11-year-old American is youngest person in world to face life without parole

seanybiker

Proper order. He's a murderer so treat him as one

Captain_Generic

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

There's a big difference generally between an 11 year old today and an 11 year old 30 or 40 years ago. So I'd let the little bast@rd rot!

A dapper moustache for one

fergpie

TeddyTedson wrote: »

At 11 to get life without parole is retarded.
Give him 10 years and then life if he kills again after that.

out at 21 for two counts of murder? ha!

Parole should be available but as said before, not for a very long time

jackie1974

The child shoud not have had access to a gun ffs, that's a child throwing a tantrum with a lethal weapon. If guns weren't such an acceptable part of american culture that wouldn't happen and none of us know the chain of events that led up to the murder. There's no winners in this situation, it's awful

Lirange

MagicMarker wrote: »

I remember when this was first posted on boards, I can't say I'd be against life but the option of parole should be there. Just not for a very very long time.

I tend to agree with this. He'll serve his time in a juvenile facility and will be transferred to the main prison population when he turns 18. That's the policy in America.

He had been making threats towards her. So it sounds like it was premeditated. Just in case retrieving a gun and killing other people whilst they slept isn't enough to convince people. The deceased young woman is also leaving behind two little daughters from a previous relationship.

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

you would be surprised. 11 isn't an age where you think things through.

You'd be surprised. Believe or not I've been 11 years old before. You don't have to be capable of abstract thinking to differentiate between right and wrong when it comes to killing another person. Maybe something will come up in this case that will change my thinking on it. But I've no more sympathy for him than the two little boys that killed Bulger. What did society do wrong to create those two little murderers then? If anything the way they behaved in the Bulger case indicates more mental disturbance than this case from what we've learned so far. So off to a therapist with them!!

jackie1974 wrote: »

The child shoud not have had access to a gun ffs, that's a child throwing a tantrum with a lethal weapon. If guns weren't such an acceptable part of american culture that wouldn't happen and none of us know the chain of events that led up to the murder. There's no winners in this situation, it's awful

His parents were sleeping. They weren't in the middle of an argument at the time. If they had one earlier he had plenty of time to cool off. He waited for them to fall asleep, crept in, and then deliberately shot her. He had been making threats toward her over a period of time. It's not an instance of him losing control for a second and acting on impulse.

jackie1974

The case of the two boys that killed Jamie Bolger is totally different, it was totally premeditated, they tried to take another child a week before they took Jamie so they had time to think about what they were going to do, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing. They went out with the intention of taking a child and re enacting scenes they had watched in a film. That is evil and if they were put away for life they would deserve it IMO but they weren't they were given the benefit of rehabilitation.

The fact that Pennsylvannia has 450 under 18s locked up for life speaks volumes about their justice system and obviously it's a system that's not working.

skyhighflyer

I'm amazed that so many people on can't distinguish between an allegation and something that's been proven.

Some prosecutor is accusing the boy of doing it (isn't it usually the lover in these situations? -wouldn't be too hard for a father to frame an 11 year old)

and people on here are saying he should be locked up for life and this before a trial.

Am I the only one who sees something very wrong here?

enfant terrible

jackie1974 wrote: »

The fact that Pennsylvannia has 450 under 18s locked up for life speaks volumes about their justice system and obviously it's a system that's not working.

Isn't punishment a part of the judicial system too, not just deterrence?

MagicMarker

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I'm amazed that so many people on can't distinguish between an allegation and something that's been proven.

Some prosecutor is accusing the boy of doing it (isn't it usually the lover in these situations? -wouldn't be too hard for a father to frame an 11 year old)

and people on here are saying he should be locked up for life and this before a trial.

Am I the only one who sees something very wrong here?

Ah yeah, it's obvious that his father framed him and placed the gun residue on his shirt, and coerced his 7 year old daughter to tell police that she saw him with the gun, and the other child who saw him throw the bullet casing on the ground before getting on the bus to school. The father also made the other children lie about the kid threatening to kill the victim on various occasions before hand.

Yep.

enfant terrible

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ah yeah, it's obvious that his father framed him and placed the gun residue on his shirt, and coerced his 7 year old daughter to tell police that she saw him with the gun, and the other child who saw him throw the bullet casing on the ground before getting on the bus to school. The father also made the other children lie about the kid threatening to kill the victim on various occasions before hand.

Yep.

