(US) Boy, 13, to be tried as an adult after killing his 2-year-old brother

darced

This post has been deleted.

FouxDaFaFa

They're also charging the mother with aggravated manslaughter.

Madam_X

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd suggest whichever social-worker that made the final call on deeming that to be a suitable environment to leave a 12 year old girl who'd suffered from sexual abuse attempt to raise a child should be joining him in the dock.

Nah I'd choose the 25-year-old who was having sex with a 12-year-old - ten years' probation, what a joke.
And the neglectful grandmother.
Social work is a difficult one. I'd need to know more about the ins and outs of their job before scapegoating. They are answerable to bureaucrats behind a desk, with whom I'd have more of a problem.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not only in America so.

This is one of those cases where it's highly unlikely it would have happened if the boy had a normal upbringing, and while he is responsible and should face consequences, the influence his horrendous life had on his crime should not be discounted. Even the thickest "anti bleeding heart" whatever tard will be able to see this.

Muir

I think a psychiatric hospital would be a better place for him than prison. Locking him up for however many years is pointless. I really, really hope they try to give him the help that he needs. Sad to see that the children were left in that environment even though it wasn't a suitable place for them.

haulagebasher

They wont really tbh. The justice system in the USA is punitive rather than rehabilitative.

WhatNowForUs?

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Just because he's a 13 year old that was in an abusive home doesn't mean he should be given special treatment for murder.

If it was an accident, sure. But come on, physically smashing someone's head against an object isn't really an accident.

Yes, it's a pity that his life has been so hard. But at the very least, he's just going to be sent in for life and not killed.

He is being subjected for special treatment. He is being tried as an adult.

Sorry already posted more or less word for word by another poster.

languagenerd

The kid never stood a chance - those bullet-points at the start of the article read like several different articles, not like they're all part of the same story. Incredibly sad story.

I don't know if anything can ever be done to help this kid to be a normal member of society. He needs the most intensive psychological help that exists...

3ndahalfof6

languagenerd wrote: »

The kid never stood a chance - those bullet-points at the start of the article read like several different articles, not like they're all part of the same story. Incredibly sad story.

I don't know if anything can ever be done to help this kid to be a normal member of society. He needs the most intensive psychological help that exists...

What is normal, so many humans have tipped over the edge, but up to there imminent tip over they were normal,(very normal).

AudreyHepburn

As tragic and horrific as that young lad's life has been it does not justify killing one child and abusing another.

He's young yes...but surely not so young that he doesn't know smashing some-one's head against a shelf is wrong?

It worries me that people would try excuse what he did.

Do we then excuses what James Bolger's killers did? Do we excuses child molesters because they may have been abused as children? Do we excuse parents killing their children because they were depressed?

Madam_X

I don't see anyone excusing what he did. Acknowledging the highly likely reasons for his crime is not the same as excusing it. What he did was horrific and he deserves to face justice for it, but he is far from an adult, even if he is old enough to know right from wrong. He was brought up in an environment where abuse and being destroyed on drugs and him being neglected was the norm though, so his concept of right and wrong is bound to be somewhat distorted.

Sleepy

Oh I certainly wouldn't excuse him. I think trying him as an adult is excessive though and would hold the system that allowed him to slip through so many cracks as equally culpable.

Madam_X wrote:

Nah I'd choose the 25-year-old who was having sex with a 12-year-old - ten years' probation, what a joke.
And the neglectful grandmother.
Social work is a difficult one. I'd need to know more about the ins and outs of their job before scapegoating. They are answerable to bureaucrats behind a desk, with whom I'd have more of a problem.

Hence why I said "final call". Such poor social care is equally damnable whether it was a junior social worker that didn't refer the case, a senior case officer refusing the request of that junior social worker to place both children in state care, a bureaucrat who defined conditions which excluded such proper care or the government officials (elected or otherwise) who mismanaged a budget so badly that the funding wasn't there to care for them.

Since the case appears to be *so* extreme, I'm guessing there were elements of all of the above tbh.

allibastor

allibastor wrote: »

all i can say is holy ****ing ****. how the hell did that family go under the radar of the social services there. should they not have some form of apportionment for blame in letting this kind of stuff happen.

Social services are just as bad here. Someone I know worked as a home-school liaison for a disadvantaged school, so she spent a lot of time visiting people's houses or, as the case was quite a lot, halting sites. There's a lot of people that shouldn't have kids.

wonderfullife

metaoblivia wrote: »

And me personally - I don't know. I think 13 is very young to be tried as an adult, and I would like to know more details about what happened between him and his brother. I think a lot of his sexual misconduct can be explained as him being a victim of sexual abuse himself and acting out as a result of that. My major concern is, I don't see him getting the help he needs in either situation - being tried as a minor or as an adult. I feel like no matter what he's being set up for a life in and out of prison, and there are no good solutions at this point.

