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

wolfpawnat

After what he did he deserves it. My father had a child with a woman when I was 10, I never felt like killing her or the child. I hated her and I resented her, but I didn't actually even consider it!

He took two lives, he should be happy that he isn't getting a death sentence. He will have a roof over his head, exercise and good meals. More than that child he killed ever got to experience!!!

Mardy Bum

Father Damo wrote: »

Two counts of murder? In the US abortion doctors go home every night having killed god knows how many foetus on their shift, yet he gets the harsher sentence for two murders instead of one?
Bollocks.

Do these doctors sneak up on you when you are at home in bed and do it without consent of the mother by the mother or is it more the choice of the mother whether or not she keeps the child and everything seems a bit more official with forms and so forth? There is no comparison at all there.

ebixa82

Father Damo wrote: »

Two counts of murder? In the US abortion doctors go home every night having killed god knows how many foetus on their shift, yet he gets the harsher sentence for two murders instead of one?

You make it sound like abortion is murder or something!

liah

There's been adult murderers getting off with lighter sentences. The reaction to this case has actually been baffling to me.

He was 11 years old. His brain does not function in the same way as an adult (http://www.livescience.com/culture/teen-brain-changes-reciprocity-110126.html just to illustrate this a little bit; off-topic but shows that they think differently). The processes for reasoning are different, the understanding of 'forever' isn't really all there. They can't possibly fathom it the way an adult can.

I know as a particularly angry 11ish year old I hit my mother, something I'd never dream of doing now, god, everyone's done stuff at 11 that they did first without thinking about in a rage of emotion. Kids are unstable, they're not as emotionally balanced as we are and more prone to making mistakes.```

Kids at that age DO and THEN think. Not the other way around. I'm not saying the child shouldn't be punished-- absolutely, he should-- he should be tried and punished as the youth he is with his family's background taken into consideration.

But life without parole for an 11-year-old child is insane and barbaric. Adult murderers get the option for parole. Why can a child not get the option for parole and rehabilitation? At such a young age, there is definitely the possibility of rehabilitation depending on what kind of prison system he's put into. He's young enough to be molded either way at this stage.

Why the double standard?

cynder

Possible the child has a screw loose, otherwise every 11 year old would be out killing if they didnt get what they want.

After years and years of living in prison i don't think he will be able to function in the real world, and i think that it would be a risk to let him go after 30 years of prison life (violence, sexual assaults, bullying, fighting, getting ideas of others) his going to come out as one screwed up individual. rehabilitation ?? So better to keep him there. I hope his sentence then serves as a deterrent to any other 11 year olds that feel the can kill someone just because they don't like them.

sunflower27

liah wrote: »

There's been adult murderers getting off with lighter sentences. The reaction to this case has actually been baffling to me.

He was 11 years old. His brain does not function in the same way as an adult (http://www.livescience.com/culture/teen-brain-changes-reciprocity-110126.html just to illustrate this a little bit; off-topic but shows that they think differently). The processes for reasoning are different, the understanding of 'forever' isn't really all there. They can't possibly fathom it the way an adult can.

I know as a particularly angry 11ish year old I hit my mother, something I'd never dream of doing now, god, everyone's done stuff at 11 that they did first without thinking about in a rage of emotion. Kids are unstable, they're not as emotionally balanced as we are and more prone to making mistakes.```

Kids at that age DO and THEN think. Not the other way around. I'm not saying the child shouldn't be punished-- absolutely, he should-- he should be tried and punished as the youth he is with his family's background taken into consideration.

But life without parole for an 11-year-old child is insane and barbaric. Adult murderers get the option for parole. Why can a child not get the option for parole and rehabilitation? At such a young age, there is definitely the possibility of rehabilitation depending on what kind of prison system he's put into. He's young enough to be molded either way at this stage.

Why the double standard?

Of course kids do and then think. But hitting your mum is so far from taking a gun and shooting a woman and her unborn baby.

These stories are rare - for a reason. Children do not normally do these things. I remember at the time of the Jamie Bolger murder having a huge debate on whether children can be born evil. I said yes, and still stand by that. When we look at all the manner of diseases out there, why not a brain disorder that can make people susceptible to this type of sadistic behaviour. Which makes me think he needs to be seen to by mental health professionals.

As someone else pointed out, why aren't all 11-year-olds holding us all to ransom? Because they know what murder is.

