What kind of country has to drop murder charges against an 8 year old child?

[mudesi]

Can someone explain to me why any kind of charges whatsoever were filed in the first place?

One murder charge dropped

It's sickening. This is a child. He can't be charged with murder because he doesn't understand what he even did. He believes in the tooth fairy and santa clause.

Then again, considering a society that executes the mentally challenged, denies health care to over 40 million people, and charges 8 year olds with murder, maybe children would be better than the "adults" at running things.

[PDJane]

1. I don't have an answer.

I've wondered the same thing,and often.

[Withywindle]

2. Are his victims any less dead than if he'd been 30?

It's not that simple. On one hand, I say judge by the level of harm done, across the board.


On the other hand, in this case, I strongly suspect there was abuse happening, and if so, self-defense laws need to come into play.

[tigereye]

5. no. Young kids and probably most, if not all teens

should never be tried as adults. It's barbaric. they aren't adults. Their brains, bodies and development are not anywhere on a par with adults.


I agree that this was likely an abusive situation, though.

[PeaceNikki]

44. I agree. It is barbaric.

And really sad. :(

[Pithlet]

23. Guess it's a good thing there's more than one hand, huh?

:crazy:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Absolutely not. Level of harm done is entirely irrelevant.

We should be judging on the level of harm that could reasonably have been expected to result from a person's actions, not from the level that actually does.

If I point a gun at your head and pull the trigger, it misfiring is not a defence.

If I turn on my gas cooker and it explodes, killing everyone in the building, I should not be prosecuted.

A child cannot be said to have such reasonable expectations, so it shouldn't be prosecuted.

[Edweird]

30. If I am not mistaken, that child was a hunter and knew full well that shooting a living being

would lead to death. I don't believe there was any kind of confusion or misunderstanding about the effects of his actions.

[mudesi]

34. For crying out loud

Sure, maybe he knew that shooting leads to death, but no, he didn't know the real gravity of his actions.

Do people like you even remember your thought processes when you were eight years old?

[Edweird]

39. Why, YES, as a matter of FACT I DO!

My defacto mother (my grandmother -mom side) had died (when I was 7) and my defacto father (grandfather) had a hard time dealing with it so I ended up spending a lot of time with my worthless junkie biological mother and her abusive husband.(My grandfather died when I was 9, thus sealing my fate. They loved me.) I can relate just a teeny bit to what this child may have been going through. Much like I can relate to another post talking about a suicidal 11 year old. My early life was intensely fucked up, thank you very much. Those of you that have 'perfect' lives and can't see reality past your idealism make me sick.
It may have been justified, time will tell. If it was, I hope he gets the counseling he needs to deal with his trauma. It may not have been. Either way, it is clear that he set a trap and successfully executed it. He knew *EXACTLY* what he was doing.

Oh, and I'm sure you blame 'teh gunz' for it happening.....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. What, blame easy access to guns for the high level of shooting deaths in the US?

How absurd! Of course, it being easy to get your hands on a gun, even if you're a child, a criminal, mentally unstable etc, has nothing to do with the fact that the US has so much higher a rate of gun deaths per capita than most countries with better gun control.

Perish the thought!

No, locking up eight year olds is a much better solution to gun deaths than introducing sane levels of gun control...

[Edweird]

57. Yeah, because the absence of guns equals safety. Take prison, for example.

A gun-free utopia of tranquility, harmony and personal safety. I mean, who ever heard of rape, robbery or murder in prison since they have no access to guns OR knives. You are exactly correct. Removing guns from our society will make us all instantly safer. It worked in the UK, right? I mean, just because the murder rate continues to climb at the same levels unabated is no indication that the restriction of legal guns as a 'public safety' issue is an abject failure, right?

Oh and don't forget Washington DC. Now THERE'S a place that's safe! No (legal) guns means we can all walk wherever we want at night safely! Talk about effective! Chicago, too.

:sarcasm:

I suppose not if you're a kneejerk zealot.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. Plugging the holes at one end of the boat doesn't help much.

American gun control would need to be federal to achieve much, and would probably involve the repeal of the 2nd ammendment - which has no chance whatsoever of happening and would be politically suicidal to advocate, but would massively benefit America if it were to happen.

And your prison analogy is just daft - it's like since saying that swimming in piranha-infested waters is dangerous even though there are no rabiud wolves there, there is no point in trying to stop rabid wolves wandering the streets...

[Edweird]

68. So let me get this straight. We repeal the 2nd ammendment, and THEN we're all safe, right?

Hmmm. Now let's think past the end of our noses, shall we? We have an incredibly porous, essentially non-existent border that people WALK across. TONS of drugs are brought into this country DAILY. Even sex slaves are smuggled in. (Against their will, obviously)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/sfl-flbtrafficking1122sbnov22,0,3411650.story
But,somehow, guns would be stopped by some magical imaginary force. Smugglers won't bring them in because that would be ILLEGAL, right? How stupid are you? Some enterprising scumbag could set up a shipping container full of ak's and makarovs just on the other side of the border and be an overnight millionaire. Criminals have guns already. Criminals will continue to get guns NO MATTER WHAT LAW IS PASSED OR REPEALED.

Of course I'm used to hearing "that argument isn't valid". That's standard gun-grabber playbook when they encounter facts that point out how laughably idiotic their premise is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. Safer, not safe.

There would, undoubtedly, still be gun deaths no matter what gun control the US introduces - the UK has some of the best gun control in the world, and we still have some shootings.

But UK-style gun control would probably save the lives of thousands, possibly tens (although only just) of thousands, of Americans every year.

But "we can't make it perfect" is a stupid reason for not making things better.

[Edweird]

84. Yeah, you're SO MUCH safer now, huh? How's that proposed KNIFE ban coming?

Puh-lease.

:eyes:

What is an outright failure in the UK won't even be THAT successful here.

[TankLV]

99. "outright failure in the UK"?!?!? The PROOF is the OTHER WAY!

GUN CONTROL works in the UK, Canada, and ALL the other countries where strict gun control laws are on the books!

Stop spewing right wing asshole BULLSHIT.

Want to make and assertion - PROVE IT!

[Edweird]

103. "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York."

"Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

This article is kinda old... gimme a few to come with some more.

[Edweird]

106. Crime rate up by 22pc in UK

The violent crime rate in categories like serious assault, murder, attempted murder and manslaughter has risen by 22 per cent in the United Kingdom,

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/25-Oct-2008/Crime-rate-up-by-22pc-in-UK

[Edweird]

110. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more

and more criminals in more and more crimes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F01%2F05%2Fdo0502.xml

(it's an editorial, I know, but it references local gun crimes and statistics)

[Edweird]

111. THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic.

sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

[Edweird]

113. Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger

The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen. Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150.

Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece

[Edweird]

115. Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

[Edweird]

116. The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their

effects.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

[Edweird]

117. Gun crime rates have actually risen since the handgun ban.

Despite these strict regulations, the UK does still have quite a considerable problem with gun crime involving illegally obtained firearms. Gun crime rates have actually risen since the handgun ban. While the number of homicides from gun crime has largely remained static over the past decade.<11>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

[Edweird]

118. The gun-grabbers are the ones spewing bullshit.

I am not a "RW'er". I am a Democrat. I am a gun, pit bull and 4X4 truck owning, red meat eating, blue collar, work my ass off every day Democrat.
The facts are what the facts are. "Gun guys" lies won't change it.

[Edweird]

121. “This explosion in knife crime is the most astounding symptom of Britain’s broken society.

THE full extent of Britain’s violent crime epidemic, which yesterday claimed the life of another teenager, is revealed in shocking new figures that show the number of street robberies involving knives has more than doubled in two years.

Attacks in which a knife was used in a successful mugging have soared, from 25,500 in 2005 to 64,000 in the year to April 2007. The figures mean that each day last year saw, on average, 175 robberies at knife-point in England and Wales – up from 110 the year before and from 69 in 2004-5.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2284258.ece

[Edweird]

122. Knife crime to replace terror as police priority

Deputy Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson announced the form-ation of a special knife-crime unit to address the recent spate of fatal stabbings in London as he admitted that moves to stop teenagers carrying weapons were not working.

The unit, featuring specialist officers from across the capital, will target known gang members and their associates who may be carrying or supplying knives. It will also conduct random searches.

Sir Paul’s announcement came after a 16-year-old boy became the eighteenth teenager to die a violent death in the capital this year. There were 26 youth murders in 2007.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4269818.ece

[Edweird]

127. "Outright failure" was a little hasty. I'm sorry. It's a miserable pathetic failure.

Much like the gun-grabber arguments.

[Edweird]

128. By the way, it's 'an assertion' not 'and assertion'

:hi:

[LeftishBrit]

264. What do you mean 'now'?

The UK has always had much stronger gun control and less of a gun culture than the USA. There were been some toughenings in the 1990s after the Dunblane massacre, but to be frank: most Brits, unless they follow such issues closely, would not even KNOW that there were any changes in the laws.

I do not presume to tell other countries what laws they should have on this matter. I like our system *for us*. But I am aware that, apart from other considerations, it might not work in a country which already has lots of guns and a significant gun culture, and might end up the same way as Prohibition. Anyway, this sort of domestic issue in another country isn't really my business.

However, I do get a bit sick of the implication that I keep seeing on the board that we were always a gun-owning country until our eeeeevil government took away our freedom to own guns in the 1990s. We weren't. Guns were never a major part of UK culture (and are not banned now; just strictly controlled). Sometimes, cultural differences are just cultural differences.

[Paladin]

101. "Kneejerk Zealot"? Jesus, Look Who's Talking..... (n/t)

[Edweird]

107. It's nice to see you, too.

:hi:

[krispos42]

254. So substituting stabbings and blunt objects for gunshots is progress?

How about we worry more about the number of corpses per capitia per year and not so much the hardware used in their death, hmmm?

You're arguing from the false assumption that if we reduce the number of privately-owned guns in this country by half, gun deaths would fall by 50% <i>and not be replaced by any other form of death</i>.




4,000 times a day in this country, people defend themselves with guns, but because a <i>deadly</i> self defense shooting only happens every <b>other</b> day, that number doesn't get paraded around the national media.



"200 8-year-olds were saved by their parents using guns to fend off intruders and attackers yesterday" somehow NEVER is a headline!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

265. No, actually, I'm not - I didn't say anything like that, you just made it up.

The reduction in the number of gun deaths will not be proportional to the reduction in the number of guns, but nor will it be trivial. And yes, there will be a small corresponding increase in the number of non-gun-related deaths, but not a proportional one - it's much easier to shoot someone than to stab them, and more people will have the confidence to rob a bank with a gun than a knife.

The statistic about number of people defending themselves with guns is simply made up out of thin air - all you can find out about is how often people think they would have had something bad happen to them if they hadn't had a gun, not the (almost certainly far, far smaller) number of times it actually would have happened - crimes not committed are hard to measure.

[krispos42]

267. Okay, then what percentage?

You have some kind of algebraic equasion to show me? Obviously if all guns are removed, then no gun deaths will occur (excepting, as usual, justified police-related homicides).

So what does the curve look like? Inverse-square? Some kind of quadratic function? You have MS Paint on your computer; give me some kind of crude idea of how you think it will go. One line each for vertical and horizontal axis, text boxes to label the axis, and a hand-drawn line. Five easy steps, right?


And I didn't make up the stats about people defending themselves out of thin air. 10 years ago it was 6,000 times per day; things are more peaceful now, about 30-40% more peaceful based on FBI stats, so 4,000 times per day is not an unreasonable estimation.

[Crunchy Frog]

210. Whoever owned the guns needed to be responsible

for making sure they didn't fall into the hands of a disturbed 8 year old.

[Edweird]

215. Well, I'd say they were more than sufficiently punished, wouldn't you?

[Crunchy Frog]

216. I certainly do. I just hope the little kid doesn't also have to be punished

for the crimes of his elders. Not that I think he should be turned loose on society, but not prosecuted as an adult either.

[cabluedem]

256. Locked up in mental health and treated until 18. No firearms or weapons for life. nt

[TankLV]

96. And that's it in a nutshell - there's a reason we have "adult" and "child" terminology regarding

all sorts of things.

A child's mind - the whole enchilada - reasoning, comparative judgemnt, critical thinking, morality - all of it - is just NOT DEVELOPED until he/she is and "adult" - and when that exactly occurs can never be known, but CAN be reasonably inferred.

That's why we don't let CHILDREN "make decisions" on things such as marriage, military service, and a whole host of other things!

A child is just that - a CHILD!

That's why countless parents of the millinea have had the countless conversations when explaining to child why or why we don't do certain things and all their RAMIFICATIONS. And often times, it's difficult breaking it up into digestible/understandable pieces so that a CHILD'S BRAIN can grasp it all...

[mitchum]

66. But...but...but...that's a different kind of death!

Not really
He is a practiced killer who apparently does understand the finality of death

[mondo joe]

71. An 8 year old is a minor and by definition does not have the capacity to make certain

choices or decisions.