This is where the whole nonsense becomes more apparent. He's either a minor or he isn't. 13 is a child and should be tried as such. The specifics of what happened shouldn't come into it or else we end up with a 1-rule for some, 1-rule for others situation.

It should always be simple - pick an age and underneath it people are tried as children/juveniles/minors. Over it and tried as adults. It always amazes me, primarily in the USA, the amount of states which try juveniles of 12/13/14 as adults yet won't let people drink/smoke/vote until 18/21.

Dangerous Man

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As tragic and horrific as that young lad's life has been it does not justify killing one child and abusing another.

He's young yes...but surely not so young that he doesn't know smashing some-one's head against a shelf is wrong?

It worries me that people would try excuse what he did.

Do we then excuses what James Bolger's killers did? Do we excuses child molesters because they may have been abused as children? Do we excuse parents killing their children because they were depressed?

No one is saying his actions should be excused. Not one single person in this thread said that. Read back over every post - every word - and you will see that not one person said that.

Not one.

Nobody said that.

So you're setting up a straw-man. You're creating an argument to suit your own point of view.

Be honest.

up for anything

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

He is being given a chance; he's getting the chance to live his life. He murdered someone. It's not manslaughter. It's not an accident. He has a lot more of a chance compared to the brother of his.

You call that being given a chance? You did read what the poster from Florida repeated from the attorney in her office that she asked?

Whether he gets tried as an adult or a juvenile, whether he gets special juvenile treatment or locked up on his own in an adult prison till they figure he's old enough and strong enough to fend for himself with the rest of the inmates, that he is destined for a life pretty much in prison and all that brings with it.

He hasn't given any reason yet for what he did and maybe his lack of emotion comes from lessons well learned eg emotion = weakness. It could be that he thought he was doing his brother a favour. He seemed to have settled down according to the little information given in the article. That they were living in relatively decent conditions and he was getting straight 'A's (I hate that as a definition of how 'good' a child is.) What might have triggered his actions? It could have been many things such as a new boyfriend for the mother, a next door neighbour. Maybe he thought he was saving the toddler from something worse than death. After all in his short life I'd say without being overly dramatic that he's died a 1,000 deaths himself. That he did it and then when he realised it hadn't worked he couldn't bring himself to finish the job.

I doubt we'll ever find out the real reasons behind his actions; whether it was sheer cruelty, compassion, or temper. All I can see is that one child is dead, another would probably be better off dead and the mother is a disaster but what did she have in her life, much the same thing as her son.

I wouldn't ever want to see that boy free but isn't that a sad thing to have to say?

OldNotWIse

up for anything wrote: »

You call that being given a chance? You did read what the poster from Florida repeated from the attorney in her office that she asked?

Whether he gets tried as an adult or a juvenile, whether he gets special juvenile treatment or locked up on his own in an adult prison till they figure he's old enough and strong enough to fend for himself with the rest of the inmates, that he is destined for a life pretty much in prison and all that brings with it.

He hasn't given any reason yet for what he did and maybe his lack of emotion comes from lessons well learned eg emotion = weakness. It could be that he thought he was doing his brother a favour. He seemed to have settled down according to the little information given in the article. That they were living in relatively decent conditions and he was getting straight 'A's (I hate that as a definition of how 'good' a child is.) What might have triggered his actions? It could have been many things such as a new boyfriend for the mother, a next door neighbour. Maybe he thought he was saving the toddler from something worse than death. After all in his short life I'd say without being overly dramatic that he's died a 1,000 deaths himself. That he did it and then when he realised it hadn't worked he couldn't bring himself to finish the job.

I doubt we'll ever find out the real reasons behind his actions; whether it was sheer cruelty, compassion, or temper. All I can see is that one child is dead, another would probably be better off dead and the mother is a disaster but what did she have in her life, much the same thing as her son.

I wouldn't ever want to see that boy free but isn't that a sad thing to have to say?

geeky

haulagebasher wrote: »

Another thing, now I'm not a racist but ....

:rolleyes:

Dravokivich

I agree with trying him as an adult. Murder isn't a minor offence and I believe it should be handled seriously. His background is tragic, but no less than that of his brother.

And the mother... bloody hell what was she at? How can someone be so negligent.

Its shocking to see this but then you think about Jamie Bulgers killers they were younger yet people still want to see them in prison.

up for anything

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're confused about? Perhaps my meandering thoughts.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its shocking to see this but then you think about Jamie Bulgers killers they were younger yet people still want to see them in prison.

Yes, but knowing as much as what we do about their actions on that day with Jamie Bulger there is a huge difference between what they did and what this boy has done (as much as we know of it), plus they came from backgrounds that were a zillion times better.

