12-Year-Old Boy - Tried as an Adult?

[Bfgrn]

...
I think it's pretty harsh that you seem unable to care about the actual victims and focus more on the little bastard that (allegedly) committed the crime. Are you European?

U.S. is not alone to have separate systems like this and this kind of discussion isn't held in U.S. only. I can't imagine a higher stress on any court system than situations like theese and my interest is in what parameters lies behind deciding wich system to prosecute under. Age is obviously one, ability to conduct a fair trail would be another - considering the nature of the crime - and finally how to deal with the outcome of such a trial (there might be a lack of competence, facilities and other issues with the juvenile system).

And obviously you have no idea of what I care about.

If the primary drive behind putting a 12 year old on trail as an adult and wishing for him "to fry" is solely about revenge for the victims, then I must ask: Are you from Afghanistan? Hell, we might even hire the Talibans to teach us about behaving civilized!

Our Court systems must both protect the Public and seek Justice for the Public. Putting this monster in a Juvenile prison and then letting him go in 7 years is NOT Justice and it is NOT protecting society, He should not be around other kids and he should never be released for the 2 MURDERS he committed.

Doing that tells this little turd that life means nothing at all. From what I can glean from this he MURDERED her because she was going to be in his life permanently. In other words for jealousy and possession. He made a decision far beyond that of a normal 11 year old and deserves to be treated as an adult.

We need to start putting slime like YOU in prison...your language makes me sick...modern science and brain imaging is revealing that previous theories of cognitive development are wrong. At 11 years old, the human brain is no where near the development of an adult.

There is strong evidence that the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle, a potential murder weapon, should be raised to at LEAST 18...

If you believe an 11 year old should be held to the same laws as an adult, let's lower the driving and drinking age to 11...THEN you'll see a REAL reason to be concerned about protecting the Public

 

[Barb]

U.S. is not alone to have separate systems like this and this kind of discussion isn't held in U.S. only. I can't imagine a higher stress on any court system than situations like theese and my interest is in what parameters lies behind deciding wich system to prosecute under. Age is obviously one, ability to conduct a fair trail would be another - considering the nature of the crime - and finally how to deal with the outcome of such a trial (there might be a lack of competence, facilities and other issues with the juvenile system).

And obviously you have no idea of what I care about.

If the primary drive behind putting a 12 year old on trail as an adult and wishing for him "to fry" is solely about revenge for the victims, then I must ask: Are you from Afghanistan? Hell, we might even hire the Talibans to teach us about behaving civilized!

Our Court systems must both protect the Public and seek Justice for the Public. Putting this monster in a Juvenile prison and then letting him go in 7 years is NOT Justice and it is NOT protecting society, He should not be around other kids and he should never be released for the 2 MURDERS he committed.

Doing that tells this little turd that life means nothing at all. From what I can glean from this he MURDERED her because she was going to be in his life permanently. In other words for jealousy and possession. He made a decision far beyond that of a normal 11 year old and deserves to be treated as an adult.

We need to start putting slime like YOU in prison...your language makes me sick...modern science and brain imaging is revealing that previous theories of cognitive development are wrong. At 11 years old, the human brain is no where near the development of an adult.

There is strong evidence that the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle, a potential murder weapon, should be raised to at LEAST 18...

If you believe an 11 year old should be held to the same laws as an adult, let's lower the driving and drinking age to 11...THEN you'll see a REAL reason to be concerned about protecting the Public

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bfgrn again.

 

[CurveLight]

Allright, but without any distinction in age you will put children in a very strange situation. They have no right to vote, they are only half-citizens so to say with generally no income or right to decide who they live with or freedom of choice. Bringing them to justice is a delicate procedure to say the least. Would you suggest a jury of peers?

They are going to be in a strange situation either way.........do you think it would somehow be "less strange" if they are tried as a juvy or adult? (I'm hoping your peers question was a joke.)

I am pretty sure they would find a legal system adopted for children less strange, yes. Justice is supposed to be blind, but children carries another status than adults in our societey, they are not "small-sort-of-adults". They haven't been considered to be that in last 1000 years. What ever crime they might have comitted they should not be exposed to the legal system designed by adults for adults.