[Edweird]

77. That changes what he did, how?

It may or may not have been self defense. I can relate to him a little if it was.
Either way, it's clear it was planned and intentional.

[mondo joe]

79. What he did isn't relevant. Just as a child can't be legally bound to a contract he or she signs,

and can't consent to sex even if he or she says they did.

[Edweird]

87. "What he did isn't relevant" If he was shooting at YOU, I suspect you might feel differently.

What he did is the ONLY thing that is 'relevant'. I fail to see how that fact that he can't vote or buy beer is in any way a mitigating factor in this type of shooting. He was a trained hunter. He understood death. He set a trap and executed it. This was not a case of a gun 'accidentally' going off. This was premeditated.

[PeaceNikki]

89. And if the boy's father abused your 8 year-old his whole life, I suspect you might feel differently.

[LisaL]

92. And if the moon was made of cheese...

There's been no evidence of abuse reported. There have been interviews with neighbors published saying the guy was very involved with his kid and tried to raise him well.

[Edweird]

93. See post #39

I am not saying it wasn't self defense.
I don't know. If it was, I hope he gets the counseling he needs for his trauma and moves on. If it wasn't, then he should be dealt with accordingly.

What I AM saying is that either way, he KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING.
Self defense or not.

[LisaL]

208. By the way I've seen an allegation the father forbade him from

watching TV.
My goodness, how can anyone be subjected to such abuse?
:eyes:

[mondo joe]

90. That's why we have a justice system rather than personal revenge.

I'm content for him to be charged and tried for his actions, as a juvenile.

[tigereye]

188. how could you possibly know what he planned to do and why?

:shrug: Your arguments are absurd.

[Edweird]

218. So,.. you think it was an accident or something?

Let's hear it. What happened?

[PeaceNikki]

219. She isn't claiming to know what happened, you are.

[Edweird]

228. All I know is what I've read about what happened. His actions speak for themselves.

Each man was shot more than once at separate times with a rifle that you have to place each bullet in the chamber manually before firing. This was no accident. There is no way it was anything other than premeditated and intentional. If either of you believe otherwise, I am curious as to why.

[Hosnon]

123. mondo joe: It seems to me that you view legality as the "end all, be all".

An 8 year old can certainly, in my opinion, negotiate a contract. Most laws make voidable such contracts for public policy reasons, not because the child could not actually negotiate the contract.

[PeaceNikki]

124. You think an 8 year-old could ACTUALLY negotiate a contract!??!

Classic. :rofl:

[Hosnon]

125. Sure. There is nothing inherent about being 8 that excludes the ability

to negotiate a contract. To be sure, as age decreases, the likelihood of sufficiently protecting one's interests also decreases. But there is no magic cut off point.

[Edweird]

126. "If you keep your room clean and take out the trash you get $1.00/wk allowance"

"ok."

There's your contract.

[gollygee]

129. Oh yeah, that works

ROFL.

Every day is spent nagging. "Have you taken the trash out yet?" "Is your room clean." Because they don't really understand.

[mondo joe]

137. Are you suggesting that a contract to clean ones room is not substantively different

from a contract to assume significant debt?

[Edweird]

144. Are going to try to tell me that one type of exchange of currency for goods and services

is fundamentally different than another? It all comes down to 'this for that'. The more complicated transactions have a lot of 'this for that's', but it's still the same thing.

What does any of this have to do with a kid shooting two people intentionally?

[mondo joe]

148. Yes, I am. And that is why a contract with a child cannot be legally enforced.

A child doesn't have adult capacity to form consent - not to a contract, not to sex, and not to murder.

There's a reason for the distinction between adult and juvenile crime in the justice system. Children ought to be limited to the juvenile system for all the same reasons that having a juvenile system is justified to begin with: inability to form adult consent.

[Hosnon]

156. But mondo joe, you can't deny that it is more of a continuum than a bright line.

A 17 year and 364 day old does not in any way have less (non-legal) ability to negotiate a contract than an 18 year old does. As I see it, the nature of 8-year olds does not render impossible the existence of an 8-year old that understands contractual obligations.

As age decreases, so does the ability to understand contractual obligations. But there is no "event horizon". There is nothing inherent about being 8 that excludes contractual capacity.

[PeaceNikki]

159. HA!!!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

"there is nothing inherent about being 8 that excludes contractual capacity"

:rofl:

You haven't been around many 8 year-olds, have you?

[Hosnon]

164. Your attempts to argue using comedy notwithstanding, I'll play.

Yes, I have been around many 8-year olds. And there is nothing (read this carefully and understand the word) inherent about being 8 that excludes contractual capacity.

[PeaceNikki]

166. Sure their is something inherent about being 8 that excludes contractual capacity.

Maturity and understanding of... well, EVERYFUCKINGTHING.

[Hosnon]

171. I guess we'll have to disagree then. I think 8 year olds can, in fact, understand

a certain level of contractual obligations. And the existence of just one renders your position incorrect.

[gollygee]

172. It is not developmentally appropriate for an 8-year-old to understand permanence

for contracts or death.

But there are 8-year-old prodigies here and there who are that far beyond their developmental level. You certainly can't base laws on prodigies.

[Hosnon]

174. Certainly...laws need to be based on statistically average behavior.

I just see it as a continuum. Very young children understand "quid pro quo". It's a good bet that an 8 year old doesn't understand a high level of contractual obligations. But (my point) is that the mere fact that a person is 8 does not by necesssity mean he or she doesn't.

[LisaL]

207. I don't think you are gonna find many 8 years old accused

of murder to base anything in this case on a "statistically average behavior."

[gollygee]

225. Most 8 year olds don't understand the permanence of death

whether they're accused of murder or not doesn't change that.

[Hosnon]

234. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, I am not speaking in reference to this

particular case.

Admittedly, I just jumped into the conversation...

[mondo joe]

167. I'm going to disagree.

At age 8, a human doesn't have the intellectual capacity, experience or perspective to appreciate the consequences of such choices.

We don't hold developmentally disabled adults to the same standard of ordinary adults because they operate at decreased capacity. So do 8 year olds.

[tigereye]

190. doesn't the law itself (depending on the state) make that very distinction?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm hoping one will jump in here. Apologies if you are a lawyer, but what you are saying makes little sense to me.

[Hosnon]

237. Yes.

Laws make the distinction, it is not a black and white distinction inherent in a human. As I said elsewhere in this thread, although the law makes a distinction between a 17 year and 364 day old and an 18 year old, there is no real distinction.

[tigereye]

246. that doesn't make any sense to me..

Of course there is a distinction - there are myriad social, cultural, personal, physical, ethical and psychological ones! Certainly they are social constructs, but...

