Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1234568

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    It shouldn't be about locking people up. It should be about addressing the conditions within the environment that made them like that, and about rehabilitating those who have been conditioned in such a way that makes them feel such actions are necessary.

    Locking people up is a cop out. So far as we are unable to ensure that we can effectively rehabilitate people, they should be kept away from people, so that they cannot harm others, but in environments that can positively influence these people. Societies' attitudes need to change towards recognising and addressing the causes of these problems, and treating those that require treatment rather than punishing them.

    Some people are just c^nts and need a good punishment not a pat on the back and treated with a 'oooo it is society's fault not yours' attitude.


  • Options
    #213
    Fluorescence
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 8,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fluorescence


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    It shouldn't be about locking people up. It should be about addressing the conditions within the environment that made them like that, and about rehabilitating those who have been conditioned in such a way that makes them feel such actions are necessary.

    Locking people up is a cop out. So far as we are unable to ensure that we can effectively rehabilitate people, they should be kept away from people, so that they cannot harm others, but in environments that can positively influence these people. Societies' attitudes need to change towards recognising and addressing the causes of these problems, and treating those that require treatment rather than punishing them.

    Yes, but some people really are just bad to the bone. Just like scummy parents can occasionally spawn a decent child, decent parents can occasionally spawn a right little bastard. It happens.

    That said, I'm surprised the U.S. hasn't taken a long hard look at its system and how it isn't working. Gun laws over there really need to be changed, as everyone and their granny does NOT need access to firearms! Sure, it won't stop criminals getting them, but it will cut waaaay down on gun related death. I'm sure [though tbh it sounds like this kid would probably have used a knife or other weapon if there wasn't a gun to hand].

    I don't know that a kid who could do such a thing could ever possibly be fully rehabilitated and reintroduced to society as a well-adjusted person, but I do think he deserves the chance. After a long long time in prison.


  • Options
    #214
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Some people are just c^nts and need a good punishment not a pat on the back and treated with a 'oooo it is society's fault not yours' attitude.


    Don't agree at all. I believe that nothing happens without a cause. Nothing "just" happens.


  • Options
    #215
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    Don't agree at all. I believe that nothing happens without a cause. Nothing "just" happens.

    So you believe in modern society that people are unable to develop their own moral compass without being catered for at every junction in their life?


  • Options
    #216
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    So you believe in modern society that people are unable to develop their own moral compass without being catered for at every junction in their life?


    I believe that most modern societies (some more than others) are built in such a way that allows people live and prosper. At the same time, most societies are not perfect. Some people have more power than others. Some people have access to more resources than others. Some people are desperate. Some people are exposed to experiences in their lives that can change the way they understand the world.

    It's not about being catered for. It's about designing our society to shape the kind of people we want it to produce.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    It shouldn't be about locking people up. It should be about addressing the conditions within the environment that made them like that, and about rehabilitating those who have been conditioned in such a way that makes them feel such actions are necessary.

    Locking people up is a cop out. So far as we are unable to ensure that we can effectively rehabilitate people, they should be kept away from people, so that they cannot harm others, but in environments that can positively influence these people. Societies' attitudes need to change towards recognising and addressing the causes of these problems, and treating those that require treatment rather than punishing them.

    lets never lock anyone up ever again then eh?

    lets have them do whatever they want with no consequences, since its not their fault

    people like you have the world in the state it is


  • Options
    #218
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Helix wrote: »
    lets never lock anyone up ever again then eh?

    lets have them do whatever they want with no consequences, since its not their fault

    people like you have the world in the state it is


    Yeah sure...

    First, I'll repeat one thing, just to be clear. I believe that if someone cannot be rehabilitated, they should be separated from people so that they cannot harm them, but in an environment that is geared towards positively influencing them rather than make them into worse people.

    Now. About people like me having the world in the state it is. Help me understand this.

    What am I like? Who else is like me? What state is the world in? And how have people like me led to the world being in this state?

    Let me offer my view on this. I don't think it makes any sense.
    Society is not the way I think it should be, and that would therefore suggest that I'm not the one who has the world in the state it is. Furthermore, the current approach to dealing with societies' problems is the one you think works, which would suggest that people like you have made society the way it is. Pretty simple really.


  • Options
    #219
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    What am I like? Who else is like me? What state is the world in? And how people like me lead to the world being in this state?