Your gonna be so sorry if that turns out to be true.

skyhighflyer

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ah yeah, it's obvious that his father framed him and placed the gun residue on his shirt, and coerced his 7 year old daughter to tell police that she saw him with the gun, and the other child who saw him throw the bullet casing on the ground before getting on the bus to school. The father also made the other children lie about the kid threatening to kill the victim on various occasions before hand.

Yep.

I generally don't waste time on people who use lolcats as an argument.

It remains the case that we don't really know what happened here. The actual facts, and by this I don't mean internet conjecture, will (hopefully) come out at trial.

What is clear though is that people are saying that an 11 year old boy who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't been convicted of anything yet, should be jailed for the rest of his life. That's not ok.

MagicMarker

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I generally don't waste time on people who use lolcats as an argument.

It remains the case that we don't really know what happened here. The actual facts, and by this I don't mean internet conjecture, will (hopefully) come out at trial.

What is clear though is that people are saying that an 11 year old boy who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't been convicted of anything yet, should be jailed for the rest of his life. That's not ok.

Why is it not okay? Because he's 13 (yes, he's 13 and not 11) years old, or because he hasn't been convicted yet? It's a discussion forum, people are discussing. No need to be so sensitive about it.

Why aren't people allowed provide their opinions? They're assuming the kid is guilty based on the facts that we know. People do it all the time. Shall we just stop letting people provide an opinion until after a verdict has been reached from now on?

If you don't like what you're reading then you could always unsubscribe from the thread?

wonderfulname

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is it not okay? Because he's 13 (yes, he's 13 and not 11) years old, or because he hasn't been convicted yet?

He was 11 at the time of the incident, what do you think he has been doing since then, playing cowboys and indians in the back garden with his step sisters?

11 is the right age to use in discussion here, as we are discussing the mental position of an 11 year old boy, having said that it doesn't matter all that much either way.

patwicklow

Its very sad to think a 11yo can take some ones life the world is just getting more evil by the day dont think there has been cases like this years ago whats it going to be like in another 50-60 years time i hope im not about that time.

MagicMarker

wonderfulname wrote: »

He was 11 at the time of the incident, what do you think he has been doing since then, playing cowboys and indians in the back garden with his step sisters?

11 is the right age to use in discussion here, as we are discussing the mental position of an 11 year old boy, having said that it doesn't matter all that much either way.

If you've attempted to make a point then I'm afraid I've missed it.

wonderfulname

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you've attempted to make a point then I'm afraid I've missed it.

Pointing out that he is now 13 is ridiculous, what does it have to do with anything? He was 11 at the time and he has obviously been incarcerated since then, 11 is the age that should be referred to.

x in the city

Dravokivich wrote: »

That'll teach him not to lie!

or the rest of ye....

americans are stupid, about 30-40% of them at least.. this guy is no different than the average stupid american who doesnt think nothing of blasting a gun at someone.

and sadly, there is no cure for stupidity...

MagicMarker

wonderfulname wrote: »

Pointing out that he is now 13 is ridiculous, what does it have to do with anything? He was 11 at the time and he has obviously been incarcerated since then, 11 is the age that should be referred to.

He should be referred to as being 13, because he's 13. By all means highlight the fact that he was 11 when he committed the crime when necessary but referring to him as an 11 year old is disingenuous and misleading.

Dudess

Ghandee wrote: »

Curious here.

Would you still feel that way if it was some of your family members he shot?

She'd possibly feel differently, but sentencing isn't, and shouldn't be, based on the emotive.

Stinicker wrote: »

They should execute him, that would set a precident, He is not a child as far as I'm concerned, kids these days are riding at from age twelve onwards and doing drugs etc. and have as much street savvy & knowledge as kids had when they reached 18, a quarter decade ago.

Eh, in spite of your hysterical claim which only applies to the minority of kids that age, they're still children - despite "as far as you're concerned"...

He made a conscious decision to shoot and kill and should thus be executed and this excuse he is young is no excuse. Execute the little scumbag and save society a person who knows he can kill and get away with it.

Awaits bleeding heart liberal rant

Something that's in disagreement with you and involves a bit of critical thinking (unlike your post) isn't necessarily "bleeding heart liberal".

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

There's a big difference generally between an 11 year old today and an 11 year old 30 or 40 years ago.

An 11-year-old is an 11-year-old, irrespective of what society they're a part of.

