|
Post by Consonant*** on Dec 10, 2008 17:15:07 GMT -5
He's only 8. Whatever the reason, accident, abusive father, whatever, he's not an adult, so just send the brat to juvy for the next ten years. If that doesn't reform him, the death penalty the next time he kills someone will. Of course, he'd be dead then and unable to harm anyone, but that's the point. If he doesn't learn his lesson by the time they release him the first time, which having no childhood freedom should, then the next time he goes and kills someone, telling him the state's going to kill him back will tell him, "You screwed up." "Next time"? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if he killed your parents because someone said "Oh, one more chance".
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Dec 10, 2008 17:17:00 GMT -5
I'd have to agree with you on that. There shouldn't be a "next time." Still, his record will be clear once he leaves juvy, so it's a tough call.
|
|
Sheogorath
Kyoshi Azula
Lord of the Never-There
Yeah, an Avatard and a brony. Got a problem with that?
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by Sheogorath on Dec 11, 2008 0:10:13 GMT -5
He's only 8. Whatever the reason, accident, abusive father, whatever, he's not an adult, so just send the brat to juvy for the next ten years. If that doesn't reform him, the death penalty the next time he kills someone will. Of course, he'd be dead then and unable to harm anyone, but that's the point. If he doesn't learn his lesson by the time they release him the first time, which having no childhood freedom should, then the next time he goes and kills someone, telling him the state's going to kill him back will tell him, "You screwed up." "Next time"? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if he killed your parents because someone said "Oh, one more chance". You're not very bright, are you? If they rob him of his childhood now, there shouldn't BE a next time. That's what I'm saying. I included "next time" to allude that if he for some reason didn't learn that killing his father was a bad thing and does for whatever reason, him killing again is a very real possibility. Or I suppose you're going to tell me that there's no way in the Nine Hells that someone like Hitler could ever rise to power again.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Dec 13, 2008 14:55:56 GMT -5
I mean, what gets me in these cases, you are not considered mature enough to drink beer or smoke a cigarette but yet they believe you are 'adult' enough to go to the big house, what kind of thinking is that!
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Dec 13, 2008 16:00:32 GMT -5
I agree with that, but perhaps they should do a complete mental analysis on this child, cause SOMETHING went wrong in his head. I saw a commercial that he's going to be on either Dr. Phil or Oprah today. I don't know. I'll have to work anyway.
|
|
|
Post by travellingfay on Dec 18, 2008 15:31:55 GMT -5
Okay, I don't understand this.
He is eight.
How and why would there be any point in pretending that he's an adult? He is, quite blatantly, NOT an adult. Whether he committed this crime as a result of being sexually or physically abused (a response with which we could empathise, and that would make sense to us coming from anyone, adult or child) or because he was p*ssed off about being grounded, the fact remains that HE IS EIGHT.
ie - NOT AN ADULT. His perspective, his understanding, his sense of proportion, his comprehension of consequences - he's EIGHT. He might be a mature eight or an immature eight, but either way - NOT AN ADULT.
A fairly uncompassionate part of me cannot help but feel that the gun-totin' adult who thought it was appropriate to arm an 8-year-old and encourage him to shoot things pretty much earned himself a Darwin Award. Stick to super soakers. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Dec 19, 2008 10:37:52 GMT -5
I have not read the story, but putting a gun into reach of an abused child reeks of a dare to me. It's a control thing and I guess the adult never dreamed the child would have the guts to pick it up and turn it against the adult.
|
|
|
Post by travellingfay on Dec 19, 2008 18:53:39 GMT -5
I was pondering this last night and again this morning - and the thing is, even if the child WASN'T being abused, I can still see circumstances in which this could happen.
I mean, some kids DO have anger management issues, and do lash out at friends and loved ones; I'm a primary teacher, as it happens, and I teach seven and eight year olds, and I can think of one kid in my class at the moment - a great kid, but he absolutely can't cope with disappointment or frustration. It wrecks him, and he's overwhelmed with rage, and he lashes out at his friends (or his parents, when he's at home) and says terrible things which he later regrets. But in that moment, when he's in the grip of powerful emotion and feels helpless and furious, he absolutely doesn't have the tools to chill, or to take a step back and try to put things in proportion. If he had access to a gun, then I don't find it inconceivable that he would pick it up and use it in the heat of the moment. Between the familiarity of that kind of play-fighting, and the sheer blind rage, I actually can imagine him shooting someone, if there was a gun sitting there. It's a potent symbol of power, and the reality of what he was doing, and the consequences, might well be meaningless to him while he was caught up in his own wrath.