    Let me offer my view on this. I mean it doesn't make any sense.
    Society is not the way I think it should be, and that would therefore suggest that I'm not the one who has the world in the state it is. Furthermore, the current approach to dealing with societies' problems is the one you think works, which would suggest that people like you have made society the way it is. Pretty simple really.

    youre a bleeding heart overly pc blame everyone else but the person at fault, everyones a good person at heart we just have to understand them, give everyone a million chances liberal


  • Options
    #220
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Helix wrote: »
    youre a bleeding heart overly pc blame everyone else but the person at fault, everyones a good person at heart we just have to understand them, give everyone a million chances liberal

    No, I just think logically.

    "Liberal" and "conservative" and "PC" are just ideas, concepts that people have made up.

    Something causes people to act in a particular way. Nothing just happens.

    So address that which causes them to act that way.

    The idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with socially constructed ideas such as those you use to label me.


  • Options
    #221
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    Helix wrote: »
    lets never lock anyone up ever again then eh?

    lets have them do whatever they want with no consequences, since its not their fault

    people like you have the world in the state it is
    Helix wrote: »
    youre a bleeding heart overly pc blame everyone else but the person at fault, everyones a good person at heart we just have to understand them, give everyone a million chances liberal

    Remember kids, if you can't think up a counter-argument just resort to logical fallacies!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Morkarleth wrote: »
    Remember kids, if you can't think up a counter-argument just resort to logical fallacies!

    or make a post that is completely nonsensical

    like that


  • Options
    #223
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    No, I just think logically.

    "Liberal" and "conservative" and "PC" are just ideas, concepts that people have made up.

    Something causes people to act in a particular way. Nothing just happens.

    So address that which causes them to act that way.

    The idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with socially constructed ideas such as those you use to label me.

    We live in the real world not in some Utopian society where resources are unlimited and the vast multitudes have to be handed everything on a plate in order to progress in life willingly and with some moral value.


  • Options
    #224
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    Helix wrote: »
    or make a post that is completely nonsensical

    like that

    Haha, okay, tell me what you don't understand and I'll put it in terms I'm sure even you can grasp.
    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    We live in the real world not in some Utopian society where resources are unlimited and the vast multitudes have to be handed everything on a plate in order to progress in life willingly and with some moral value.

    Oh, yeah, because actually trying to get to the root of crime rather than pointlessly medicate it is "uptopian" and not a reachable ideal we should strive for.


  • Options
    #225
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    We live in the real world not in some Utopian society where resources are unlimited and the vast multitudes have to be handed everything on a plate in order to progress in life willingly and with some moral value.

    I was wondering how long it would be before someone would start talking about how this was a Utopian idea. Talk of real systemic change usually brings about such claims.

    Indeed, we live in a real world, but does that mean that things can't be improved? Why are people so resistant to change? Have we really come as far as finding the best solutions to all our problems? Or even as far as understanding and addressing the roots of all our problems to the furthest extent possible? I'd hope not, because things are pretty dire.

    Furthermore, healthy people are generally pretty willing to survive. And most people are pretty willing to work, or to contribute, and cooperate when this helps them meet their needs.

    And this is a little OT, but before we start talking about limited resources, why don't we first talk about more equitable distribution of resources.


  • Options
    #226
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Morkarleth wrote: »
    Oh, yeah, because actually trying to get to the root of crime rather than pointlessly medicate it is "uptopian" and not a reachable ideal we should strive for.

    Trying to get to the root of crime is Utopian, crime has existed since the humans first walked the earth. If something can be got easier than working for it people will take the easier option it is human nature. However with the progression of humanity, values and morals intervene in these choices and by and large people will not resort to the easier criminal option however some will. This is a result of a lack of morals and values. These morals are instilled in a person when they are young, if they are not there in some shape or form, even the smallest seed, then when they get older they will not suddenly develop them and all society can do is try to limit the damage caused.

    Freedom of the City by Brian Friel is a great play which explores the results of poverty over generations in society, its also about the whole Northern issue, it is very interesting and Id advise reading it.


  • Options
    #227
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    Orando Broom wrote: »
    What will that little prick be like at 21, to have the mind of a killer at 11. Jesus. Life in prison is perfect for him.

    Oh Jesus Christ, he was 11! Fuck me, you'd swear at 11 everyone here was a responsible, mature grown-up.

