"The 14 year old shooter has been charged as an adult with Attempted Murder"

[Stinky The Clown]

That is not a real headline associated with any real event. It is, however, much like many headlines we've seen over the years.

It makes me wonder.

Why do we have juvenile laws when we can, at will, disallow their application to certain youthful criminals?

If you can get past that capriciousness, on what basis ought we disallow one child from being charged and remanded to the adult criminal justice system and not another?

What motivates us, as a society, to charge children as adults?

Are some juveniles actually adults while others are not?

So many questions. I have never been able to reconcile charging children as adults.

How do you feel about it?

[slackmaster]

1. There are teens and children who are psychotic and violent, who present a real risk to the public

IMO there should be a civil process for taking them out of society without going through the adult justice system.

We charge dangerous juveniles as adults because we haven't figured out a more humane way of dealing with them that protects public safety.

[PDJane]

2. I don't agree with charging a minor as an adult.

For one thing, children don't have the ability to follow a train of action to its logical end, as a rule. Certainly not when they are upset, angry or frightened....or abused.

I don't agree with extended stays in jail or the death penalty for minors; what does that teach them? They grow up knowing only that might is right, or they are murdered before they reach the age of reason.

In the Victorian era, children were considered small adults, and the children of the poor were treated as a kind of throwaway resource. I can't see that the mindset that does this to children is much different.

[jberryhill]

3. "as a rule"

There is no "rule" determined by an age which determines whether a child has the ability to follow a train of action to its logical end.

There is no "moral culpability switch" which goes off inside anyone on their 18th birthday.

Whether it is appropriate to treat a juvenile as an adult depends on an assessment of the individual.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Would you think it better to flip the whole thing upside down?

Everyone is charged as an adult and, by special case, some go to a juvenile system?

[deaniac21]

6. Well, some adults are just big kids.

[jberryhill]

13. No, it's simply a matter of shifting presumptions

A child should not be charged as an adult, absent a reason satisfying an appropriate threshold. I would presume anyone under 18 to be a child.

I am not a developmental psychologist. It is my understanding that people mature according to their own schedule, and not arbitrary lines in the sand.

[PDJane]

5. There is no reason to charge a child or an imbecile as if they are a fully functioning adult.

Period. Endit.

There is no reason to give a child the death penalty.


Keeping a child in jail is cruel and unusual punishment; putting him or her in with adults is torture. There is no way to justify such an action.

[jberryhill]

12. Define "child"

Absent a definition, I don't know what you mean.

A person who is 17 and 364 days old differs in what substantial way than he/she is a day later?

[PDJane]

16. I don't know about you, but I would consider a child to be anything under 19 or so.

And no, the age itself doesn't really matter. However, a 14 year old is a child emotionally, in spite of brilliance. My son read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" during his summer break the year he turned 10. No matter how intelligent he was and is, no matter his grasp of speculative physics or computer theory, his grasp of the difference between reality and fantasy was tenuous at best, and his view of morality was absolute.

Jailing, for instance, a 15-year-old shot in the back in Afghanistan, leaving him to be tortured, and then claiming his guilt of a crime he had his back to at the time is outrageous (Ohmr Kadr).

The life sentence should not be handed out by rote, and the death penalty is a barbaric leftover. The way we treat prisoners, of whatever age and condition, is disgusting, and it's not the way to rehabilitate people or even care for their physical needs. Long sentences are a waste of time for both the watcher and the watched.

[jberryhill]

17. I agree that intellectual capacity has nothing to do with it

But there is nothing served by simply setting an arbitrary line. This is what developmental psychologists are for.

[REP]

19. Some cannot be rehabilitated and are too dangerous to be in society

I have given two examples below. Kemper I both pity and think he's where he needs to be (he thinks he's where he needs to be, too); he suffered horrible abuse yet there are many who have suffered much worse and have harmed no one. Still I can't help feel some pity - and hope he's away from society forever.

