Whether or not a child (someone under the age of 18) should be tried as an adult depends on the crime, and also upon the child.

There are multiple layers in a determination of criminal competency ... that the individual knows the difference between right and wrong is just one aspect, being able to understand that nature of the criminal proceedings and participants and assist in one's own defenense is another.

The greater determination, though, is whether the individual was suffering a defect of reason, such that at the time of the offense s/he didn't know that the action was a crime. The actual text of what's known as the M'Naughten Rule is: "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

This, at least, is the basis of psychiatric competency for trial. A similar assessment occurs when a child is the perptrator of the crime.

If the child in question is examined and found to be competent, then yes, I believe that the child can and should be tried as an adult, possibly facing the death penalty.

Not all crimes are of such grievous nature to require this level of potential punishment.

I do not think, though, that most children who are sentenced as adults should necessarily do time in adult prisons. There are high security juvenile facilities, and when the kid ages out of those, if there is time remaining on the sentence, they can go to the Big House. Sending kids to adult jails would not be economically feasible ... unless there are now enough of these cases to build a KiddieSuperMax facility. A child, even a major bad ass 16 year old, would likely have to be in protective custody, which ain't cheap.

Part of what clouds the waters in dicussions like these, also, is that people think of examples like the kids described at the start of the thread ... rather than the more likely hardcore teenage gang member who engages in mayhem related either to that, or other "career" crime, like the half-dozen liquor and convenience store robberies that we see reported on the news every day.

(please note: every state's statutes regarding competency to stand trial are different. My information relates primarily to Pennsylvania law)

Lancaster County Juvienile Court asked me to fill out a "Victims Report" about that kid hitting my car and taking off. Under what punishment do you feel this court should give the accused I wrote "I don't think juvenile court has the power to impose the death penalty".

agreed wolf. (did you read my reference to the trial i was on? i just posted it and saw that you'd posted) anyway, i feel that they should go to Juvee and then be transferred to the big house at the appropriate age, unless they have the death penalty. then, well, they're isolated anyway. screw'em. give them their appeals and be done with it.

c'mon bruce, hitting a car and murdering someone is totally different. (no i'm not getting defensive, just keeping my point.;)

Yeah, I know. I was trying to point out I hold no special treatment for juveniles.:) If a 6 yer old murders another human they probably don't realize the gravity of there actions. But they sure as hell know they're doing something wrong.

yessir. agreed. and yes i do have limitations. 6 is entirely too young to give the penalty to, but then again where/how do we make children account for their behavior? i am a new father by 2 and 1/2 years. NBN asked me earlier if T (my boys first initial) was wrongly accused of commiting murder and sentanced to death how would i feel about it. i sat and thought for a little bit and said what any parent would say, "it's wrong!" BUT you do have appeals in the USA and they should rightfully be used. it's your right as an American. i feel that if you strike out 3 times then so be it. if it was my son at age 10 and he murdered someone, then, well, i'd hate to see it happen, but you should reap what you sew and be accountable for your actions. heh. accountable for your actions. am i the only one who could trip on a neighbors curb and not blame them for it?

IMV, a child under a certain age is completely the responsibility of those to whom the child is entrusted. In the Columbine shooting that happened down the road from me, those kids had been making plans, building IEDs, stockpiling illegal guns and sawing barrels off. Where were the folks? Upstairs watching "Friends" reruns. Why were they up there? They wanted to make sure their kids had their 'privacy' (more likely, they didn't give a damn).

The kids, regardless of their motivation, killed people. They would've killed more if they hadn't committed suicide before their sick little plan was finished. If they had survived, there would be rioting in the streets if they were to go to "juvie" for a couple years. Despite their age, these kids were absolutely without remorse - people ask me sometimes why I believe in such a thing as demon possession. Exhibit A. What happened there was just sick.

So, the kids are guilty of murder x[however many]. The parents should fall under a new statute which could be paraphrased thusly: "You didn't just fail to bring up your kids right. You failed to see that they got the help they needed to mitigate the damage they would cause the rest of society. You may not walk away from this like any other grieving parent. You must, for the rest of your natural lives, speak at a violence-prevention seminar, detailing exactly what you did wrong to help produce such evil, violent kids. You can't blame the video games - you know where the off switch is. You can't blame the guns - if you're not routinely turning over your violence-prone teenager's room, you not only disservice them, but the rest of us. You can't blame the school - they warned you about anti-social behavior.

