Juvenile Death Penalty
 

Boy, 11, Told Police He Kicked Crying Baby (02/14/04)

An 11-year-old boy who was in a Prince George's County house last week when a baby was killed has told police that he repeatedly kicked the crying child out of frustration, law enforcement sources familiar with the case said yesterday.

----------------------------------------

Grays Ferry boy charged with raping stepsister, 2 (02/16/04)

A 13-year-old boy was charged with raping his 2-year-old stepsister in the Grays Ferry section of Southwest Philadelphia, police said yesterday. Police were called to a South Philadelphia home about 9 a.m. by a family member who reported witnessing the alleged attack, Sgt. Roland Lee said.



These are just two examples of the kinds of crimes that juveniles are committing nowadays. I say that by the time you're five, you know whether something is wrong or not. You know hitting hurts, for instance, and that you're not supposed to do it.

It wouldn't be a big deal for me, really, if these kids were confined for a particular number of years, (not just until age 21--three years for murder or rape doesn't make a big impression on an 18-year-old), and if their records weren't sealed, because if they commit murder or rape as an adult, their previous crimes (read "propensities") aren't taken into consideration during sentencing.

The question is, do you think that there are some crimes for which juveniles should be tried as adults? At what point is a "child" considered to be beyond rehabilitation? At what point is a child to be made to take responsibility for his actions?

The victim of a child is just as dead as the victim of an adult. If a child intends to commit murder or rape or some such crime, and makes an effort to evade the law afterwards, then how can one make an issue of maturity? Are we talking criminal sophistication or age-wise? I know thirty-five year olds who are about as mature as a toddler...

Children should never be tried as adults, even when it would make the victim's family feel really good. That said, I would support a maximum number of years, perhaps the same as the age of the child, up to 21, rather than always releasing them at 21.

I don't think it's a point of making the victim's family feel good. It's a point of enforcing the laws, regardless of age. If it can be proven that the individual knew that what s/he was doing was wrong, then why should age be a factor?

I have a genetic predisposition to play devil's advocate. It's not my fault...;)

Oh, and as an aside, should I have put this in the politics forum?

Isn't there something about being able to participate/assist in one's own defense?

Yes. That has to do with making sure you're competent to stand trial.

that's a really good question. i don't think capital punishment should ever be used on a child, but they should be held in prison past age 21, their record should not be cleared, and they should have numerous psychological evaluations before they are ever released. maybe they should be on manditory medication, too?

That one's a toughie. On the one hand, if you're talking about a six-year-old who runs amok in a china store, yes, I think the parents should be held responsible. However, when it comes to things like murder and rape, criminal acts that a "child" does deliberately, then no, I don't think the parents should be held accountable unless they instigated the action.

(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.

My grandparents got disciplined when they did something wrong, and none of them have lasting psychological scars. They're proud that their parents cared enough about them to let them know the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and none of them have ever been in trouble with the law. Coddling our kids too much is what warps their little personalities, not smacking them on the bottom when they need it.

If you don't let the parents discipline their kids, then you can't hold them responsible when the lil heathens do something wrong.

Unfortunately, you can't force someone to take medication. Even in most mental hospitals, you can't force the patients to take meds if they don't want to.

I think kids' capital cases need to be heard by a grand jury first, which determines, based on the merits of the particular case, and any supporting evidence about the perp's own background (abused? neglected? psychologically unstable from an early age? mentally defective?) whether or not the case is tried in the adult system or the juvie system.

These cases are not always terribly clear cut, as demonstrated by the recent release of the Florida kid who killed his playmate doing wrestling moves on her. He was initially sentenced to life.

Because they aren't adults..

This is less and less true the older they get, which is why I'd support changing the "out at 21" rule to a maximum sentence, but a child is not fully responsible for their actions. That is why they are not permitted to drink, drive, smoke, vote, have sex, watch certain movies, live alone, work full time, and countless other actions. The reason? They are not fully aware of the connection between actions and consequences. Here I am talking about the real consequences, not just punishment - the life they have destroyed, the lives of the family of the victim, and the lives of their own family. I've looked back on things I did as a child, and realized that it was very hurtful, while at the time it barely registered.