[mondo joe]

160. There's a point at which the line is more unclear. But I think 8 years old is far into the

category of inability to form legal consent.

If he were 16 I'd feel otherwise.

[Hosnon]

168. I'd tend to agree. My point is that "8 year old-ness" does not, by definition,

preclude contracual capacity (i.e., there could be an 8 year old that is capable of understanding contractual obligations).

In other words, legal broad strokes that categorically assert that an 8 year old is unable to understand contractual obligations because of his or her being 8 are incorrect.

[mondo joe]

170. As I said in another subthread, I'm disagreeing.

An 8 year old doesn't function at the same intellectual capacity as an adult.

[Hosnon]

173. Yeah it seems like we'll have to disagree. I see it as a continuum.

I wouldn't expect an 8 year old to understand complex securities transactions but I certainly think 8 year olds understand "quid pro quo".

[mondo joe]

176. It's certainly a continuum. But for me the point is that for much of the continuum,

even if you can have a basic understanding its not enough to hold you liable in any long term way.

Hence records of juvenile criminal activities can be/are sealed, and juveniles are (arguably) subjected to lesser punishment.

[Hosnon]

178. Yeah the legal cut off should certainly be above 8. But I think it is not accurate to

categorically say that a person, by definition, has no (non-legal) understanding of contractual obligations because of his or her being 8.

[mondo joe]

179. I'll offer a rephrase:

An 8 year old, by definition, does not have the legal capacity to consent to a contract. Or sex.

[Hosnon]

180. Well that I certainly agree with (at least so far as my state is concerned) nt.

[tigereye]

191. I think there are ethicists and psychologists who would disagree with you

Kids who are 8 could understand a simple obligation, but not a complex one...


Are you familiar with Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development?


http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/moraldev.html

[Hosnon]

238. That may be the case, but I do not think there is anything

inherent in an 8 year old that necessarily precludes the ability to understand contractual obligations (albeit simple ones).

[tigereye]

245. what was your premise in stating this? I've forgotten in the midst of the

discussion.



Simple ones, perhaps, but that's different than some of the legal stuff folks in relationship to 8 years olds, that others have brought up, don't you think?

[EstimatedProphet]

263. It's a "continuum." Right.

That's of course why it is that fetuses right after the instant of conception are capable of rational thought.

[PeaceNikki]

155. "If you don't make me clean my room, I'll be your best friend forever and ever."

"If you buy me an XBox, I will NEVER let it get dirty again."
"If you clean it for me, I will do my homework EVERY night."

You've never had an 8 year-old, have you?

[mondo joe]

162. And the all time classic "If I can keep him I'll walk him and feed him and everything!"

Can you imagine the courts if kids were held legally responsible for their agreements?

[mondo joe]

134. The point of the policy is that minors don't have the same capacity to form consent

that adults have.

[Edweird]

146. And that applies to killing someone, how?

[mondo joe]

149. An 8 year old can't form adult consent to matters of consequence.

There's a reason we have a minor status in the law.

[gollygee]

152. Children don't understand the idea of consequences and permanence the way adults do

Most kids don't even understand that death is permanent at the age of 8.

Here's a web site that explains what kids understand about death at different ages:

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs441w.htm

Kids learn about the permanence of death and what death means later than some in this thread seem to think, and kids also aren't able to understand the permanence of contracts. Like your example of doing chores. They do chores for a day or two, but then after that they stop doing it and don't understand why they have to keep doing it, because they don't understand that if they've agreed to do it, it's an permanent (or at least fairly permanent) agreement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

205. I'm sure I understood death and its finality at age 8

because I can remember hearing about someone trying to assassinate Gerald Ford, and I knew that meant killing him. My grandmother died around that time, and I knew what that meant; and I'd watched TV and films which included people getting shot. I knew what war was, and that people shot each other with guns to kill each other.

Only the most sheltered children won't know, by age 8, that people die, and that's it for good in this world anyway (yeah, most people get fed stuff about "they're happy in heaven now", and that would probably be the best line of defence for any kid - that they've been told by grown-ups whom they trust that there's life after death, and they'd be able to say "but everyone's happy in heaven". I guess part of the age of responsibility is that you're meant to stop being so gullible about religion at some age). I also knew about getting punished when you break rules at school, and that there are rules for the whole country, called 'laws'. I'd think I'd know what 'jail' was too (it turns up in all kinds of places - like westerns that are 'suitable for children').

The concept of death is far simpler than understanding long-term obligations form a contract. Children get taught from a very young age not to injure people, and by 8, any normal child knows that extreme violence will kill a person.

[gollygee]

224. This has been extensively studied by child psychologists

And despite your anecdotal memory, most children don't understand the finality of death at 8.

[muriel_volestrangler]

261. You own link does not say 'most' - just that they *may*

Note for 3 to 6 year olds, the language is:

"Typically, a child will not understand that death is permanent" (my emphasis)

but for 6 to 9, it is:

"A child this age may view death as something that comes and takes people away or can be caught like a cold.

Some children may still think the dead person will return. Guilt may make a child feel responsible for the death through her own wishful thinking (I wish he would die!), harsh words (You'll be the death of me yet.) or not doing something (I didn't help Grandpa mow the lawn. Now he died.). Fears related to death may arise.

Child's reaction:

The child may feel distressed, confused and sad or show no signs at all. Fear of abandonment by other family members is common. Often these children are obsessed with the causes of death, as well as the physical processes to the body after death."

And if they're thinking about the physical processes to the body after death, then they're thinking it's permanent.

I think you're attributing the thoughts of those at the lower end of '6-9' (or even those in the age group below that) to those nearer the upper end; but if you have some evidence for 'most' 8 year olds olds thinking that way, then I'll be interested to see it.

[Diclotican]

231. muriel_volestrangler

muriel_volestrangler

Well, I am not sure how you was when you was 8, but when I was 8 I remember that an familiymember, who was not that close died.. It must been when I was 8 or 9 when it happened.. As I understand it, it was as the family member would never came to visit us again.. She had been living in a nursing home for a long time, and she was senile.. I was little scared about her, because she was so old, and so out of this world.. I never got to know her well by the way...

But the concept of DEAD was something I was not that sure about at age 8.. Maybe I was just slow about it, but it was not before I was 9 or 10 before I got a more understandable view of what dead was..

On the other hand, we was not allowed to play with gun where I was living.. My foster parents was very clear about this. Even that we did have a gun home.. A gun I have just seen once. at age 7 and a half, then they decided to tell that we had a gun and that this was nothing we should play with if we ever discovered the place.. It was a gun who was black, and hewy.. very hwy for a 7 year old boy... Never seen it later and I never was thinking about it either I guess.. It was just something I and my little brother was forbidden to se..