    I'm not saying he shouldn't get prison or anything but life without parole all because he won't plead guilty and people are endorsing it? This is the very reason why emotion is supposed to be separate from the law, even though depressingly the judge doesn't seem to realise that either. Knee jerk reactions are not justice and it is frightening how many people on here are willing to totally condemn a teenager for the rest of his life.


  • Options
    #228
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Trying to get to the root of crime is Utopian, crime has existed since the humans first walked the earth. If something can be got easier than working for it people will take the easier option it is human nature. However with the progression of humanity, values and morals intervene in these choices and by and large people will not resort to the easier criminal option however some will. This is a result of a lack of morals and values. These morals are instilled in a person when they are young, if they are not there in some shape or form, even the smallest seed, then when they get older they will not suddenly develop them and all society can do is try to limit the damage caused.

    This is not true. People have evolved as social beings because we have fared better through cooperation. We can therefore assume that it is human nature to cooperate with one another.

    What we need to understand and address is the factors within our societies that cause anti-social behaviour (in all its forms).

    Damage control will never change anything.


  • Options
    #229
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    This is not true. People have evolved as social beings because we have fared better through cooperation. We can therefore assume that it is human nature to cooperate with one another.

    What we need to understand and address is the factors within our societies that cause anti-social behaviour (in all its forms).

    Damage control will never change anything.

    The modern world has been built on the back of colonialism. There has been f*ck all co-operation. Capitalism has replaced colonialism. Society will never be fit to vanquish all societies problem by the very nature of it.


  • Options
    #230
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    The modern world has been built on the back of colonialism. There has been f*ck all co-operation. Capitalism has replaced colonialism. Society will never be fit to vanquish all societies problem by the very nature of it.


    The fact is people have never had as much of an understanding of the way things work as we do now. We know more now, and should therefore strive to improve our systems of governance accordingly.


  • Options
    #231
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    The reason I brought up contract law and the legal driving age was to highlight the fact that we generally accept that people below the age of roughly eighteen have extremely variable capacities for good judgement. I wouldn't trust an eleven year old to drive because I wouldn't trust their decision making ability. Kids of that age can be impulsive, short sighted and prone to temper. Now, again, we don't know all about this kids circumstances and I don't know about you, but when I was eleven or so I knocked out my cousin's two front teeth for grabbing my hair scrunchie in the playground. I can't really imagine doing that now, and I don't think that's just because scrunchies have gone out of style.

    When an adult with severe developmental problems is put on trial, it's generally understood that he or she should be charged in terms of diminished responsibility, since he or she has "the mind of a child." Just seems strange to me that an actual child gets no such consideration; stranger still that the judge is free to pursue harsher sentences and conditions out of something suspiciously like spite.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Im too tired to read this thread properly and maybe i dont want to: the first few posts show the AH rabble is out in force convicting the boy of the crimes he has been charged with even though it is clear in the article of the OP that he hasn't (hadn't?) been tried yet. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? You people don't pay attention to what's in front of you, do you? Being Charged with a crime and being found Guilty of a crime are not the same thing. When he's found guilty then by all means have a "He deserved it the sick little bastard where were the parents oh right they were shot" fest.


  • Options
    #233
    Noreen1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭Noreen1


    I find myself torn both ways by this case, because I keep comparing it to the James Bulger case.

    I've posted before that I think that Jon Venables should have been locked up for life - and I haven't changed that view.

    On the other hand, Jon Venables had displayed sociopathic tendencies before the murder of poor little James Bulger. Apparently, this child had not.

    There is no doubt in my mind that 11 year old children understand the finality of death, and are well capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, the child, if he is guilty, deserves to be punished.

    To come to a balanced judgement, however, we also need to consider whether a child has the same level of understanding, and self-control, as an adult.
    Clearly, they don't - hence the term "Childish tantrum".

    So, I think it unjust to try a child as an adult - but I also think it unreasonable to let sociopaths roam freely in society after a token sentence. If the child is found guilty, and shows sociopathic tendencies - then, for the good of society, I see no better option, at this time, than life in prison.
    If, on the other hand, he is not a sociopath, then, at 11 years old (when the crime was committed) - IMO, he deserves a chance a rehabilitation.
    What form that rehabilitiation should take, and what form his punishment should take, depends on his mental state when the crime was committed - assuming he is guilty, that is!