I think it depends on the crime , if a kid gets cought stealing some candy(misdomeener) and the store owner is an ass and presses charges , well kids are young and learn from their mistakes . But if there is a string of roberys then some body needs to step in .
Now if its something like rape , muder , etc.... (fellony) then i think their record should not be sealed .
I wounder just how many BAD folks have goten away with stuff just cause they knew they would get out of jail in just a few years and their records would be sealed .
As to the death penalty for minors , well that is a tough one , case by case I say . But then again i don't see any thing wrong with "putting down" a person that is mentaly defecent that is dangerous . Why lock them up for the rest of their lifes , put them and society out of their missory after a suffecent ammount of time and evaluation . If there is NO hope of fixing them then get rid of them . Just my ramblings , be pissed off if you want ,but deep down you probley agree.

ok. here's my take. like it or not. let's take a look at the "utopians" and see just what they are allowing now for "kids". "kids" nowadays feel that they have the same rights as adults. i.e. the public school system. when i was 6 i got paddled a few times in the 1st grade for losing my place in a read along in class. a little extreme? maybe. but later on, say when i was in the 8th on up grade, i watched my behavior because not only would i get the paddle at school, but i'd have to answer to my mother and father when i got home through discussions. (my parents NEVER hit me, abused me or anything like that except for one time, see parenting for that) anyway, back on track. now the school system can't paddle, and the kids know that they can get away with a bunch more with less punishment. c'mon, remember when (if) you got suspended? it was a free vacation! kids today do not respect their elders. yes, some do and yes a lot has to do with upbringing BUT environment plays a key role in the matter of personality development with their peers. these kids KNOW right from wrong. they were taught/learned at an early age, be it from their parents or school. so YES they should be held accountable and if the death penalty is available in their state for a murder that they commited, then pull the trigger, throw the switch or pump them full of lethal chemicals. one deterrent could be to pay-per-view/public square the death penalty on the adults so deserving.

p.s. - i've been a juror on a capital murder case and have seen autopsy pictures of a brutally murdered 18 month old baby boy and had to decide the fate of this putrid excuse of a human being.

this is how i developed my views on the death penalty. i am "the other male juror"

here's the story

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.

No offense taken, but even though I'm not the biological cause of any kids, my opinion is shared by my own parents, my sister (who has 2) and my brother (who has 1), as well as more than one friend and passing acquaintance who have kids.

"Until you have kids, you just don't understand" is valid for some arguments, but not this one. If your kid gets to the point that he or she is able to commit a capital crime, and you were totally clueless about it, you haven't spent enough time with your kids. Hell, if someone's dog kills someone, they face criminal charges, and you want me to believe that your own child's actions are less your responsibility? I just don't buy it.

For those of you who believe that juveniles can be rehabilitated, I ask the following question:

At what age is it do you believe that rehabilitation is not likely to do much good? Does the liklihood of rehabilitation decrease with age? It would make sense to me that a five-year-old would be more likely to be "rehabilitated" than a 12-year-old...

A five-year-old may know that hitting is wrong, and hurts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he knows that if he hits his infant sibling on the head with a cast-iron skillet that it will KILL them. An eight-year-old probably knows that it will hurt them, but may not understand the concept of death (although I may be stretching it here. Most eight-year-olds know about death), a nine-or-ten-year-old KNOWS better.

The older the kid gets, the more aware they are of the consequences of their actions. Therefore, why shouldn't they be held responsible? How much awareness is required? At what age do we say that rehabilitation will be less effective than punishment?


rehabilitation

n 1: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society 2. To restore to good health or useful life, as through therapy and education.

(in other words, to be reasonably sure they won't commit said crime again)

I see where you're coming from mrnoodle, and it does make sense. However, I know that I, as a kid, used to sneak out at night, and my family was never the wiser about it. I could've been out torching houses (I wasn't) for all they knew, but my sneaking out had nothing to do with how they raised me. It was just something kids do. There were a lot of things in my life that my family knew nothing of (not necessarily bad, just things they didn't know). If I'd gotten in trouble, I don't think that they should've been held responsible.