And yes, the house was big, we was small, and the gun was very good hidden.. So was the ammo.. But it was just something I was not interested into..

When it come to the case at hand. I suspect it is something fare more worse in the backroom.. I am not sure about how things work out in the US, but here in Norway - if a 8 year old boy/girl was ever to do something like this, she/he would be send to a place where the kid could get help.. I really doubt the child would ever se the inside of a courtroom Not because the kid in case was not guilty, but rather because the kid possible will never understand what really happened. And if the kid was to understand it sometimes when the kid is far older than 8 year old... It is not the same as the kid was not full of remorse.. I have no clue what this is about, but I doubt the official history about a 8 year boy, who cold bloody killed to grown up people.. Something is very fishy about the whole history... Something is very wrong.. And the concept that the prosecutor want to get the boy into the Justice system as an juvantile... The whole concept is just mad.. This child, if guilty are not capable of surviving a prison anyway. This kid need urgent medical help, over long time... TO maybe, just maybe clear what was the REAL reason if he was guilty about this shooting..

In any case, the kids life is in ruins, and will never be the same.. If the kid ever was to grown up, to a "normal" kid he will ever get some challengers that no other will have for the rest of his life.. I know, I have my "legacy" from my early childhood, and it is not my real parents fault that I am that upstanding as I am today.. Many have helped me, and the "system" have worked for a long time before I was growing up to a "Normal" Grown up.. Could I be like this kid if I have had no help?. I don't know, Maybe.. I was angry at that age about everything and nothing.. And had a rage who could scare the living daylight out of a US Marines.. But I was never in the position to have gun in my hand thankfully.. And was to scared to really get into a fistfight.. Sometimes I did, and then I got that horrible remorse after and was scared as hell...

If this kid killed two grown up, and had learned to use the weapon, it should mean that many parents maybe should be more carefully how they keep their firearm?.. I have other family member, who hunted in the fall, And we know they had rifles and such. But we never was seen it, and in any case the weapon was closed down and secured for all means necessary.. Responsibility when using weapon you know is very important I guess.

This case is horrible.. And if the prosecutor is really to blame the kid for this.. I would say something is really dirty in the US. I am not claiming that this kid is Innocent I do not know about it. But the kid are in need of help, much more than he could ever got in a juvenile detention center.. What this kid need, are professionals who could do something he might never experienced.. care for him, and work with the prosecutor and other government officials to find out what really happened.. I could take a decade to get to the answer, but I do believe that is to be necessary, if the whole history about this murders should ever be possible to solve.. This kid could never alone using that hwy weapon, reload it and then shoot two grown up men before the grown ups would have cleaned the weapon from him.. Something is very wrong here..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[muriel_volestrangler]

262. We don't know enough about the case to know what would be a correct course

If the boy had been abused in some way, then it would seem the best course would be therapy - I wouldn't expect a child of that age to be able to withstand abuse and make 'correct' decisions, and we give abused adults a lot of allowances too. But it is possible for an 8 year old to have malice, and to realise that they're going to kill someone with their actions; so the murder charge may be a correct one. Any sentence would have to be specially tailored to the child; I'd say it could be possible to bring them up and get them to be a normal, non-violent adult, but you'd probably need them under state control until they're 18 at least, with constant evaluation of their progress by professionals.

[Diclotican]

278. muriel_volestrangler

muriel_volestrangler

Absolutely right, We have not the whole picture. As is the case with the prosecutor, if they wan to push this kid into the juvenile system.. Kids as that age is not easy to get to know if the inside of them is broke, believe me, I have been one of them, and I was not trusting anyone for many year... Even that I got everything I had the need fore because I had foster parents that fight like heroes to get what I needed to be as "normal" as possible going it was not an easy task to get in my skin to understand why things was wrong.. Even that my foster farther could be "investigative" it took time for me to trust them, and maybe more to the polite love them.. It is maybe bad to say it, but I know my fosterpartent better than my biological parents, even that I have had contact with them all my life..

If the kid just "evil" the sentence should be just to be put into a juvenile prison cell, and then when age 18 into a grown up prison cell.. It is no future for the kid and just a wasted life. If he ever was to face a trial, and a murder sentence the kid should be taken into custody, and into a institution where he could get professional help far better than in the juvenile prison system.. And as you point out very clearly, be under state control - at least to the age of 18.. Then the State have more than 10 year to fix what can be wrong with the kid, and maybe, just maybe get him as normal as it gets.. Maybe with medical helps, it is a lot of interesting medicine out there.. And behavior control, very important if he had some disorder there.. Maybe the kid have some disorder, as AD/HD OR AD/DD?. Or something else who I do not know about.. I know about the AD/DD stuff as I have it myself.. And one of the problems is that if you get angry enough, you have no clue what to do. Have Been pissed off to many times and then it just snap.. been so angry twice in my 32 year old life, and if it was not for pure luck I would be sitting in a prison cell today... And I am not kidding...

Anyway, the kid have first to get a medical inquiry into the mind of this little kid.. And then when experts have doing their job, the juridical system have to ponder out how to protect the kids rignt, and the society's need to feel protected. For some the easy way out is to put him into a cell and let him be there for the rest of his natural life.. Some want to send him to his mother and let her take care of him.. Something I really doubt can be do'n for a long time.. This kid is disturbed, and need help.. much more help than a single parent can do.. If the parent are not wealthy enough to get him private help then...

And yes, he need to get many evaluation the next 10 year or so. Maybe every year, so his program can be proven.. And if proven a "normal" grown up at age 18.. Well his future is out there.. If not I do hope he will be kept in custody, in a safe manner, and that the kid will get the help he needed and not just been put in a prison cell because the government/State have no other way to keep him under protected custody.. It is _always_ another choice than to trow him into the wolves in a prison... And if He is sick, the madness he might have at age 18 will be just far worse after a year or two..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Hosnon]

175. I agree. But the capacity that adults have, legality notwithstanding, is not the only

degree of capacity available.

[mondo joe]

177. Agreed. Hence we have a juvenile justice system.

We appear to agree that 8 year olds shouldn't be held to the same standard as an adult.

[Hosnon]

181. Yeah I agree with that. And I'm not really talking in reference to the topic of the OP.

I just jumped into the conversation (and all over the "by definition" thing).

[Diclotican]

253. MJDuncan1982

MJDuncan1982

I agree, but regardness... You can't except a 8 year old kid to be as smart as an 18 or older grown up. This my point. When you are 8 you might have some grasp of things, but you have _not_ the same understanding as an adult..