Blinkered thinking to assume he'll be the same person for life, which is one of the things this sentence (if it comes to pass) is saying. People are different at 14 to how they are at 11 ffs, nevermind when they reach adulthood. He should face consequences, and he is responsible, even if his background is tragic (an 11-year-old having access to a fire-arm, Jesus ). I also disagree with the likening him to an unaware small child - he is very young of course, and a kid, but at 11 you do understand the finality of death and what a gun can do. He may not have intended to kill though, just hurt, which of course is also appalling, but is it definite this was a calculated, carefully planned murder? It may have had some degree of premeditation on the basis of his anger, which, again, I'm not defending, but I don't think comments such as "If he's ccapable of this at that age, imagine"... etc, likening him to a psychopath/sociopath are necessarily relevant. It could have been a one-off, which may cause remorse for the rest of his life.

patwicklow wrote: »

the world is just getting more evil by the day

No it isn't - it has been much, much worse.

skyhighflyer

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is it not okay? Because he's 13 (yes, he's 13 and not 11) years old, or because he hasn't been convicted yet? It's a discussion forum, people are discussing. No need to be so sensitive about it.

Why aren't people allowed provide their opinions? They're assuming the kid is guilty based on the facts that we know. People do it all the time. Shall we just stop letting people provide an opinion until after a verdict has been reached from now on?

If you don't like what you're reading then you could always unsubscribe from the thread?

It's not ok for both reasons: he's 13 and everyone deserves a second chance, especially at that age. His second chance should come at the end of a long sentence in an appropriate institution, but it should come nonetheless.

As to your second argument concerning the fact that he hasn't been convicted yet, I'd draw your attention to something you posted earlier:

You might want to read up on the story. It's pretty much a clear cut case.

I prefer to rely on trials, the rules of evidence and cross examination as a more reliable means of obtaining the truth, but if you want to believe just those parts of the case that have been leaked to the internet then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Finally, do you see the irony in suggesting that I unsubscribe from the thread because I don't agree with you, as you simultaneously defend your own right to discussion?

MagicMarker

skyhighflyer wrote: »

It's not ok for both reasons: he's 13 and everyone deserves a second chance, especially at that age. His second chance should come at the end of a long sentence in an appropriate institution, but it should come nonetheless.

As to your second argument concerning the fact that he hasn't been convicted yet, I'd draw your attention to something you posted earlier:

Ah I get it, it's not okay because you don't agree. Well believe it or not, there are people who people think it is okay, so you telling them not to do it because you think otherwise is rather pointless don't you think?

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I prefer to rely on trials, the rules of evidence and cross examination as a more reliable means of obtaining the truth, but if you want to believe just those parts of the case that have been leaked to the internet then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Finally, do you see the irony in suggesting that I unsubscribe from the thread because I don't agree with you, as you simultaneously defend your own right to discussion?

It's not a case of wanting to believe ''just those parts'', it's all I know of right now and based on what I know so far I shall come to my own conclusion on what I think is right. If anything comes to light that changes that then I'll accept that. So far what I know is that there is overwhelming evidence that says he did it, you have access to the same information yet come on here saying the dad could have framed him. What part of the trials, rules of evidence and cross examination point to that theory Sherlock? Is the father not innocent until proven guilty or does that only apply to 13 year olds? :rolleyes:

Debthree

What kind of father lets an 11 year old keep a gun in his bedroom? Especially when there was also 7 year old and a 4 year old in the house. That is so sick. The father should be locked up.

wonderfulname

Debthree wrote: »

What kind of father lets an 11 year old keep a gun in his bedroom? Especially when there was also 7 year old and a 4 year old in the house. That is so sick. The father should be locked up.

Now that is protected by the American constitution!

Screw the kids, guns for all.

HavingCrack

Out of interest here, since a majority of posters think he should be tried as an adult would you also agree he should have have all the same rights as an adult?

Hypothetically do you think 11 year olds in Pennsylvania should be allwoed drink, smoke, have sex, get married, get a job etc? All the things legal adults are allowed do. It is this double standard that pisses me off about the US legal system more than anything else. Either let everyone, adult or minor enjoy the same rights and punishments or else have separate ones. FFS, sorry son. you can't drink alcohol but you can sure as hell be tried for murder as an adult.

As regards the case, presuming that he is in fact guilty of the crime, life without parole seems a tad harsh in this case to be honest. Perhaps a 25 year sentence with the possibility of parole after 20 ?