Yes, the jury thing was a joke. But it stresses the point that children are different from adults. We "infringe" their rights and pay with extra responsability for that.

The justice system was not created for adults. It was created for criminals. Do you know what the differences are between a juvy and regular trial?

 

[ErikViking]

They are going to be in a strange situation either way.........do you think it would somehow be "less strange" if they are tried as a juvy or adult? (I'm hoping your peers question was a joke.)

I am pretty sure they would find a legal system adopted for children less strange, yes. Justice is supposed to be blind, but children carries another status than adults in our societey, they are not "small-sort-of-adults". They haven't been considered to be that in last 1000 years. What ever crime they might have comitted they should not be exposed to the legal system designed by adults for adults.

Yes, the jury thing was a joke. But it stresses the point that children are different from adults. We "infringe" their rights and pay with extra responsability for that.

The justice system was not created for adults. It was created for criminals. Do you know what the differences are between a juvy and regular trial?

First, that's a really lame argument. How did you even come up with that?

To be honest, not in exact detail for every court system there is, and the American isn't exactly coherent - but the main thing seems to be that juveniels gets adequat funding for the process and specially skilled advisory. Alot of the focus goes to the punishment, where "as an adult" indicates a possible sentence to a harder punishment whereas the juvenile correction strives for rehabilitation.

 

[CurveLight]

I am pretty sure they would find a legal system adopted for children less strange, yes. Justice is supposed to be blind, but children carries another status than adults in our societey, they are not "small-sort-of-adults". They haven't been considered to be that in last 1000 years. What ever crime they might have comitted they should not be exposed to the legal system designed by adults for adults.

Yes, the jury thing was a joke. But it stresses the point that children are different from adults. We "infringe" their rights and pay with extra responsability for that.

The justice system was not created for adults. It was created for criminals. Do you know what the differences are between a juvy and regular trial?

First, that's a really lame argument. How did you even come up with that?

To be honest, not in exact detail for every court system there is, and the American isn't exactly coherent - but the main thing seems to be that juveniels gets adequat funding for the process and specially skilled advisory. Alot of the focus goes to the punishment, where "as an adult" indicates a possible sentence to a harder punishment whereas the juvenile correction strives for rehabilitation.

So basically you don't know the major difference is sentencing limits.

 

[George Costanza]

Does anoyone here have any input regarding this? It seems obvious that a 12 year old is not an adult, but what is the purpose of having a trial as if he were? Are there flaws in the juvenile court system that makes it incapable of handling such violent crimes? Or is it about something else?

In most states, juveniles who commit really serious crimes, such as murder, are handled in adult court in spite of their age. I think it is less a situation where juvenile court cannot handle the situation (although the sentencing scheme in juvenile court is generally not set up to punish the crime of murder), and more the idea that really bad little kids should really get slammed.

Before a juvie can be tried in adult court, there is usually a hearing in juvenile court called a fitness hearing - designed, as you might expect - to test whether the juvenile is "fit" to remain in juvenile court or not. If not, up he goes to adult court. Lately, direct filings in adult court for juveniles accused of serious crimes, have been allowed.

 

[CurveLight]

Does anoyone here have any input regarding this? It seems obvious that a 12 year old is not an adult, but what is the purpose of having a trial as if he were? Are there flaws in the juvenile court system that makes it incapable of handling such violent crimes? Or is it about something else?

In most states, juveniles who commit really serious crimes, such as murder, are handled in adult court in spite of their age. I think it is less a situation where juvenile court cannot handle the situation (although the sentencing scheme in juvenile court is generally not set up to punish the crime of murder), and more the idea that really bad little kids should really get slammed.

Before a juvie can be tried in adult court, there is usually a hearing in juvenile court called a fitness hearing - designed, as you might expect - to test whether the juvenile is "fit" to remain in juvenile court or not. If not, up he goes to adult court. Lately, direct filings in adult court for juveniles accused of serious crimes, have been allowed.

Sentencing limitations exist for legal adults regarding competency so it shows age is in itself overrated.

 

[ErikViking]

The justice system was not created for adults. It was created for criminals. Do you know what the differences are between a juvy and regular trial?

First, that's a really lame argument. How did you even come up with that?