In any cases, something is wrong, maybe the kid IS damaged beyond repair, and will need professional help for the rest of his life. Maybe it is a reaon into this horrible case that we do not know about yet. Maybe he was misused by someone.. Even that is been told that the kid was treated well, sometimes it can be a double life.. The one side we in the public know, and a whole another case when more private.. How many kids who have been treated bad for many years before the public was made aware of what happened inside the home at the private of the home we will never know... But the dark numbers of cases is large..

The kid in this case should be treated by professional - if not for another case because it is the right thing to do. He is a child after all, and if given he right treatment could possible in many years times maybe go back to the world he was leaving at the age 8.. Maybe because he will never be the same as he was before the shooting anyway...

And if he is proven to be a case that should need protective service for the rest of his life, he should be given a change, to at least be medical treated so his illness should not be a danger to the rest of the world.. To just put him in a cell and let him live there for the rest of his life is very dangerous and easy way to go.. How many prison have a ward where the prisoners is just plain mad, and should never been to a prison, but rather to a mental hospital to get some help.. A prison gard is NOT an professional who can help a mental disturbed person.. Regardless if he is 8 or 80... A mental institution is far better for them, than a prison cell where they are closed in for 18-24 hour a day...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[PeaceNikki]

You're basing your opinion on a coerced confession of a third-grader

who was not with an attorney or any adult when he was interrogated.

[LisaL]

86. I don't think that "confession" is convincing.

Regardless of lawyer or guardian being present, the kid never really gives a complete story or explains why he allegedly did it.
What I find a better evidence is that the second guy's wife was on the phone with him apparently just prior to him being killed.

[bettyellen]

109. yeah.. she heard the kid calling him to his death. and heck, they only need to convict

the kid of one murder- and this one there's no abuse excuse for. smart to dump the charges of killing the father.

[LisaL]

132. Yes, if the story is true, then they have a phone "ear witness."

[Edweird]

88. You're right. Hopefully all the facts will come out.

[tigereye]

186. it doesn't change what he did, it changes how we see it, and it changes

the ability of a person due to their being a minor, to fully understand and be culpable for their actions.


Do you have kids, by the way? We don't and shouldn't hold children, esp. under 16, and likely under 18, to the same standard as adults. It's ridiculous, and barbaric.

[Zynx]

232. How old are you?

[Hosnon]

119. "By definition"?

Perhaps legally; but I fail to see how being 8 "by definition" excludes the capacity to make certain choices or decision.

[mondo joe]

133. I thought we were discussing the legality of it.

And the legality isn't arbitrary - it is (or at least should be) based on reality.

An 8 year old doesn't have adult capacity to form consent.

[Hosnon]

154. Hmm...good point. Perhaps you were.

I admittedly jumped into the convo...

[mondo joe]

158. There are many conversations that could be had: the legality, the morality, etc.

There's also: what I think, what we know.

Sometimes it's useful to clarify the context.

[cabluedem]

142. 7 was always the age of understanding right and wrong. He was 8. He needs to be locked up. nt

[mondo joe]

151. According to the Catholic Church. Are you advocating a return to the Dark Ages?

?

[Art_from_Ark]

271. Apparently he wasn't a hunter by choice

Another article implied that his father forced him to "learn how to shoot a gun" because it was a sort of family tradition, and that the men would go out and shoot prairie dogs and other small critters.

[kiranon]

145. Nonsense. He's 8 years old. Level of harm done is a barbaric standard.

Would you charge a toddler with murder who picked up a handgun and fired it killing someone? A baby? Handcuffs on a baby? Jail for a baby? Life sentence for a toddler? I don't think you mean to say that. Level of harm done would mean that someone who accidentally kicked over something and started a fire and someone died would be tried for murder also. How about the astronaut who lost the bag of tools worth $100,000 plus damaged the mission? Should she be punished? The level of harm is great. There are all kinds of situations that happen when no harm was intended that result in horrendous harm. What you are stating is "strict liability" for this 8 year old. I have an 8 year old daughter who is developmentally delayed and has no idea what she is doing 95% of the time. If she accidentally does me in, she didn't mean it. She wouldn't understand that guns kill and people do not come back.

[slampoet]

217. Are they any less dead if they were abusers?

This is about an 8 year old not the victims.

[Bake]

277. Judge by the level of harm done ...

By that standard, a freak accident is just as culpable as a premeditated homicide. Suppose YOUR brakes fail on YOUR car and you kill a pedestrian. Should you get the same punishment as someone who kills "with malice aforethought?" The harm done is the same.

I didn't think so.

Bake

[hlthe2b]

3. Charged.. hell, there are some among us who would execute him..

as well as defend capitol punishment against the mentally retarded... No, I can not explain it.

[Cleita]

4. Because we are a country that needs to grow up.

We still think kids are our peer group.

[tigereye]

6. it's embarrassing, isn't it?

[Nevernose]

7. In most states, the cut-off for culpability is 7

If your kid steals something and she's six or seven, you can be held legally responsible. An eight year old is old enough, it is presumed, to know the basic difference between right and wrong. A normal eight year old knows that shooting someone can kill them, and that killing is wrong.

Lots of grown-ups, otherwise rational, believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus -- they just call him "Jesus," a person with the exact same credibility and proof of existence as Santa.

I'll agree, though, that discretion should have been used. We're not talking about a piece of stolen candy, after all. What I said earlier is just the legal justification, but that don't make it right.

[Withywindle]

14. SOMEONE needs to be held legally responsible.

If not the child, then the parents. I love the candy bar analogy - as it happens, I did shoplift a candy bar when I was about that age, and my mom went ballistic, knowing she could be held responsible. Not that she couldn't afford the 30 cents the candy bar cost, but that she didn't want to have to deal with a little criminal on her hands, and she desperately needed me to know that was wrong wrong wrong and I not only must never do it again, but I must go back to the shopkeeper and confess and make amends.

While radically different in scale, there's still that principle that SOMEONE must pay the debt to society that comes with any crime.

[Pithlet]

24. No there isn't. That principle most certainly does not exist.

We don't make criminally insane people pay for their crimes, for instance. Children aren't always held criminally responsible, either, nor are their parents depending on the circumstances. You are most certainly wrong.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. There is no such principle.

To conflate "being made to go back to the shop and apologise" with "being charged with murder" is just silly.

And the principle that someone must be punished for every tragedy is absurd.

[acmavm]

37. SOMEONE has to pay? Is that right? You sure are an 'eye for an eye'

type, aren't you?

