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

yermandan

Lollipops23 wrote: »

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.

THIS 1,000,000%

Lollipops23

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

And I'm just highlighting that it's not the type of crime that determines if someone should be tried as a minor or adult, but the defendant him/herself.

No matter how horrific (and I do believe the crime was heinous) nothing changes the fact that he's a kid.

StephenHendry

very sad story, i dont' think he should be tried as an adult despite the awful crime committed here. it all depends on the sort of treatment he receives (hopefully) as a result of his sentence. when you look at jamies bolgers killers, one or both of them afaik have had other convictions since they were released. it would lead you to believe their sentence didnt help them become better people. they were tried as children back then.

up for anything

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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.

No, not a typo.

Relative as in relative to what people experience. One person's compassion would be another person's cruelty. I know when I was younger and it was the done thing to submerge a litter or newly born kittens or pups in a bucket of water I found it appalling and yet the people who actually did it would assert that they were being kind.

Would you really not see a 12 year old being able to think or feel that? I don't think you give 12 year olds much credit then.

the_monkey

they should all be sterilised at birth ...

wonderfullife

Dravokivich wrote: »

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.

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.

By your logic if a 6 year old murders someone, he should be tried as an adult. As murder is not a minor offence and should be handled seriously. Oh yeah the 6 year old would have a cushy 12 years in Juvie before a lifetime of adult incarcertation but murder is serious!?

It can't ever be justified that certain crimes are tried as adult and others as Juvenile for people of the same age. He's either a child in the eyes of the law or he isn't.

OldNotWIse

up for anything wrote: »

No, not a typo.

Relative as in relative to what people experience. One person's compassion would be another person's cruelty. I know when I was younger and it was the done thing to submerge a litter or newly born kittens or pups in a bucket of water I found it appalling and yet the people who actually did it would assert that they were being kind.

Would you really not see a 12 year old being able to think or feel that? I don't think you give 12 year olds much credit then.

Ok fair enough. I don't know many 12 year olds to be honest :rolleyes:

Re drowning of kittens, I don't really see how that can be anyone's compassion tbh.

Madam_X

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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.

Yeh I agree. I think it's wishful thinking that he might have been trying to save his little brother. I still think the lad is a victim though, who wouldn't have done it if his life wasn't so f'ucked up. Much of the blame IMO lies with those who neglected and abused him and allowed him to witness stuff a child shouldn't see... and who did the same to his mother. Jesus she was his age when she gave birth to him...

Abi

RIP to the little boy. The utterly vile rot that is in that family meant that neither the mother or her sons ever stood a chance. How many times did social protection fail this family? The mother was left in the wrong hands, and in turn so were her two sons. It is utterly sickening, the lot of it. She was made a mother at 12, and her mental health effected her ability to parent these children. She needed serious help herself. By NO means am I justifying her actions, I just don't believe she was all there to begin with. What mother checks the Internet for help for child that has been knocked out? The twelve year old had already broken the toddlers leg, if social protection found out about this it would send up flares everywhere. I think she was scared. Again, it's no excuse, but I think that could have been her mind set.

While it doesn't seem right that the child is tried as an adult, I don't think releasing him 18 is right either. He needs help, but yet again the system is going to fail him. He's too fücked up to be released into society either. Reluctantly, I agree with trying him as an adult.

wonderfullife

Abi wrote: »

RIP to the little boy. The utterly vile rot that is in that family meant that neither the mother or her sons ever stood a chance. How many times did social protection fail this family? The mother was left in the wrong hands, and in turn so were her two sons. It is utterly sickening, the lot of it. She was made a mother at 12, and her mental health effected her ability to parent these children. She needed serious help herself. By NO means am I justifying her actions, I just don't believe she was all there to begin with. What mother checks the Internet for help for child that has been knocked out? The twelve year old had already broken the toddlers leg, if social protection found out about this it would send up flares everywhere. I think she was scared. Again, it's no excuse, but I think that could have been her mind set.

While it doesn't seem right that the child is tried as an adult, I don't think releasing him 18 is right either. He needs help, but yet again the system is going to fail him. He's too fücked up to be released into society either. Reluctantly, I agree with trying him as an adult.

In that case you would have to be for every single 13 year old being tried for every single crime as an adult, regardless of how "fcuked up" they are. Otherwise there is no point having a law if it can be circumvented for certain people and not for others. Everybody is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, whether that's a nice 13 year old from a good family or a messed-up 13 year old from a dysfunctional family. If you start picking and choosing who should be tried as an adult on a case-by-case basis, it makes a mockery of having a law in the first place.

Abi

wonderfullife wrote: »

In that case you would have to be for every single 13 year old being tried for every single crime as an adult, regardless of how "fcuked up" they are. Otherwise there is no point having a law if it can be circumvented for certain people and not for others. Everybody is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, whether that's a nice 13 year old from a good family or a messed-up 13 year old from a dysfunctional family.

No, I am not.

If you start picking and choosing who should be tried as an adult on a case-by-case basis, it makes a mockery of having a law in the first place.

Well clearly the current law is not working if bending the rules to suit the child / crime is what it's come to. And in this case, I agree with it.

Dravokivich

wonderfullife wrote: »

By your logic if a 6 year old murders someone, he should be tried as an adult. As murder is not a minor offence and should be handled seriously. Oh yeah the 6 year old would have a cushy 12 years in Juvie before a lifetime of adult incarcertation but murder is serious!?

It can't ever be justified that certain crimes are tried as adult and others as Juvenile for people of the same age. He's either a child in the eyes of the law or he isn't.

And I have also said:

Dravokivich wrote: »

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.

All this does by trying the kid as an adult is give a wider scope for available sentencing if and when it comes to it. It changes nothing with how activities within the court are handled.

limklad

Martyn1989 wrote: »

Why are they naming him and publishing his pics?

Because they have no shame or empathy for the life he was force into, a life that child who taught it was normal behaviour with all sorts of abuse that happen to him for most of his life.

For the US News media, the juicer the news the better, it is entertainment for the masses, so they can profit from it with selling ads at higher price tags. It all about greedy money.