on January 15, 2003 05:50:13 PM new
I'm against any juvenile being tried as an adult. Some might argue that 17 is old enough to know better, but I've seen it argued that some 14 year olds are mature enough to know better. We had a child here who shot up a school and killed a couple of students. He was barely 15 by a couple of months. He was tried and sentenced as an adult. It's a travesty. If adulthood is "18" than that is the age one should be prosecuted as adult.
KatyD
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 15, 2003 05:58:43 PM new
No, I don't believe that any child should be tried as an adult.
A Boy of Bright Promise and No Roots - After Transient Childhood, Sniper Suspect Latched On to Strong Father Figure
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 15, 2003 06:05 PM ]
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 15, 2003 06:39:36 PM new
I have to disagree.
As far as I am concerned if a kid is seventeen and he has committed this type of crime he can be tried as an adult. At 17 you know that you are doing wrong... and no excuse about his past life...lots of people live lives like that and they don't kill people. The fact that these two hooked up and were a bad combination is only a reflection of their personalities...not their pasts.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on January 15, 2003 07:04:52 PM new
HE IS NO BETTER THAN AN ANIMAL AND SHOULD BE PUT DOWN.
SO YES HE SHOULD BE TRIED AS AN ADULT AND IF FOUND GUILTY SENTENCED TO DEATH.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
bunnicula
|
posted on January 15, 2003 07:21:24 PM new
I agree that he should be tried as an adult. A 17 old is not a child and no bad experiences as a child excuse him.
People are getting sick andtired of all the excuses. No one is accountable for anything anymore, are they? Some excuse is always found.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 15, 2003 08:03:29 PM new
This kid will be eligible for the death penalty in Virginia. That is why the trial will be held there.
He was 16 when these crimes were commited.
Juveniles in Adult Jails
Michael Bochenek
On any given day, between 200 and 300 young people are held in Maryland's adult jails, a consequence of state measures making it easier for children to be tried as adults. Since 1992, 40 states have adopted such legislation, driven by inaccurate assumptions that juvenile crime is on the rise and that trying children as adults will reduce crime.
Neither premise is correct.
Juvenile crime has declined steadily since 1993, and several studies have concluded that juveniles tried as adults are more likely to commit crimes in the future than youth prosecuted in juvenile courts.
While trying children as adults neither reduces crime nor rehabilitates the children, it often leads to abuses. Adult jails lack the infrastructure, staffing and programs to handle youth. Locking up these children in adult jails is a violation of their basic human rights.
Cont....
http://www.hrw.org/editorials/1999/crd-1199-wp.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Michael Bochenek is counsel to the children's rights division of Human Rights Watch.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 15, 2003 08:29:35 PM new
Personaly,while I don't feel he should get the death penalty, I do feel life in prison is not an unjust sentance for what he did. A sentance for a juvenile cannot, to my knowledge, be life. That is why I don't think he should be tried as one. This young man deserves to sit in jail until he dies.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 15, 2003 08:30:41 PM new
Hey, Twelvepole, I've been meaning to ask you what it is that has caused you to YELL all the time? Did I miss something??
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 15, 2003 08:42:24 PM new
Based on his past, I believe that he could be rehabilitated in a juvenile facility. At least it's worth the effort. If that attempt fails, he can then be transferred to an adult prison.
Helen
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 15, 2003 08:43:39 PM new
Then why have the law at all? There seems to be more and more cases involving juveniles being tried as adults. What should the age be?
|
KatyD
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:05:28 PM new
That's precisely my point, Kraftdinner. At whose whim is the decision made to try a juvenile as an adult? What's the cutoff? Why would one juvenile be deemed an "adult" at 15, and another is tried as a juvenile at 16. There is no fair standard. If you're going to say "17", then don't take the next kid and try him as an adult at "16". Or if you charge one kid as an adult at 15, where's the fairness of the next kid tried as a juvenile at "17". It's too arbitrary. And I personally think there is too much room for misapplication based upon race, socioeconomic status, gender, etc.
KatyD
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:05:58 PM new
The decision to try juveniles as adults is just too arbitrary. In some states, it's as young as 12...maybe younger. I think 18 is a resonable age to try anyone as an adult and that age should be firm.
Helen
|
KatyD
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:08:00 PM new
And wasn't there a kid in Florida that was tried as an adult at 12 or 13 for a crime he committed at 11? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly...where he jumped on a 6 year old girl and killed her? Where's the cutoff? Are we going to be trying 10 and 11 year old as adults now?
KatyD
|
KatyD
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:09:37 PM new
Hey Helen. We agree! This is so much fun!
KatyD
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:09:44 PM new
Multiple murder is not a juvenile crime. My feeling is that if it is multiple murders then age makes no difference..only perhaps in the sentance..maybe no death sentance for under 18 and kept in a juvenile facility until they are 18 then off they go to the big boys prison. I really do not have the answers but these kids are not doing kids crimes and they know it.