To be honest, not in exact detail for every court system there is, and the American isn't exactly coherent - but the main thing seems to be that juveniels gets adequat funding for the process and specially skilled advisory. Alot of the focus goes to the punishment, where "as an adult" indicates a possible sentence to a harder punishment whereas the juvenile correction strives for rehabilitation.

So basically you don't know the major difference is sentencing limits.

The trail is what leads up to the sentence, right? I mentioned that. When dealing with children the whole process is affected. An adult can for instance be self incriminated, a circumstance that a child need help to avoid. My initial interest is to get to know what criteria is used to decide what way to go.

The discussion about how to handle children within the justice system is interesting too.

 

[ErikViking]

Does anoyone here have any input regarding this? It seems obvious that a 12 year old is not an adult, but what is the purpose of having a trial as if he were? Are there flaws in the juvenile court system that makes it incapable of handling such violent crimes? Or is it about something else?

In most states, juveniles who commit really serious crimes, such as murder, are handled in adult court in spite of their age. I think it is less a situation where juvenile court cannot handle the situation (although the sentencing scheme in juvenile court is generally not set up to punish the crime of murder), and more the idea that really bad little kids should really get slammed.

Before a juvie can be tried in adult court, there is usually a hearing in juvenile court called a fitness hearing - designed, as you might expect - to test whether the juvenile is "fit" to remain in juvenile court or not. If not, up he goes to adult court. Lately, direct filings in adult court for juveniles accused of serious crimes, have been allowed.

Thanks!

 

[Bfgrn]

 

[AllieBaba]

The quoted part says it all. The Juvenile system is not set up to handle people like him. He knowingly and with aforethought set out to murder a woman. He should not be put in with children as he did not act as one.

So I was wrong then? This is more about finding a suitable punishment for the boy rather than incapabilities of the juvenile court system or rehabilitation of juveniles? EDIT: No, I misunderstood. I guess that was what the quoted part said. Sorry!

The answer is in your link:

...

If he's convicted I hope they fry the son-of-a bitch.

Pretty harsh. I would rather be killed myself than letting anyone kill my child. I somehow feel responsible of their actions.

It's not so much about punishing the kid in cases like this...it's about keeping the public safe. The prosecutor doesn't think this kid will ever be safe or welcome in society, so he wants him put away. The juvenile system can't do that....since it is geared SOLELY towards rehabilitation and support, and since it doesn't recognize that a child is responsible for himself, all kids who are convicted as kids get to start over when they turn 21, or shortly thereafter.

I've worked pretty intimately with criminal children and it is such a tragedy, because when all is said and done...they're just kids, with a child's limited understanding of the world and a limited understanding of themselves. You have kids who are 13 who have beat up people and killed them...and they are still into ice cream, pre-teen fads, and have no concept of forever.

 

[CurveLight]

The quoted part says it all. The Juvenile system is not set up to handle people like him. He knowingly and with aforethought set out to murder a woman. He should not be put in with children as he did not act as one.

So I was wrong then? This is more about finding a suitable punishment for the boy rather than incapabilities of the juvenile court system or rehabilitation of juveniles? EDIT: No, I misunderstood. I guess that was what the quoted part said. Sorry!

The answer is in your link:

...

If he's convicted I hope they fry the son-of-a bitch.

Pretty harsh. I would rather be killed myself than letting anyone kill my child. I somehow feel responsible of their actions.

It's not so much about punishing the kid in cases like this...it's about keeping the public safe. The prosecutor doesn't think this kid will ever be safe or welcome in society, so he wants him put away. The juvenile system can't do that....since it is geared SOLELY towards rehabilitation and support, and since it doesn't recognize that a child is responsible for himself, all kids who are convicted as kids get to start over when they turn 21, or shortly thereafter.

I've worked pretty intimately with criminal children and it is such a tragedy, because when all is said and done...they're just kids, with a child's limited understanding of the world and a limited understanding of themselves. You have kids who are 13 who have beat up people and killed them...and they are still into ice cream, pre-teen fads, and have no concept of forever.

isn't it a bit.....freaky.....to decide the kid's future before a conviction done by a State paid psychiatrist?