[Lex]

70. *No* such principle exists.

nt

[mondo joe]

73. In your mind perhaps, but not in law. You're on a witch hunt. NT

[Celeborn Skywalker]

74. Why

does "someone need to be held responsible"?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

76. Why

does "someone need to be held responsible"?

[meow2u3]

91. In my state, the cut-off for legal culpability is 10

Kids under 10 cannot be charged with a crime in PA--that includes murder. This kid would be regarded as a "dependent child" subject to mandatory residential treatment.

According to Pennsylvania law, this is the definition of a delinquent child:
"Delinquent child." A child ten years of age or older whom the court has found to have committed a delinquent act and is in need of treatment, supervision or rehabilitation.

This is the legal definition of a dependent child:
Dependent child." A child who:

(1) is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. A determination that there is a lack of proper parental care or control may be based upon evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, including evidence of the parent's, guardian's or other custodian's use of alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk;

(2) has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law;

(3) has been abandoned by his parents, guardian, or other custodian;

(4) is without a parent, guardian, or legal custodian;

(5) while subject to compulsory school attendance is habitually and without justification truant from school;

(6) has committed a specific act or acts of habitual disobedience of the reasonable and lawful commands of his parent, guardian or other custodian and who is ungovernable and found to be in need of care, treatment or supervision;

(7) is under the age of ten years and has committed a delinquent act; (emphasis is mine)

(8) has been formerly adjudicated dependent, and is under the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its conditions or placements and who commits an act which is defined as ungovernable in paragraph (6);

(9) has been referred pursuant to section 6323 (relating to informal adjustment), and who commits an act which is defined as ungovernable in paragraph (6); or

(10) is born to a parent whose parental rights with regard to another child have been involuntarily terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (relating to grounds for involuntary termination) within three years immediately preceding the date of birth of the child and conduct of the parent poses a risk to the health, safety or welfare of the child.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/Default.aspx?cite=UUID%28N0FFD6A9034%2D3811DA8A989%2DF4EECDB8638%29&db=1000262&findtype=VQ&fn=%5Ftop&ifm=NotSet&rlt=CLID%5FFQRLT16375224112311&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&rs=WEBL8%2E11&service=Find&spa=PAC%2D1000&sr=TC&vr=2%2E0

[cabluedem]

150. He couls have called CPS. Back in my day threre was no CPS. No excuse to kill at all here. nt

[Zynx]

236. When I was 8, I had no idea such a thing existed.

[Zynx]

235. An eight year old is simply not capable of a well reasoned thought.

I never thought I would see such barbaric standards as what I see people writing here today. This is wrong.

[cabluedem]

255. The barbarians are the victim and his son. I never would have thought to kill anyone at 8. nt

[amitten]

8. He needs to be temporarily institutionalized for therapy.

When he is deemed mentally stable, he should be released.

Right now, he could still be dangerous. I remember when I was eight, and I remember that I knew and understood what killing and death were, as did all my peers. This boy, for reasons we do not understand, did what he did with purpose, and not because he "didn't understand" what he was doing.

This child needs a great deal of help.

[LatteLibertine]

12. Agree

That is not normal. Shooting your father and then shooting him again to make darn sure he is dead is "off".

BTW, I've met some fairly shrewd 8 year olds. Kids are getting more and more sophisticated earlier.

I don't agree with this child being charged. As you say he should be institutionalized and evaluated. He definitely should not be out and left to his own devices.

He may be a sociopath in the making. Some people never adapt inner dynamics like conscience and empathy. Some times they are biologicially out of whack and other times they simply aren't taught these things.

[Lex]

9. the same kind of country that executes mentally retarded people

nt

[deadmessengers]

10. The police screwed up in a BIG way here

They simply are not allowed to interrogate a child in the way that they did. A guardian or attorney MUST be present. This was police misconduct at pretty close to it's depth.

So, not only am I a bit surprised that they even filed murder charges against this poor kid, I've got some VERY grave concerns about whether he had anything to do with it in the first place. This kid's statement is irrevocably tainted now, though, so I think it's doubtful that we'll ever really know the truth.

[Suich]

16. Well said.

This whole thing stinks. I don't think the boy was abused or a psychopath. I hope they are looking at another possibility, unlike the Ramsey case, when they stayed focused on the parents, who have since been completely cleared.

:grr:

[Ex Lurker]

19. it should be pretty easy to rule him in or out

as a suspect, notwithstanding his problematic statement. If he fired the shots, he had powder residue on his hands. Presumably they tested for it. After that it goes to motive and possible extenuating circumstances, which is where this case will be fought out if it gets to court.

[deadmessengers]

21. I'm not going to presume anything except his innocence

Presumably they tested for it.

A competent investigator would have tested for powder residue, yes. However, these people were clearly otherwise, so that's pretty much a crapshoot.

[LisaL]

54. If the kid did what he is accused of, there should be physical

evidence. His "confession" isn't going to convict him by itself, if it ever were allowed as evidence.

[fed_up_mother]

11. He should be charged just like an adult, but punished & rehabilitated like a child

if guilty.

[dysfunctional press]

13. "He believes in the tooth fairy and santa clause. "

there are PLENTY of so-called "adults" out there who in believe in all measure of mythical omnipotent beings- so it's probably not a good thing to go by.

[mitchum]

65. A very good point (n/t)

[LisaL]

83. Yea, people believe in god, and I've seen no one arguing

it should point to their diminished capacity.

[girlblue]

15. A tough road for a little boy

I hope that we will eventually have a fair system in place to help children. Children aren't developed enough to really understand what they are doing, and yet there are predictive patterns. I think this child should have mental health support, and it should be mandatory. I think he should be monitored by the court. I don't see it as punishment. Assuming that his mother is fit parent and feels safe with her son, I think he should stay in the home. I think this boy is going to need coping mechanisms as well, because he now also has to grow up with out a father. I hope the violence stops with this event. I also hope that this little boy can return to school without being stigmatized. He's going to have a tough road. I hope for the best. Cynicism is so 20th century.

[Ex Lurker]

20. "I also hope that this little boy can return to school without being stigmatized"

I have to be honest and say that barring a complete exhoneration--either he didn't do it or it was self defense, etc--I would have a problem with this child being in class with my children. I don't think a standard classroom would be the appropriate place for him

[alarimer]

41. I don't think he belongs in public.

This is someone who clearly has something very wrong with him. Maybe he was abused by his father, who knows. I can't imagine a little kid doing this for any other reason. I am not sure something like this can be "fixed" to the point where he can be in society.

[mitchum]

64. I wouldn't want that KILLER around my kids

He may not be a "murderer", but it certainly appears that he is a indeed a killer

[ecstatic]

17. Normally I would agree, but THAT kid is a little Damien

in the making. :scared:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. People always say that.