Grissom is nothing but evil. His first murder was to beat an elderly woman to death with a railroad spike for the cash in her purse. No one knows what he did with his last three victims; their parents don't even have a body to bury.

Those are examples of juvenile killers who should have been locked up with their first murders (Kemper killed both his grandparents); Ted Bundy is an example of someone who could never have been rehabilitated and for whom, indeed, a long sentence was a waste of time for the watcher and the watched; execution was the humane option. But since not every case is as crystal clear as Bundy's, a long sentence is more humane than taking a chance on a deeply flawed justice system.

[randome]

21. Using absolute timeframes doesn't work, though.

Where do you draw the line? 17 and 360 days? 17 and 300 days? 17 and 100 days?

[jberryhill]

22. Right

But, as with the teacher sex threads, you basically end up with some people who define "child" as a number, and some people who define "child" as a developmental condition.

What we more or less do is a two-step approach:

1. We presume that someone under age X is a "child" absent considerations relating to the seriousness of the offense and the psychological condition of the person.

2. For adults we do it the other way around.

[Mojorabbit]

28. I am really ambivalent about this

When I was a nurse way back in the stone age I ran across some sociopathic children during my psych rotation. They are out there. I think it should be case by case but with stringent rules for weeding out those children who are not a danger to society

[LisaL]

7. He is 15, not 14.

And I don't have any problem with it whatsoever.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Who is "he"?

I didn't think you'd have a problem with it.

[LisaL]

9. The same one you declared to be a "victim" in your previous thread.

Who else?

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You're quite amazing. You ought to charge admission as you read people's minds

You imputed some nefarious motive to me regarding that thread when, in fact, all I did was comment the story as the news was reporting it at the time.

Have a swell evening, Lisa.

Buh bye.

[REP]

10. You mean, like Edmund Kemper?

Oh wait. He was not charged as an adult for killing his grandparents at age 15; was released after five years and went on to kill eight more people.

[randome]

11. That may be a good example of how the system did not work in the past.

But in the present, the system is abused so politicians can appear to be 'tough'.

If we retain the option to try kids as adults, it should be a much rarer occurrence.

[REP]

14. Richard Grissom Jr

Convicted as a juvenile of murder at 16; served two years. Went on to murder four more women (convicted of three).

[randome]

18. Thanks for the information. I don't know if there is a solution that can satisfy both sides.

But it seems that too many juveniles are treated as adults when it's politically convenient.

Is there a way to minimize both abuse of the system and allowing murderers to murder again? Maybe a more robust review process?

[REP]

23. Case-by-case evaluation of the crime and the defendant - not a blanket rule

One-size-fits-all doesn't work with clothing or crimes. Grissom is a good example of the "awww, he's just a kid" thinking that had become popular (Kemper had just been seriously mishandled; probably in part to beaurocracy and "awww, he's just a kid&quot . While some young murderers should be treated as juveniles, not all should, and determining this takes evaluation (psychological, social, mental, home environment, etc) of the defendant and more than cursory investigation of the crime.

[jberryhill]

15. Some people cannot process beyond arbitrary lines

It's interesting. If 16 is the age of consent in a state, and an adult teacher engages in sexual conduct with a student of that age, then a substantial contingent at DU wants there to be an individual determination of the circumstances of the relationship instead of an "arbitrary" rule simply barring such conduct.

Here, the general sentiment favors the "arbitrary rule" approach.

[JI7]

24. is this the kid who shot the Bully ?

[Stinky The Clown]

25. No, its hypothetical

Obviously inspired by that (and lots of other cases.)

But you might ask Lisa. She knows for sure.

[pintobean]

27. I like you Stinky

but you're looking like a fool in these two threads. I don't think you're a fool. Maybe you should give the situation some more thought.

[pintobean]

26. He shot a kid with Down's Syndrome

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021210718#post122

[LisaL]

29. He didn't shoot the bully.

The victim was shot in random.

[ManiacJoe]

30. The logic seems to be

an adult crime gets you adult time.

Sometimes it seems reasonable when the child is in his upper teens. Sometimes not.