 

[CurveLight]

So the prosecution's case so far seems to rest on circumstantial evidence, no witnesses, and mitigating facts yet there are many here who have already convicted the poor bastard. Wtf?

 

[George Costanza]

It's not so much about punishing the kid in cases like this...it's about keeping the public safe. The prosecutor doesn't think this kid will ever be safe or welcome in society, so he wants him put away. The juvenile system can't do that....since it is geared SOLELY towards rehabilitation and support, and since it doesn't recognize that a child is responsible for himself, all kids who are convicted as kids get to start over when they turn 21, or shortly thereafter.

I've worked pretty intimately with criminal children and it is such a tragedy, because when all is said and done...they're just kids, with a child's limited understanding of the world and a limited understanding of themselves. You have kids who are 13 who have beat up people and killed them...and they are still into ice cream, pre-teen fads, and have no concept of forever.

One thing - no death penalty for a child who commits a murder when they are under the age of 18, regardless of how heinous the crime and regardless of whether they are tried in juvenile court or adult court.

 

[CurveLight]

It's not so much about punishing the kid in cases like this...it's about keeping the public safe. The prosecutor doesn't think this kid will ever be safe or welcome in society, so he wants him put away. The juvenile system can't do that....since it is geared SOLELY towards rehabilitation and support, and since it doesn't recognize that a child is responsible for himself, all kids who are convicted as kids get to start over when they turn 21, or shortly thereafter.

I've worked pretty intimately with criminal children and it is such a tragedy, because when all is said and done...they're just kids, with a child's limited understanding of the world and a limited understanding of themselves. You have kids who are 13 who have beat up people and killed them...and they are still into ice cream, pre-teen fads, and have no concept of forever.

One thing - no death penalty for a child who commits a murder when they are under the age of 18, regardless of how heinous the crime and regardless of whether they are tried in juvenile court or adult court.

No death penalty. Period. It be the only way to be consistent.

 

[George Costanza]

It's not so much about punishing the kid in cases like this...it's about keeping the public safe. The prosecutor doesn't think this kid will ever be safe or welcome in society, so he wants him put away. The juvenile system can't do that....since it is geared SOLELY towards rehabilitation and support, and since it doesn't recognize that a child is responsible for himself, all kids who are convicted as kids get to start over when they turn 21, or shortly thereafter.

I've worked pretty intimately with criminal children and it is such a tragedy, because when all is said and done...they're just kids, with a child's limited understanding of the world and a limited understanding of themselves. You have kids who are 13 who have beat up people and killed them...and they are still into ice cream, pre-teen fads, and have no concept of forever.

One thing - no death penalty for a child who commits a murder when they are under the age of 18, regardless of how heinous the crime and regardless of whether they are tried in juvenile court or adult court.

No death penalty. Period. It be the only way to be consistent.

No argument there. Ah, but that's for another thread and another time . . .

 

[CurveLight]

First, that's a really lame argument. How did you even come up with that?

To be honest, not in exact detail for every court system there is, and the American isn't exactly coherent - but the main thing seems to be that juveniels gets adequat funding for the process and specially skilled advisory. Alot of the focus goes to the punishment, where "as an adult" indicates a possible sentence to a harder punishment whereas the juvenile correction strives for rehabilitation.

So basically you don't know the major difference is sentencing limits.

The trail is what leads up to the sentence, right? I mentioned that. When dealing with children the whole process is affected. An adult can for instance be self incriminated, a circumstance that a child need help to avoid. My initial interest is to get to know what criteria is used to decide what way to go.

The discussion about how to handle children within the justice system is interesting too.

Except minors are not protected from confessions even when tried as minors. It should be focused on competency and comprehension. Not simply age which is an arbitrary and misleading barometer.

 

[ErikViking]

So basically you don't know the major difference is sentencing limits.

The trail is what leads up to the sentence, right? I mentioned that. When dealing with children the whole process is affected. An adult can for instance be self incriminated, a circumstance that a child need help to avoid. My initial interest is to get to know what criteria is used to decide what way to go.

The discussion about how to handle children within the justice system is interesting too.

Except minors are not protected from confessions even when tried as minors. It should be focused on competency and comprehension. Not simply age which is an arbitrary and misleading barometer.