Being passionately furious and resentful is not wildly uncommon among young children.
Luckily, the vast majority of them don't have access to fire arms.
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Dec 20, 2008 0:46:03 GMT -5
Yeah, but this kid DID have time to cool off. He contemplated the entire murder beforehand. That's what leads me to think that he was abused.
|
|
|
Post by travellingfay on Dec 21, 2008 16:38:03 GMT -5
Oh, I agree with you - it seems entirely plausible. But this case - and specifically the father's attitude to guns - made me think of the kids I know, and about how they tick.
Being British, the whole US attitude to guns is pretty mindboggling at the best of times - but when it comes to handing lethal weapons to small children, it strikes me as arrant stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 20, 2010 22:20:34 GMT -5
Since I have only a mild interest in the Saint/49er game, I was skimming over old thread topics and this one caught my eye. An 8 year old boy, maybe abused by the man he killed is a very sympathetic character. Nobody's going to want to see him locked up for life. What if, though, the killer kid is 13 and victim is not an adult, but a 4 year old boy? story In this punk's case (and others like his) he should suffer the same punishment as any adult who did what he did. If you're old enough to commit adult crimes, you're old enough to be punished like an adult.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 21, 2010 11:19:41 GMT -5
Seems you are forgetting to put an argument with your opinion. Also the verbage leaves some to be desired. Punk does not in any shape or form fit into the homocidal category.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 21, 2010 14:51:16 GMT -5
Seems you are forgetting to put an argument with your opinion. lol...oh...you're serious. Ok, I would argue that the victim of a juvie murderer is just as dead as the victim of an adult murderer. Do you think the victim's family feels at all better that the boy was strangled, beaten and sodomized with a stick by someone 13 rather than someone 30? The result is the same so the potential consequences should be the same. It seems when dealing with the question of underage criminals, people want to talk only about the killer. Was he abused or picked on? Is he mental or addicted to drugs? How will this affect the rest of his life? Is it right to "rob" him of his childhood? etc. What's usually missing an acknowledgement of the victim and what he went through and what he was robbed of. Why is that? No? Not in any shape or form? You sure? Link
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Sept 23, 2010 0:21:33 GMT -5
Ok, I would argue that the victim of a juvie murderer is just as dead as the victim of an adult murderer. Do you think the victim's family feels at all better that the boy was strangled, beaten and sodomized with a stick by someone 13 rather than someone 30? The result is the same so the potential consequences should be the same. It seems when dealing with the question of underage criminals, people want to talk only about the killer. Was he abused or picked on? Is he mental or addicted to drugs? How will this affect the rest of his life? Is it right to "rob" him of his childhood? etc. What's usually missing an acknowledgement of the victim and what he went through and what he was robbed of. Why is that? It's because thinking from the perspective of the victim of the crime can often lead to shallow and regressive thinking. Once you look at things from that vantage point, you turn around the justice system into a means of achieving vengeance. Which is not the purpose of any government institution, and never should be. Yes, you can think of the victim. But what you're proposing is completely shutting out the factors that the other end of the crime entails, which is just one of the worst decisions you can make in a situation like this. "It doesn't matter how you get there, just the end result" applies to many situations. Crime is never one of them. There's a massive difference between an 8 year old committing murder and an adult doing so, and as such the way the case should be treated differs as well. To think otherwise is just thinking so shallowly that I'm surprised you even took the effort to write down your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Sept 23, 2010 2:29:53 GMT -5
Keep talkin' brother. You're making me look good. Your heart bleeds for criminals, mine bleeds for the victims. A very poor interpretation of both my post, and the purpose of the United States justice system. I'm not saying we should be overly sympathetic to criminals, I'm saying that your view of crime and punishment is remarkably shallow and serves no higher end. I understand the desire a person has for vengeance, but when somebody prioritizes that above what will most realistically serve to improve the country, that's a very dangerous sort of irrational thinking. Not to mention that there's a notable difference between caring about the victims, and caring about the victims to such an extent that you shut out the whole rest of the situation. If the universe functioned on your logic, Truman Capote would have written "In Cold Blood" so as to better understand the lives of Kansas farmers. Anyway, I'm not sure which I like more, how your signature is a Gandhi quote, or how blatant it is that you're under the age of 18. (EDIT - The post this was replying to was deleted. 'Scuze me for my resulting double post.)
|
|