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

reply to post by jisujaaljo


Sorry man, but not all cases of a kid being a miscreant can be blamed on the parents or parenting. Sometimes dogs, with no history of agressive behavior, randomly rip someone to shreds. Chimps tear peoples faces off. Elephants go on rampages at a circus. I'm not sure what the legal age of reason is, mostly because I haven't had to think about this for 20 years, although I'm thinking 8, so if I'm correct with that age, this little whacko legally should have known better.

We're all jumping to the conclusion here that this boy WILL actually be sentenced to life without parole (or even convicted, for that matter -- although whether he is guilty or not is not the point I'm arguing here).

All that has happened so far is that the judge has decided the boy should be TRIED as an adult -- no decision or sentence has been passed down yet. If convicted, there may be mitigating circumstances that come out during the trial so that the sentence may be life WITH the chance for parole, or even less than that.

My point is, even if the boy is convicted, he is not automatically sentenced to life without parole. There is some discretion in sentencing.

You know humanity tries to put ourselves above nature, above animals, but we are no different than animals, we kill, and we do it every single dayt, no matter how "wrong" YOU may think it is, just look at all the things you've killed just TODAY to keep you alive, they may not be humans, but their not less valuable than humans.

This is cruel and unusual punishment towards a child, nobody is saying in the court "hey maybe this kid needs some professional help" they just go towards the harshest punishment possible while OJ walks free, zero justice, and those who think justice exists are blind.



Still does not make what he did right, but he should be punished in a different way.

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by boondock-saint
11 yr olds can kill in cold blood just like adults can.
If you don't believe me, just ask the soldiers coming
back from Vietnam.

Shoe shine mister, please shoe shine for you
cheap cheap

BOOM !!!!

You got it. Eleven year olds can be convinced to kill, be it by a trained military specialist or by violent images.

I've always said that the young offenders act should be revamped. If you commit an adult crime, expect to do adult time. Period. No exceptions.

Take that to its logical conclusion then you are saying an 11 year old can act like an adult. In which case lower the age of consent for all adult activites to match otherwise its hypocrisy.

Driving based on body size not age. Marriage based on gential development not age. Voting based on whether the law treats ANY crime commited as being "adult". If you understand the concept of the crime, which you MUST in order for the law to apply, then you MUST be able to understand political concepts and thus be able to vote.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

All that has happened so far is that the judge has decided the boy should be TRIED as an adult -- no decision or sentence has been passed down yet.

But that is what is wrong in this case - this boy is NOT an adult, but a juvenile. I never understood this whole "tried as an adult" thing. Either he is an adult under the law, or he is not, and should be tried as a juvenile.

No need to get excited and try to ban guns; it's not the guns that kill people, it's the Americans holding them!

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

All that has happened so far is that the judge has decided the boy should be TRIED as an adult -- no decision or sentence has been passed down yet.

But that is what is wrong in this case - this boy is NOT an adult, but a juvenile. I never understood this whole "tried as an adult" thing. Either he is an adult under the law, or he is not, and should be tried as a juvenile.

If he is tried as a juvenile and convicted, he would automatically bet set free when he was 18 (5 or 6 years from now).

I'm not saying he should get life without parole. I think there are certainly arguments in this case that, if convicted, the boy should possibly be eligible for parole -- and in this particular case that could still happen. The sentence mentioned in the OP's title is the "maximum" sentence, not an "automatic" sentence.

reply to post by mountain40


hi, I understand completley what you are saying and i agree to a certain extent.
The point i am trying to make is that, if we as a society reserve the right to punish someone then we also have a responsibility to pick up on these things before it goes to far.
Now i am not saying that it is possible to do that every time someone gets on the wrong path, but i do believe we can do much better than we do now.
I can tell you of an example that happened to me, i was walking down a crowded street and an old man fell to the pavement and hit his head realy bad, he lay lifeless on the ground and between me and him it probably was 15 people that could have helped him out, no one of these people did that, untill i got to him and started to help him.
People in general is afraid to meddle in other peoples affairs to the extent that someone might lose his life, but all it takes is one person that cares to get other people to dare do the same. sorry if it dosent make much sense what im trying to say, but im sad and afraid of where the world is going. peace

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

If he is tried as a juvenile and convicted, he would automatically bet set free when he was 18 (5 or 6 years from now).

Really? Well, that just means punishments for juveniles should probably be reformed. This boy commited the crime as a juvenile, and he deserves to be tried as one. If the punishment he would get seems too low, it does not mean he should be arbitrarily tried as an adult when he is not. That is not justice.

Here in Slovakia punishments for juveniles are defined as half of those for adults, with life in prison not allowed for them.

I think its quite possible that he took jealousy to its most extreme limits. I can only come to the conclusion that thhis child is seriously disturbed. I mean I knew what would happen if I shot someone at his age.

You shoot someone, they most likely die.

If the child she was carrying was his fathers he feared he would go unloved. Ok sure, hell most first children go through the same thought process.

I just wonder what the hell was going through this childs mind when he decided this was the best course of action.