I don't think there are many who would want this boy to go free but there must be better options for him than an adult prison where he would either be locked away or left to survive amongst the adult prison population.

Lollipops23

The kid absolutely needs to be removed from society, certainly for the long-term foreseeable. This isn't as a punishment (although it will probably still serve as one) but because he has proved he is a danger. He needs HUGE amounts of therapy and rehab to get him to even THINK like a normal person, at which point he may be able to fully understand what he has done.

The fact is, he is a child. There's a reason we don't let kids live alone, vote, drive or use alcohol. Because they CAN'T be responsible or use full judgement. He is a product of his upbringing, as was his mother and probably her mother before her. That's not to say he should be let off, just that he cannot be held 100% accountable the way an adult would be.

Dravokivich

up for anything wrote: »

I don't think there are many who would want this boy to go free but there must be better options for him than an adult prison where he would either be locked away or left to survive amongst the adult prison population.

As mentioned earlier, being tried and sentenced as an adult doesn't mean he'll be contained with adults. He'll be in juve until 18 then transferred, or segregated in an adult prison until 18 if a juve facility is not sufficient. That is, if he is found guilty.

Lollipops23

Dravokivich wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, being tried and sentenced as an adult doesn't mean he'll be contained with adults. He'll be in juve until 18 then transferred, or segregated in an adult prison until 18 if a juve facility is not sufficient. That is, if he is found guilty.

It's still morally wrong and unjust to try him as an adult. He's a minor.

Dravokivich

Lollipops23 wrote: »

It's still morally wrong and unjust to try him as an adult. He's a minor.

He didn't commit a childish crime. This isn't something like vandalism or shoplifting. His actions involved GBH and resulted in death. The reason he is being tried as an adult is because of the sentencing that is then available.

That also doesn't mean his background isn't going to be taken into consideration when verdict is being provided by the jury or at the time of sentencing either.

Lollipops23

Dravokivich wrote: »

He didn't commit a childish crime. This isn't something like vandalism or shoplifting. His actions involved GBH and resulted in death. The reason he is being tried as an adult is because of the sentencing that is then available.

That also doesn't mean his background isn't going to be taken into consideration when verdict is being provided by the jury or at the time of sentencing either.

So if I spray graffiti on a wall or nick something from tesco, will I be tried as a minor due to the petty nature of the crimes? No, I'm an adult capable of understanding the full consequences of my actions.

Dravokivich

Lollipops23 wrote: »

So if I spray graffiti on a wall or nick something from tesco, will I be tried as a minor due to the petty nature of the crimes? No, I'm an adult capable of understanding the full consequences of my actions.

You are twisting my words around, without actually taking what I meant into consideration. I obviously intended that they weren't as serious murder.

OldNotWIse

up for anything wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're confused about? Perhaps my meandering thoughts.




Yes, but knowing as much as what we do about their actions on that day with Jamie Bulger there is a huge difference between what they did and what this boy has done (as much as we know of it), plus they came from backgrounds that were a zillion times better.

I don't think there are many who would want this boy to go free but there must be better options for him than an adult prison where he would either be locked away or left to survive amongst the adult prison population.

It was the suggestion that he may have killed his baby brother out of "compassion"

up for anything

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It was the suggestion that he may have killed his baby brother out of "compassion"

It was just a thought! Maybe it struck him that his brother would be better off out of it all together. Maybe something happened to his brother and again he thought he'd be better off dead. Maybe he wished that someone had done it to him when he was younger and so he was giving his brother the gift of death. Who knows what goes on in such a damaged psyche. Anyhow, it's all supposition, but like everything else in the world compassion must be relative.

poisonated

It's a horrible situation for all involved. He is certainly a product of his enviornment. I hate even using this word but I do think that he should be LOCKED up. Not in a maximum security prison or anything but in a place where he could feel comfortable and yet still not pose a risk to society at large.

OldNotWIse

up for anything wrote: »

It was just a thought! Maybe it struck him that his brother would be better off out of it all together. Maybe something happened to his brother and again he thought he'd be better off dead. Maybe he wished that someone had done it to him when he was younger and so he was giving his brother the gift of death. Who knows what goes on in such a damaged psyche. Anyhow, it's all supposition, but like everything else in the world compassion must be relative.

Relative to what?

Sorry didn't realise it was an idea, I thought maybe it was a typo or something. I'm no psych expert but I would question the cognitive ability of a 12 year old to think, "such and such would be better off dead" - then again as you said who knows what was going on in his head. If I had to nail my colours, I'd say children learn what they live. For him, violence and abuse was normal and accepted. His brother p1ssed him off and he let him have it.