Sorry if went off topic a bit there.

Da Shins Kelly

Mardy Bum wrote: »

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.

This is true, but there also remains a question over whether that man's problems (the man involved in the Bulger case who is now back in jail) has to do with the abnormal circumstances in which he grew up. Would he have committed the first crime had his parents been more vigilant and less neglectful? Would he have committed the second crime had he not spent the best years of his childhood in jail? Don't get me wrong, he deserves to be in jail for the child pornography thing, but the parents are the most at fault in any case involving child criminals. And I don't believe in this whole idea of, 'Oh if they can do it now, they'll do worse when they're older.' People really underestimate people's capacity to change. Nobody is the same person they were when they were 11. And taking the Bulger case, the other boy involved seems to have managed to integrate back into society and there hasn't been a word about him. Mary Bell (another child criminal who murdered two other children) was also introduced back into society and never committed another crime again. So, the possibility is there. It's been tried and has worked in some cases. When you look into these cases, it's clear that society and upbringing has so much to do with why these kids commit these crimes - they are always the same kind of people, from similar backgrounds, with neglectful parents. That is a problem with society, not a problem with children.

Samba

Zillah wrote: »

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.

That's flawed thinking imo but if he gets tried as an adult it's a dead cert once he sees an adult correctional facility. He will be irreversible damaged goods at that point.

If he was tried as a juvenile there would be at least a small chance for him to one day perhaps have some sense of normality again, try him as an adult and that chance evaporates.

grindelwald wrote: »

I hope his sentence then serves as a deterrent to any other 11 year olds that feel the can kill someone just because they don't like them.

You've got to be kidding me!

Catari Jaguar

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Exactly, we don't know for sure if that was the case here but if it is and he is a sociopath, he can't be rehabilitated.

I'm not saying he is. We don't have the full story but this common perception that children can't be evil, their brains actually hard-wired that way is not backed up by science.

Sociopathy can manifest after brain-injury and is definitely not helped by a bad/abusive upbringing. But it is possible for individuals to be 'born bad'

As I said, it may not be the case here. They can be very charming, manipulative and plausable and often apparently engage incredibly successfully with top psychiatrists, afterwards it is realised they utterly manipulated them.

They have no remorse. Their only fear is being caught. They might not always kill. It's estimated 1% of people are sociopaths. Not all kill but everybody knows a few. It seems it's perfectly possible for a kid to be born that way.

I don't diasgree but if you're born a sociopath you're no more able to control it than if you're born with tourette's, autism or ADHD. You shouldn't blame people with conditions for any behaviour arising. People born with psychiatric pr pyschological need to receive treatment.

I think that the idea of jail as a "keep them away from society" type institute is a waste of time. There should be rehabilitation there. If jail worked then there wouldn't be so many reoffenders. I read about the legal system in I think Switzerland or some Nordic country and they have a tiny fraction of reoffenders because they get to the root of the problem and focus on prevention of crimes.

I am more than shocked at how the term "evil" is being bandied around here. Do people actually believe in "evil" like devil/ God given will scenarios or malevolent forces??

Cheap Thrills!

cherub rock wrote: »

I don't diasgree but if you're born a sociopath you're no more able to control it than if you're born with tourette's, autism or ADHD. You shouldn't blame people with conditions for any behaviour arising. People born with psychiatric pr pyschological need to receive treatment.

Sociopaths can't be treated though. So far all they have been shown to do is manipulate whatever system is used to attempt to help them.

They are not interested in being helped, just duping the sytem so that they can satisfy their needs/desires again as soon as possible.

cherub rock wrote: »

I think that the idea of jail as a "keep them away from society" type institute is a waste of time. There should be rehabilitation there. If jail worked then there wouldn't be so many reoffenders. I read about the legal system in I think Switzerland or some Nordic country and they have a tiny fraction of reoffenders because they get to the root of the problem and focus on prevention of crimes.

I am more than shocked at how the term "evil" is being bandied around here. Do people actually believe in "evil" like devil/ God given will scenarios or malevolent forces??

Yes, I believe in evil.

And again with the rehabilitation. You can't rehabiliate a sociopath. They just see everything in terms of how it can serve themselves. They have no empathy, conscience or interest in anything other than themselves.

TPD

Why is it even an option to try a juvenile as anything other than a juvenile? If there is a sentence usually handed down to juveniles for double homicide, that's what the kid should get, not the adult sentence.