AnneElizabeth

Sad, but he definitely should be locked up, for a long time. He knew what he was doing. He knew his father loved her, knew she had two daughters, knew she was pregnant and would die if he shot her. But regardless, he killed her (and his half-brother/sister). Eleven year olds fully understand right and wrong. I was 11 in 6th class - that is definitely old enough to understand the concept of death and prison.

Any 11 year old could get a knife from the drawer and stab someone to death, so the fact that he had a gun makes no difference. He wanted to kill her.

I think he's a psychopath. I haven't read all the articles, but seeing as it's been two years I would assume some psychiatric tests have been done on him?

His father shouldn't have given him a kids' gun, however I know several 11 years olds (in Ireland) who have real pellet guns - not much difference imo. Blaming "society" and "stupid Americans" are pointless arguments.

df1985

if he does that at eleven what could he do when hes older.

He needs serious rehabilitation to realise exactly what hes done, otherwise he'll probably go nuts in prison.

Zillah

An eleven year old that is capable of taking a gun and murdering a pregnant woman while she is asleep in bed is going to be an extraordinarily dangerous 30 year old.

He's a violent sociopath and very well could have been in the papers a couple of decades from now after having killed and eaten people and made a collection of their faces in the attic.

If there were extreme circumstances, like the woman was abusing him or he suffered trauma of some sort, he may just have snapped, but by the sounds of it he's just broken inside. The pathology that allows you to murder someone because they are an inconvenience doesn't change with age.

I'm not a fan of the concept of "without parole", I think he should be monitored/treated carefully and see whether this was a freak outburst or if he is genuinely just broken. I do not, however, have any faith in the US criminal system to pay him that sort of attention so perhaps no parole is the safest.

crayolastereo

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't think thats fair. He was 11. At eleven you don't understand life and death. This woman and her baby were replacing him in the eyes of his father. He deserves to be punished, he doesn't deserve to be locked away the rest of his life.

Screw that. If he is inclined to murder, then he would be as likely to do it as an adult then as a child. At least this way it prevents him from doing so. Life behind bars is well deserved.

Da Shins Kelly

He deserves to be punished, but not locked away for the rest of his life. And surely something should be done about looking into why he might have done this. Child offenders need to be carefully assessed. There is something seriously amiss if a child is driven to murder someone, and the whole 'evil' argument doesn't suffice. That doesn't mean letting the kid out and sympathising with him or anything, but finding out why he would do such a thing could go a long way to helping with the understanding of child criminals. Children should not be tried in adult courts anyway. This is quite reminiscent of the Bulger case in England, during the 90s. Those two kids were nearly strung up. There is something wrong with society when kids are murdering people and the answer is not going to be found in just locking them away and hoping that they just go away. It's not that kids are becoming 'evil' or worse than they were, it's the societies that they're brought up in. Nobody is born a criminal, and no child commits a murder like that unless there are serious problems underlying. Everyone is a product of their environment. In this case, where was the father at and why did he allow his child access to a gun? What sort of household was this kid being brought up in? Parents have a lot to answer for in cases like this.

Mardy Bum

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

He deserves to be punished, but not locked away for the rest of his life. And surely something should be done about looking into why he might have done this. Child offenders need to be carefully assessed. There is something seriously amiss if a child is driven to murder someone, and the whole 'evil' argument doesn't suffice. That doesn't mean letting the kid out and sympathising with him or anything, but finding out why he would do such a thing could go a long way to helping with the understanding of child criminals. Children should not be tried in adult courts anyway. This is quite reminiscent of the Bulger case in England, during the 90s. Those two kids were nearly strung up. There is something wrong with society when kids are murdering people and the answer is not going to be found in just locking them away and hoping that they just go away. It's not that kids are becoming 'evil' or worse than they were, it's the societies that they're brought up in. Nobody is born a criminal, and no child commits a murder like that unless there are serious problems underlying. Everyone is a product of their environment. In this case, where was the father at and why did he allow his child access to a gun? What sort of household was this kid being brought up in? Parents have a lot to answer for in cases like this.

One of the kids who murdered Jaime Bulger is now back in prison over downloading and distributing child pornography.
These people who commit such heinous crimes at a young age are a danger to society and will continue to be. It may be due to a horrible upbringing, which may leave parents culpable too, however these people are and will be a danger to society if at such a young age they can commit their crimes and I mean this in general not just the Bolger case.