There are cases (court cases) which is hard to fit in any category. There was a case here where two 16 year old plotted and killed a third one. The motive was really imature, the execution of the murder was caothic and they had no (good) plan of how to get away with it. But the complete picture anyway exposed an overall adult behaviour. They were sentenced to a juvenile institution and the public reaction in many cases was that it was wrong. So in a way, I agree. Age alone might be a bad marker. But still, there is a concept of age and we use it to define a persons rights and obligations. I don't think the definition is easy, even if a 12 year old boy - no matter the crime - can be seen as an adult in my eyes.

What do you think, could another system fill the gap? Both regarding "age" and the type of crime comitted? I can imagine this court coming in to play even regarding adults comitting crimes, where there is no other suitable way to find justice?

Then there are other aspects of children comitting crimes, but that is perhaps an issue for another thread.

 

[CurveLight]

The trail is what leads up to the sentence, right? I mentioned that. When dealing with children the whole process is affected. An adult can for instance be self incriminated, a circumstance that a child need help to avoid. My initial interest is to get to know what criteria is used to decide what way to go.

The discussion about how to handle children within the justice system is interesting too.

Except minors are not protected from confessions even when tried as minors. It should be focused on competency and comprehension. Not simply age which is an arbitrary and misleading barometer.

There are cases (court cases) which is hard to fit in any category. There was a case here where two 16 year old plotted and killed a third one. The motive was really imature, the execution of the murder was caothic and they had no (good) plan of how to get away with it. But the complete picture anyway exposed an overall adult behaviour. They were sentenced to a juvenile institution and the public reaction in many cases was that it was wrong. So in a way, I agree. Age alone might be a bad marker. But still, there is a concept of age and we use it to define a persons rights and obligations. I don't think the definition is easy, even if a 12 year old boy - no matter the crime - can be seen as an adult in my eyes.

What do you think, could another system fill the gap? Both regarding "age" and the type of crime comitted? I can imagine this court coming in to play even regarding adults comitting crimes, where there is no other suitable way to find justice?

Then there are other aspects of children comitting crimes, but that is perhaps an issue for another thread.

My idea of a system would be to remove sentencing restrictions imposed on juvenile trials. This would save a LOT of time and money because lawyers would not need to fight for trials to happen in one venue or the other. To be safe about protecting minors they should keep the parent guidelines in place. If a minor receives a sentence carried past their 18th birthday then transfer them from a juvenile to state prison.

 

[ErikViking]

Except minors are not protected from confessions even when tried as minors. It should be focused on competency and comprehension. Not simply age which is an arbitrary and misleading barometer.

There are cases (court cases) which is hard to fit in any category. There was a case here where two 16 year old plotted and killed a third one. The motive was really imature, the execution of the murder was caothic and they had no (good) plan of how to get away with it. But the complete picture anyway exposed an overall adult behaviour. They were sentenced to a juvenile institution and the public reaction in many cases was that it was wrong. So in a way, I agree. Age alone might be a bad marker. But still, there is a concept of age and we use it to define a persons rights and obligations. I don't think the definition is easy, even if a 12 year old boy - no matter the crime - can be seen as an adult in my eyes.

What do you think, could another system fill the gap? Both regarding "age" and the type of crime comitted? I can imagine this court coming in to play even regarding adults comitting crimes, where there is no other suitable way to find justice?

Then there are other aspects of children comitting crimes, but that is perhaps an issue for another thread.

My idea of a system would be to remove sentencing restrictions imposed on juvenile trials. This would save a LOT of time and money because lawyers would not need to fight for trials to happen in one venue or the other. To be safe about protecting minors they should keep the parent guidelines in place. If a minor receives a sentence carried past their 18th birthday then transfer them from a juvenile to state prison.

That could work... regarding minors there should also be a strive to move from punishment towards rehabilitation. Perhaps the sentence restrictions and yes, what you describe: a trial before the trail could be avoided. Some times the "time served" feels less important than the actual trail (making a young person aware of how society works) and som times the opposite.

Are there alternative punishments in the U.S. to the classic prison? Like open facilities where you can still work as normal? Or electronic tracking devices you should wear for a certain time?