ScissorPaperRock

cherub rock wrote: »

I don't diasgree but if you're born a sociopath you're no more able to control it than if you're born with tourette's, autism or ADHD. You shouldn't blame people with conditions for any behaviour arising. People born with psychiatric pr pyschological need to receive treatment.

It's a common misconception that ADHD etc is predetermined. Nor are people born sociopaths. While it is true that genes mean that people can be predisposed to acquiring these conditions, not all of those that have these genetic predispositions acquire them. This points to the fact that the environment people grow and develop in shapes their behavior, and this is particularly true as a child (and even in the womb).

Children do not have as much control over the environment in which they live, and over the events that occur in their lives that affect the way they develop. It is therefore wrong that this kid is being punished in this way. Society screwed up, and since our society does not know how to rehabilitate people effectively, he is bearing responsibility for something that is much more the responsibility of a society that has failed him.

cynder

cherub rock wrote: »

I don't diasgree but if you're born a sociopath you're no more able to control it than if you're born with tourette's, autism or ADHD. You shouldn't blame people with conditions for any behaviour arising. People born with psychiatric pr pyschological need to receive treatment.

I am more than shocked at how the term "evil" is being bandied around here. Do people actually believe in "evil" like devil/ God given will scenarios or malevolent forces??

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad


Prehaps they should just chop off his hands/arms so he could never use a weapon again?

That would work!

Catari Jaguar

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Sociopaths can't be treated though. So far all they have been shown to do is manipulate whatever system is used to attempt to help them.

They are not interested in being helped, just duping the sytem so that they can satisfy their needs/desires again as soon as possible.

Yes, I believe in evil.

And again with the rehabilitation. You can't rehabiliate a sociopath. They just see everything in terms of how it can serve themselves. They have no empathy, conscience or interest in anything other than themselves.

I wouldn't say can't because it hasn't been accomplished yet... If they have no empathy, conscience etc it is a brain malfunction. Someday they might be able to "fix" this.

They were giving lobotomies up until the 80s like....

I dont think someone is evil because of a problem with their brain. Any evidence to say this kid is a sociopath? Has he done any "evil" acvts before? He seems like a kid that didn't know how to deal with an overwhelming situation, added to a lack of supports/ guidance with his emotions and access to a gun that he was shown how to use. Massive massive mistake by adults that really dropped the ball.

Catari Jaguar

grindelwald wrote: »

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad


Prehaps they should just chop off his hands/arms so he could never use a weapon again?

That would work!

I'm familiar with that. I studied sociopathic behaviour in college as part of a children's psych course in Childhood Agression. Thanks for the wiki link though......

3DataModem

Meh. Maybe harsh, maybe not. Plead innocent & take your chances.

Cheap Thrills!

cherub rock wrote: »

I wouldn't say can't because it hasn't been accomplished yet... If they have no empathy, conscience etc it is a brain malfunction. Someday they might be able to "fix" this.

Hopefully!

cherub rock wrote: »

I dont think someone is evil because of a problem with their brain. Any evidence to say this kid is a sociopath?

No evidence at all, that's why I was careful to say;

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Exactly, we don't know for sure if that was the case here but if it is and he is a sociopath, he can't be rehabilitated.

I'm not saying he is. We don't have the full story but this common perception that children can't be evil, their brains actually hard-wired that way is not backed up by science.

Sociopathy can manifest after brain-injury and is definitely not helped by a bad/abusive upbringing. But it is possible for individuals to be 'born bad'

As I said, it may not be the case here. They can be very charming, manipulative and plausable and often apparently engage incredibly successfully with top psychiatrists, afterwards it is realised they utterly manipulated them.

cherub rock wrote: »

Has he done any "evil" acvts before? He seems like a kid that didn't know how to deal with an overwhelming situation, added to a lack of supports/ guidance with his emotions and access to a gun that he was shown how to use. Massive massive mistake by adults that really dropped the ball.

I'm not sure if the situation was overwhelming. Finding yourself a step-child is a common enough experience these days. It's the access to the gun and the acceptance of the concept of gun culture that I also have a serious problem with. He was failed by adults, but he still had free will. He has responsibility.

sunflower27

Found this online... says he used to go shooting with his dad and a bit more background stuff

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497986,00.html

wonderfulname

grindelwald wrote: »

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad


Prehaps they should just chop off his hands/arms so he could never use a weapon again?