But, he is still a child. Imprisonment isn't the answer. Rehabilitation is. They should put him through rigourous counseling whilst continuing his education in a restricted environment. So that when he becomes a man, he can go and live his life, instead of rotting in a prison cell.

I dunno. That's all I can think of.

I just hope that no one tries to blame this on video games.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

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

www.rawstory.com

A Pennsylvania boy who was 11 years old when he allegedly shot and killed his father's pregnant fiancee could find himself being the youngest person ever sentenced to life without parole.

Human rights campaigners have said the case shows the US' justice system to be unusually harsh towards juvenile offenders, and argue that a life sentence for the boy could violate international law.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now this is a tough one to handle.I dont know if this has been brought up yet but here in england 1993 a far worse thing happend which shocked us all,im not sure how to post link so il copy and paste it......

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990[1] – 12 February 1993) was a two-year-old boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was abducted, tortured and murdered by two 10-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982).[2] Bulger disappeared on 12 February 1993 from the New Strand Shopping Centre, Bootle, while accompanying his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line in nearby Walton on 14 February. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with the abduction and murder.

Thompson and Venables were found guilty of the murder of Bulger on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on lifelong licence in June 2001. The case has prompted widespread debate on the issue of how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released from custody.[3]

In March 2010, Venables was returned to prison for an unspecified violation of the terms of his licence of release. In July 2010, he pleaded guilty to charges of downloading and distributing child pornography, and was given a sentence of two years' imprisonment..............here is the link to everything that happend..its disturbing reading so be warned....www.murderuk.com...

This reminds me of a recent case when sixteen year old white girl from Detroit stabbed someone with a screwdriver, and due to the horrible nature of a crime, she was tried as a black adult male:

Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult





Even tough made up, it illustrates the whole "tried as an adult" absurdity quite well.

reply to post by jisujaaljo


Hey man, I agree with what you wrote in your response, and it does make sense. I appreciate the thoughtful response - thanks very much. It's easy to sit here as an armchair quarterback and to crucify this kid, without knowing the circumstances surrounding this event. It's entirely possible this kid was abused in some way, and maybe something happened that was the last straw, and he whacked her. Having thought about it, MOST people aren't willing to kill in what might be a defensive manner for no apparent reason.

on the one hand you can say "Does evil have an age?"

on the other hand "He's only 11."

Then you have to ask yourself should age be an issue? what if he was 99? should he get out of jail because hes old?

The real kicker is that we all know at 11 he is still a child and has a lot of growing up to do. So the question becomes "can he be rehabilitated?"

That is a question I cannot answer.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


If this kid has freedom, he will only repeat his actions.

Imagine you met jilted or Charles manson when they were kids, would you not act?
Let's just say that if he has freedom, he will do horrible things

reply to post by Hazz-14


I haven't seen anything on psych evaluations. If the kids says he loved killing and he'd do it again and has no regrets then yes, life with out parole until new evaluations can be done for sure. But is this is just an other ruse...it ain't right.

By having a kid that young on trial as an adult, that's saying he was responsible enough to full understand the consequences of his actions which means that kids should have the right to vote, that the age of consent should be lowered to eleven years, that at eleven year old kids should be eligible for a drivers licence and old enough to bare arms or be shipped off to war.

Why don't we let kids do all that, or smoke, or drink or get tattoos? Because they don't understand the consequences of their actions.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


So this child has been charged but not yet tried? Why has his identity been revealed? Is that even legal in Pennsylvania or anywhere in America?

defense attorneys are arguing that one of the reasons given by the judge for ruling Brown should be tried as an adult is his refusal to take responsibility for the shooting. That violates Brown's right to be presumed innocent and avoid self-incrimination, according to the defense.

Is abortion legal in Pennsylvania? If so, could/does the charge for double homicide set a precedent against late abortion?

I live very close to this boy and his family and was shocked when I heard the news. There are a lot of factors that the media have not covered in this case, but that is a different thread all together. This is only my opinion.

First off, this child made a very adult decision knowing full well the consequences of his actions. He did not find the gun, the gun was his. I don't really agree with this, but the fact is that his father was teaching him to hunt and he taught about safety and to handle and operate the gun in a safe manner. Knowing full well that when you point a weapon at something and pull the trigger it will die he made his decision. After the fact he even attempted to cover up the act by attempting to implicate the victims ex-boyfriend. This is a very methodical mindset for an individual of any age and shows that there is a deep set problem in this persons thought process. This type of mentality in my opinion is not safe for society no matter how much psychiatric help is supplied.

My second point would be simply the stigma of the whole situation could cause a serious backlash down the road. Were he to return to his family how healthy would that environment really be? Imagine you were a father that would now have to raise a child that murdered your wife and unborn child. I find it impossible to think that you would not harbor any animosity or resentment towards that child. Simply put you could not raise the child in a healthy happy environment. That leaves only foster care or the like, and that can be just as damaging for the psyche.

Sorry if its long winded but its just my 2 cents

...