  • Options
    #234
    big toenails
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 63 ✭✭big toenails


    An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.


  • Options
    #235
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    big toenails wrote: »
    An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.

    ???? And if jailing him saves other lives in the future, I'm all for it. Columbine, anyone?


  • Options
    #236
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    ???? And if jailing him saves other lives in the future, I'm all for it. Columbine, anyone?

    What the hell has Columbine got to do with this case? Two entirely different cases. Are you just throwing in underage killer cases for the sake of it? Mary Bell. Jon Venables. There. Any more?


  • Options
    #237
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    There was someone on earlier wondering about other countries treatment of underage killers (apologies, I can't find the post). I think what you may be thinking of is Norway; it's really interesting reading and a stark contrast to how the British and US systems seem to treat these children.


  • Options
    #238
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    big toenails wrote: »
    An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.

    The vast majority of 11 year olds do understand that you can't just go killing people to get your own way though. He knew what he was doing.


  • Options
    #239
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    big toenails wrote: »
    An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.

    I disagree here actually. Presuming he is in fact guilty (he has not been convicted), he displayed very 'adult' tendencies. He had been shooting before, knew animals died when you shot them, had previously told people he was going to kill her and waited until the woman was asleep before shooting her. While I am 100% sure he should be tried as a juvenile, not an adult,(I gave reasons why around page 8), his understanding of the adult world certainly was not lacking going on what we know.
    Millicent wrote: »
    There was someone on early wondering about other countries treatment of underage killers (apologies, I can't find the post). I think what you may be thinking of is Norway; it's really interesting reading and a stark contrast to how the British and US systems seem to treat these children.

    That was a very extreme case, even by child murderer examples, 6 year olds capable of killing :eek:. On the whole, that may have been the right choice in that particular case but the one we are discussing is quite different.

    As an aside, I have serious issues with the Norwegian penal system which places an inordinate amount on rehabilitation of prisioners with little punishment. While I believe rehabilitation is vital it needs to go hand in hand with punishment. The US state of Utah seems to have this down to a fine art with rectivism rates of only 20% compared to 80% in Texas.

    Anyway, in Norway its slightly ridiculous, the maximum prison term you can serve for any crime is 21 years. So in theory a serial child murderer and rapist can only serve 21 years! Something seriously wrong in my opinion.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison#- Interesting report on the Norwegian prison system.


  • Options
    #240
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    HavingCrack wrote: »

    That was a very extreme case, even by child murderer examples, 6 year olds capable of killing :eek:. On the whole, that may have been the right choice in that particular case but the one we are discussing is quite different.

    As an aside, I have serious issues with the Norwegian penal system which places an inordinate amount on rehabilitation of prisioners with little punishment. While I believe rehabilitation is vital it needs to go hand in hand with punishment. The US state of Utah seems to have this down to a fine art with rectivism rates of only 20% compared to 80% in Texas.

    Anyway, in Norway its slightly ridiculous, the maximum prison term you can serve for any crime is 21 years. So in theory a serial child murderer and rapist can only serve 21 years! Something seriously wrong in my opinion.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison#- Interesting report on the Norwegian prison system.


    Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the max sentences in law there. Still, I think they're on the right track as regards punishing underagers. This "kill him/lock him up forever" is a bit frightening, in all honesty, particularly when the child hasn't even been convicted. I know it's AH but it's far and above the usual levels of ire.


    OT for a second: The Norwegian system, that would be 21 years for each individual charge? So if you raped and then murdered someone, you'd get a total of 42 years, or just 21 altogether?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Millicent wrote: »
    Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the max sentences in law there. Still, I think they're on the right track as regards punishing underagers. This "kill him/lock him up forever" is a bit frightening, in all honesty, particularly when the child hasn't even been convicted. I know it's AH but it's far and above the usual levels of ire.

    Yeah, they're on the right track definately. It does seem very odd that they were back at the same kindergarten next week though, something just doesn't sit right with me there.
    Millicent wrote: »
    OT for a second: The Norwegian system, that would be 21 years for each individual charge? So if you raped and then murdered someone, you'd get a total of 42 years, or just 21 altogether?


    As far as I can make out, its 21 years maximum for all charges eg you can't get 42 years, you can only get 21 years regardless of the number of crimes you commit. Something seriously wrong with that I feel.


Advertisement