That would work!

Did you even think to read your own link?

other studies have not found statistically significant links between the triad of violence and violent offenders

Also could you enlighten us as to which of these qualities can be observed in the child we are talking about?

And what any of this has to do with someone being inherently evil? Or the existence of evil full stop?

Give me a break...

Dudess

Zillah wrote: »

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

He is? It takes a psychiatric evaluation to come such conclusions, not merely what you "reckon".

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.

Pahahahahaha! Oh wait, you're not joking...
It's easier to assume a crazed act can only be carried out by a psychopath/sociopath - unfortunately there are people who are neither, and yet resort to shocking crimes. But in the heat of the moment, because of circumstances etc, and are equally as capable of feeling extreme remorse. A life sentence would be based on an assumption of the former rather than the latter.

jill_valentine wrote: »

So he's too young to be expected to appreciate the full implications of operating a motor car, enter into a business contract, getting a loan or get married, but he obviously can appreciate the full profundity of ending a human life?

Absolutely. Why shouldn't they be mutually exclusive? Ok, he's too young for some stuff, but not too young for other stuff - nothing illogical about that. I don't get why people are saying 11-year-olds don't understand the implications of death/what a fire-arm can do - I think it's disingenuous and it discredits 11-year-olds and likens them to uncomprehending toddlers. Think back to when you were 11 - did you honestly not have a full grasp of death/what a gun can do? Otherwise though, a life sentence for an 11-year-old is inhumane (cue: "Look at what he did" - so the justice system should reduce itself to that level?) and he certainly should not be tried as an adult - that's China stuff... scarily so.

I also disagree with the "Kids grow up so fast these days" stuff - bet every generation since the dawn of time has been saying that. Irrespective of cultural/societal changes, kids are kids. There was a time too when you were an adult at 13 (and not that long ago - "teenager" is an extremely new word) so if anything, childhood is prolonged...

grindelwald wrote: »

I hope his sentence then serves as a deterrent to any other 11 year olds that feel the can kill someone just because they don't like them.

Pahahahahaha! Oh wait, you're not joking...

Dudess

wonderfulname wrote: »

Did you even think to read your own link?
Also could you enlighten us as to which of these qualities can be observed in the child we are talking about?

Heh, a study on the link between bed-wetting and homicidal tendencies - mother of ****ing Jesus. Yeah, there have been people who have seen merit in such case studies all right - e.g. the nazis.

wonderfulname

Dudess wrote: »

I don't get why people are saying 11-year-olds don't understand the implications of death/what a fire-arm can do - I think it's disingenuous and it discredits 11-year-olds and likens them to uncomprehending toddlers. Think back to when you were 11 - did you honestly not have a full grasp of death/what a gun can do?

When you hit about 12 or 13 the way you think about time, or any quantity, starts to change. You go from seeing yourself as a starting point with the past stretching out behind you and the future ahead, in a manner which makes it difficult to comprehend more than a few years into the future, to viewing time as linier, like a number line on a page, where it is far easier to comprehend greater durations of time.
So yes, I don't think the child could grasp the finality of what he was doing, nor do I believe he understood wholly the implications of his actions, when I was 11 I would have understood that she dies and I go to jail, even had I known the punishment was life in prison to be honest I don't think I had considered myself as getting any older than 30 anyway, so I wouldn't have understood the finality of my punishment either, did I know what prison was? Porridge, that's what.
I would have known my dad would be sad, but only as sad as I could have known, I wouldn't have understood quite how bad that would make him feel, or any of the rest of the family. I wouldn't even have considered that she had friends or that her kids were dependants.

At 11 a child does not have the same capability for abstract thought as an adult, so they certainly shouldn't be tried as one.