This is an opinion I have just recently come to..I used to think they should not be treated as adults but as more and more kids kill I have changed my mind some.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Jan 15, 2003 09:10 PM ]
|
bear1949
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:15:48 PM new
IF HE'S OLD ENOUGHT TO DO THE CRIME, HE'S OLD ENOUGH TO PAY THE PENALTY, (THE TIME)
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:20:52 PM new
It's too cool, Katy
Helen
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 15, 2003 09:58:08 PM new
bear
It's not necessarily true that a child or a teenager is old enough to pay the penalty of time in an adult prison or execution. Justice systems have to recognize the developmental psychological realities of juveniles and adolescence.
By the age of 18, most people have a sense of responsibility and control that children and teenagers don't always have.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 15, 2003 09:58 PM ]
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on January 15, 2003 10:46:39 PM new
WELL EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE POSTER, POSTS THIS WAY, SO COULDN'T BEAT HIM, MIGHT AS WELL JOIN HIM.
THIS IS NOT BURGLARY OR ROBBERY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT... THIS KID PULLED THE TRIGGER ON COMPLETE STRANGERS AND PROBABLY WOULD STILL BE DOING SO IF HADN'T GOTTEN CAUGHT.
I DO BELIEVE THAT HIS PARTNER SHOULD SUFFER THE SAME FATE, BECAUSE HE MORE THAN LIKELY INFLUENCED THE KID. BUT AT 16 YOU SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERNCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 16, 2003 08:45:22 AM new
WELL EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE POSTER, POSTS THIS WAY, SO COULDN'T BEAT HIM, MIGHT AS WELL JOIN HIM.
I do think this is fair in the Malvo case.
|
mlecher
|
posted on January 16, 2003 03:04:38 PM new
Does something magical happen when you turn 18 that makes you an Adult. When does one become an "Adult". 18 as the age of adulthood is an extremely recent development in society, less than 100 years.
Throughout the history of mankind it was always much earlier....you didn't live much beyond 18. Physiologically you become an adult with puberty, about 12-13. Your personality is pretty much set by then also. Reasoning ability is pretty set also and they definately know right from wrong by then. The only thing that sets it at 18 is the law...
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 16, 2003 03:22:41 PM new
Well, mlecher, you should rewrite the psychology textbooks and inform the psychiatric community, LOL!!!
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 16, 2003 03:26 PM ]
|
shop4shoes
|
posted on January 17, 2003 05:04:18 AM new
My problem with trying people under 18 as adults is that it is so arbitrary. There is no rhyme or reason as to which kids are tried as adults.
These kids Can not vote until 18. Can not sign a binding contract until 18. Can not legally drink until 21. Can not serve on a jury until 18. Can not legally smoke until 18.
They are old enough to know that murder is wrong, but not old enough to know drinking and driving is bad. It is just absurd.
|
gravid
|
posted on January 17, 2003 06:22:17 AM new
In an ideal society one would only become an adult upon declaring yourself as one, not at an arbitrary age.
Some people never become adults and some are adult at 12. Perhaps younger in a few sad cases.
But in order for that to work people would have to abandon a lot of predjudice. Some people still never regard a woman or a black person with the respect of adulthood - looking at them as child like.
It would also require a system of control that wopuld be hard becasue people would have to actually know one another.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 17, 2003 07:11:48 AM new
Each case should be decided on an individual basis, imo.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 17, 2003 08:00:33 AM new
We seem to be able to set an age at which most people can responsibly drive a car, serve in the armed forces, buy alcohol etc. Why is it that you need to consider a child an adult when a crime is committed? Should we consider letting some children drive and purchase alcohol and some children vote and some children go to war???
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 17, 2003 08:02 AM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on January 17, 2003 11:13:15 AM new
Perhaps yes - and there are some people that should never drive a car for example. There have been a huge number of kids who lied and went to war a year or two early and many who in the past worked and supported their younger brothers and sisters or took care of them when the parents died. Today instead of allowing and enabling that the state shoves them in foster care where many are abused and lost. Is that such an improvement?
|
mlecher
|
posted on January 17, 2003 06:26:07 PM new
We seem to be able to set an age at which most people can responsibly drive a car, serve in the armed forces, buy alcohol etc
We set those using the only criteria we CAN accurately measure, age. But in all aspects of mental, spiritual and physical development, it is extremely arbritrary. If you truly believe that something magical happens to a person at the stroke of 18 years, then you need to decrease your dosage......
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Jan 17, 2003 06:28 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 17, 2003 06:38:54 PM new
"Perhaps yes - and there are some people that should never drive a car for example. There have been a huge number of kids who lied and went to war a year or two early and many who in the past worked and supported their younger brothers and sisters or took care of them when the parents died. Today instead of allowing and enabling that the state shoves them in foster care where many are abused and lost. Is that such an improvement?"
Of course, gravid, there are exceptions. And social services make mistakes. How is that related to my remark or to the topic?
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 17, 2003 06:39 PM ]
|