Let us worry about all that other stuff - it's out of your hands now. You stick to what you could have done to prevent it. On the 200th week of your seminar, you should have a pretty good idea of where you went wrong. At that point, we will decide whether you are capable of understanding your role. If so, have a happy life. The next phase of your sentencing is a monthly visit to the gravesites of your son, his friends, and all the people they killed. You will place a hand-written apology on the tombstone of each, explaining that you were a spineless coward who was more afraid of disciplining your child than of the horror your child could unleash. This will occur, unfortunately, only until it all cools down and we have the next flavor du jour murder. I hope that doesn't happen any time soon.

Sending a kid to an adult prison will get them out of the way, but don't pretend it will rehab them. Don't ever let them out. Ever. They might have had a chance to do right, but some things can't be undone. Too bad they had to learn it firsthand, but so did their victims.

Grr.

mrnoodle cool. i understand your point. not to knock you but do you have children yourself? if so then that validates your point even more so, if not then, well, call me when you do. i'm not trying to piss you off, really. you say that a child under a certain age is the responsibility of their parents. the columbine idiots were of the reasonable age to be eligable (IMHO) for the death penalty. shit dude, i'd hang them myself if they hadn't of gone out the "cheap way"

None of this is the kid's fault. Lax discipline as they grew up isn't justifiication for killing them.

When you're making a bookcase shelf, and you fuck it up, you scrap it and start over.;)

No, I keep it for a later project.

The whole way we treat adolescents today is completely screwed up. The only way an adolescent can be treated as anything but a particularly large child is to commit a henious crime, at which point he's considered an adult.

In total agreement on that point.

Quote:

(I'm using the term "child" to mean little people 10 and up but under 21. I believe that in some cases, younger children commit crimes, but in those cases, I believe, not that they may not know what they're doing is wrong, but that they're still young enough to be rehabilitated) If the government would chill out about what is considered abuse and what is considered discipline, and if first-time offenses were punished more severely, I don't think this problem would have gone so far. Leaving bruises/scars/breaking bones/skin is abuse. Slapping a hand, withholding a privilege, or taking the kid who deserves it out to the woodshed isn't.

Wow, you are hitting all points with me on that! I also think that a juvenile's record should NOT be sealed and wiped clean. If a child has a history of being violent, and he/she lives in my neighborhood, goddamnit I think I have a right to know that I live near a possible "career criminal".

Quote:

Coddling our kids too much is what warps their little personalities, not smacking them on the bottom when they need it.

Preach on!!!! :D

Ok, everyone, just to make this clear, and much easier:

When I ask if you think that a "child" should be eligible for the death penalty, I'm talking about a child over age 10 and under age 21, who is in full possession of his/her faculties, and knew that the CAPITAL crime they committed was wrong (we're talking strictly capital crimes. Crimes that, for an adult, would be eligible for the death penalty)..

We're talking about kids who've admitted it. We're talking about kids who've been convicted. We're talking about kids who aren't in the least bit retarded, mentally ill (and "mentally ill" in reference to the law is NOT the same thing as "mentally ill" in reference to psych/ology/iatry) or otherwise "unable to assist in their defense."



And while we're at it, we all know adults who act and think like children. Nothing's wrong with them, they just never "grew up." Should we start holding people responsible by mental age rather than physical age? At what point does the danger posed to society by "children" outweigh the fact that they haven't hit 21 yet? What is it about the magic number 21 that makes someone an "adult" and therefore responsible, all of the sudden?

Just a thought....

A couple of points to consider.

Institutionalizing a child will result in something resembling the way old-school practice of pederasty. Give up some ass and learn the ways to not get caught. Some of these facilities have better access to educational resources than anything they've had before.

Prison used to be a place to fear, now it sometimes has better living conditions than they have at home.

Also, someone mentioned that these kids shouldn't pay the price for poor parenting. Well, even the poorest parent instills in a child the idea of right and wrong. These chldren know that what they are doing is against the law, and thusly wrong. Not suffering any consequences for you behavior at home cannot completely excuse you from the consequences of your actions. You'd have to be like those children in Africa, in another thread, to have that excuse fly.