Dudess

Not for one second agreeing he should be tried as an adult or that he should get life in prison (or that 11-year-olds "nowadays" are pretty much grown up - such tosh), those are absolutely crazy solutions to resort to IMO - just saying I disagree with the notion that an 11-year-old doesn't fully comprehend the finality of death. I also think it abdicates responsibility from him to a degree, which I don't think is helpful either. I hope it was a one-off and he'll mend his ways and feel remorse (very much could be the case, despite insistence that he's just a psycho who'll wind up a serial killer... ffs).
Sure, my grandad died when I was three - had no idea what that implied. But when I was 11, a close family friend died of cancer and I knew she wasn't coming back - it was a new experience for me, but not something I didn't understand. Prior to this, stuff in the news (in particular, the Enniskillen atrocity - which took place when I was nine; also the Ethiopia famine, when I was six) went some way to educating me on death. Even stuff in childhood like a pet dying is an introduction to it. And popular culture alone explained what a gun can do - and if you've grown up in an environment where gun use is commonplace...

sunflower27

fair enough dudass that you don't think kids these days are more grown up and mature than say 20, 30 years ago but I believe they are. I remember as a kid what was on TV and I look at the stuff that is out there now and am truly shocked. Then of course there is the internet/video games full of violence. i have friends with kids 9,10 years of age and I am really shocked at some of the things they 'know' about. By all mans dismiss it as 'tosh' - that's your perogative - but I am speaking from my personal experience.

In the link I posted, it says that the kid told someone he was going to kill her before he did.

It also states that he went shooting with his dad so I am sure he knew what would happen when he put a gun to the poor defenceless woman's head and pulled the trigger.

Dudess

I'm referring more to it being used as justification for a child being tried as an adult. Kids are more knowing about certain stuff now for sure - but they don't go seeking it out either, it's easily available. They're still kids - it doesn't make them more adult.

HavingCrack

sunflower27 wrote: »

fair enough dudass that you don't think kids these days are more grown up and mature than say 20, 30 years ago but I believe they are. I remember as a kid what was on TV and I look at the stuff that is out there now and am truly shocked. Then of course there is the internet/video games full of violence. i have friends with kids 9,10 years of age and I am really shocked at some of the things they 'know' about. By all mans dismiss it as 'tosh' - that's your perogative - but I am speaking from my personal experience.

I think people are focusing far too much on a very specific geographical period and a very specific time frame when they refer to 'kids growing up more quickly'. Children grew up very quickly during medieval times, fighting in armies at the ages of 13 and 14, the Industrial Revolution where children as young as 8 and 9 worked in coal mines, Victorian era where children were transported to Australia for robbing apples, 15 year olds regularly joined up during WW1, children of all ages saw horrific things during WW2, people in death camps, the Blitz etc.

In 3rd World countries today, the use of child soldiers is commonplace in many African war zones, child labour is routinely used in India etc.

Speaking personally, my grandmothe was forced to leave school at 12 and help raise a family of 7 in 1930's Ireland.

Children are being exposed to no worse than they every have been.

sunflower27

Is that the legit justification for trying him as an adult? Because 11 year olds are more grown up these days?

I wasn't aware that was the reason, my point was that there is no way that child didnt know the ramifications of pulling a trigger on a sleeping pregnant woman. And he put it to her head.

He wasnt a four-year-old with little experience of guns who was playing with it and it went off. It was premeditated.

I never went hunting as a child but I was aware that a gun to the head would kill someone as a child.And i was not exposed to violence on TV etc. Those sorts of things werent readily shown before the watershed when I was 11.

Dudess

sunflower27 wrote: »

Is that the legit justification for trying him as an adult? Because 11 year olds are more grown up these days?

Well some people on this thread are saying so, idiotic and all as that seems. That's what I was referring to as "tosh". Plus, I also agree with you that kids are more knowing these days when it comes to SOME stuff (that their counterparts would not have been aware of 100 years ago) but not other stuff. And then there was the reverse 100 years ago, as pointed out by HavingCrack.

I wasn't aware that was the reason, my point was that there is no way that child didnt know the ramifications of pulling a trigger on a sleeping pregnant woman. And he put it to her head.

He wasnt a four-year-old with little experience of guns who was playing with it and it went off. It was premeditated.

I never went hunting as a child but I was aware that a gun to the head would kill someone as a child.

And I agree with you there.

sunflower27

Regardless what people on here think though, that isnt in any way going to affect a ruling and sure, even if the judge thought at 11 the kid was aware of what would happen when he pulled the trigger, it is hardly going to be the sole reason that the kid is convicted.

Yes kids fought in wars hundreds of years ago etc. I certainly didn't, I had limited access to violence, murder and stuff like that. But I knew right from wrong. That is the point i and others were making (correct me anyone if I am wrong) - that in these current times there is no way that kid didn't know the finality of his cowardly actions.

Kerikosan

He knowingly killed 2 people.

He deserves it.