Parents can't stay awake 24/7, after all. If your kid's sneaking out at night and raping people, how are you supposed to know unless you're watching him as he sleeps? What about these straight-A students who end up being discoverd to be murderers or rapists? Do you think their parents had any idea that their kid, who was doing so well in school, and seemed to be well-adjusted, with lots of friends, had a double life?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that a child's behavior is not ALWAYS the result of a parent's not being involved. And then again, sometimes the parents themselves are outright criminals....

Working in a mental hospital, I saw plenty of kids whose parents just couldn't control them, no matter what they did. Our ward was the last stop before jail for kids who'd been deemed "incorrigible" by the courts.

Sometimes kids are just bad.

You have a point there, LS...I used to sneak out, too, and my parents probably would've taken me out to the woodshed if they'd found out. I never did much, it was just the thrill of sneaking out and getting away with it.

But you're right. Parents can't watch their kids 24/7, and sometimes even the most concerned parents find things out about their kids that they never would've imagined, much less tolerated, only after the kid gets busted.

You can only do so much as a parent. Parents shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of their children when they've done the best they can to teach them right from wrong. You can't make your kid do right. You can only show him the way.

Yah, I guess you do have to be a parent. But the stuff that these kids do is so horrible, it seems like someone would HAVE to know something. I don't know. :worried:

Yeah, usually the friends they hang out with. But do you really think the friends are going to rat to the parents?

I'm not saying that ALL the little delinquents out there are self-made--don't get me wrong--but as a former child myself, I know that kids are sometimes pretty good at hiding things from their parents. It's not that the parents aren't concerned or involved, mind you...sometimes they don't know the right questions to ask, or they don't ask the right people, or their kids seem so well-adjusted that they don't feel the need to snoop. But look up "Asocial Personality Disorder," and you'll see that these types are very good at manipulating people and putting forth a face that makes people trust them. Some of these kids may be sociopathic. Some may have fallen under the influence of the wrong people, and yeah, some may have crappy parents.

But let's just say that little Joe Blow has a criminal dad, who actively encourages his kid to be a crook. The kid gets caught. The kid should be punished because he made the choice to do something he knew was wrong, and the dad should be punished for, at the very least, contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

On the other hand, if a 16 or 17-year-old goes out and gets his 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant, do you think the parents should be held responsible for his (at the very least) child-support? Nah.

ok. your new here. you make a very god point. however, i adopted my son. a few of the cellarites are aware of this. the dog issue should be another thread. kids are different from dogs. let's face it, if you commit the crime then be prepared to face your fate. you mention your family and that you don't directly have siblings. ok, fine, that's cool with me but until you have someone that YOU are responsible for then you can't understand where i'm coming from. again, i'm not trying to irritate you, i, until 2 and 1/2 years ago thought the EXACT same way you do. bottom line to me is, if you do the crime; be prepared to do the time.

totally agree here. it's all about raising kids right and disciplining them when they screw up. education is the key. i'm not a smart person but i know right from wrong. it's called morals and i have them.

I have no idea why discipline is considered "abuse" nowadays, to tell you the truth. I mean, how many of you really think that paddling a kid's bottom is going to screw them up for life...? And I don't mean, beating the living shit out of a kid....I mean showing them that the parent is boss, not the child...showing them what is acceptable, what will be tolerated, and what won't.

Some kids, a word is all it takes. Others push their limits. Why should parents be forced to let the kids take over? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of raising your kids right?

(maybe this should be in the parenthood thread...lol)

it's the utopians.

Let's hope so.




Knowing what you're doing is wrong doesn't necessarily prevent you from doing it though, DOES it? And children do learn their behaviors from their parents. If they see their parents engaging in unacceptable behavior, "do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work. If the parents don't model good behavior, it doesn't matter what they tell their kids. The kids internalize what they perceive to be the parent's value system, and it influences their actions later on. That's something everyone should think about and remember.


Having said that, I still believe that capital crimes should, if proven, be eligible for capital punishment, regardless of age.

Sidhe