He's eight years old. That's all there is to it.

[alphafemale]

31. Or Michael Myers.

I wonder how all those saying that this kid just needs hugs would feel about having him in their house overnight. Think they'd leave the sharp objects in reach? Think they'd allow him in the same room behind a closed door with their kid or even a pet?

Somehow I rather doubt it.

Sadly, sometimes callous murderers ARE born. I think this kid is dangerous as hell.

[mudesi]

35. Afraid of an eight year old child?

How sad.

And also unbelievably ignorant. People are not born murderers. :crazy:

[alphafemale]

38. They very well can be murderers. You'd allow him alone in a room with an animal or infant?

Really?

If so your judgment leaves much to be desired.

[alarimer]

45. I wouldn't.

There is either something very wrong with him or his dad abused him. Why else would he do it? As a hunter, he presumably has shot animals and knows what happens.

[alphafemale]

61. Indeed. It is really sad. But there is obviously something very broken in that kid.

The whole reloading with each shot and calling the second guy into the house is what chilled my blood.

[LisaL]

46. Or sure.

Police said the kid killed two people, but it'd be stupid to be afraid of him.
:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

108. You appear to confuse...

You appear to confuse prudence with fear...

[mondo joe]

140. Is your entire view of criminality and psychiatry based on horror movies?

?

[suzie]

274. Most of the people I've known who work in the juvenile justice system

would agree with you. There seems to be very small group of people who intent on harming others, even from a very early age.

On the other hand, kids who kill their parents have usually been abused something like 95% of the time.

Sometimes they're set up to do it by the other parent.

None of us have any way of knowing what this kid is like since we haven't sat in the courtroom where the testimony about him will be heard. News accounts are notoriously slanted/inaccurate about the details of such cases.

The difficulty with a kid like this is, "Where to put him?", "Who to find to treat him?"

The kid has taken the life of other human beings. If he doesn't understand that now, he will at some point in adolescence. A difficult thing to deal with in the midst of the normal adolescent.

The kid murderer is actually the easiest to deal with--eventually he'll get locked up permanently, especially with a juvenile record following him.

[silverojo]

18. The kind of country where an 8 year old shoots two people?

Don't get me wrong, how they interrogated him was terrible, and that's why they'll never be able to pursue this case. But you can't let someone get off scot free for murder just because of age. What is society supposed to do, give him milk and cookies, put him in time out, and say don't do it again?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Of course the law can, and should, let someone off for murder because of age.

He's eight years old, therefore the law shouldn't get involved. He'll already suffer far more than enough.

What society is supposed to do is pretty much exactly "give him milk and cookies, put him in time out, and say don't do it again", except with "counselling, therapy and support" rather than "milk and chocolates".

[bettyellen]

56. omogod the streets would be flooded with blood if 8 year olds could just kill anyone

good god, you have no clue.

[gollygee]

141. The law should get involved, with him charged as a juvenile

But it's insane to think an 8-year-old understands consequences the way an adult does.

What do you think should be done? Death by injection?

[mudesi]

36. YES

Some psychological counseling would be appropriate as well. Are you suggesting locking him up?

He is eight. EIGHT. That's grade 3, if I'm not mistaken.

[readmoreoften]

22. THE BEST DANG COUNTRY IN THE WURLD!!!!1111!!!!!

[melody]

29. *cough* ahem

>In Britain recent interest in child homicide followed the killing of 2 year old James Bulger by two boys aged 10. This case, which >occurred in 1993, aroused what amounted to a national panic, resulting not only in excessive sentences for the children concerned but >in more coercive juvenile justice legislation.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7278/61

It's a horrific thing that must be handled with rational compassion however it happens *everywhere*, not just here.

[Diclotican]

243. melody

melody

Yes, but as I recall it, it was shocking and horrible over the whole european continent when it happened.. And even that it is a long time since this happened, the now grown up murderers is living in fear of ever been discovered.. The case is that is an 120.000 pound bounty on their head.. Even that they have to the rest of their natural life live with the fact that they have killed a 2 year kid, James Bulger, and for the rest of their life have to be under some control by the public. They could not live where they want, or even travel where they want in britain, as in other parts of europe.. They do not even hold a passport..

When kid murders, something is, if I may say it deadly wrong with the country where it happened.. At many level, both the society and the country have not had the adequate control mechanism who could seen this happened.. A kid is never "born murderer" but as the age progress it must be more and more clear that some kids need more attention than others.. Maybe some counseling and so on, just to be on the safe side of hings... But if the neighborhood, or the family who are close to the kid in this case is bad, then the KID could BE a murderer.. And if this case is true, it is many other thing that we do not know about behind the murder than just the kid.. I smell a rotten fish here, and if not the prosecutor is just dead bang to prosecute this kid as an juvenile, and put him behind bars for the rest of the kids life, something will came out, and the kid get help, and not just a closed prison door..

The kid must have a great form of mental problems to do something like this.. As for all my problems in my childhood, I was in sessions from age 7 to age 15 because of things from my early childhood, I would never think about killing some one else.. Even that I do had a temper who could possible get me into more problem that I could manage.. I have been doing something very stupid when I was angry, twice I lost my temper all toghter and if it was not for the case that someone was getting me out of there I would have maimed or killed the other gay.. Thankfully it never happened, and I have some control over my temper.. But I know, and I fear my temper and what it can do... IF this kid is not totally corrupt behind repairs, if getting the need he need, be in the position to understand what he did.. And be horrible about it.. The kid Will never get a "Normal" life, not as an kid, not as an juvenile and not as an grown up.. The kid SHOULD be kept under control, and get medical help, Maybe even kept under colroll for the rest of his life in some form or another.. Not necessary in Prison, but maybe in some institution of sorts.. If it exist after Reagan closed most of them down in the early 1980s.. And a whole generation of mental sick people have to fend for them selfs on the mean street..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language.

[kskiska]

250. I read a book on this very interesting, difficult case

(snip)

In court, details of the backgrounds of Thompson and Venables were not admitted. Thompson was one of the youngest of seven boys. His mother, a lone parent, was an alcoholic. His father, who left home when Thompson was five, was a drinker who beat and sexually abused his wife and children. Despite his quiet and friendly manner, Thompson came from a home in which it was normal for the older children to attack the younger ones, and Thompson was invariably on the receiving end.

Venables' parents were also separated. His brother and sister had educational problems and attended special schools, while his mother suffered psychiatric problems. Following his parents' separation, Venables became isolated and an attention-seeker: at school, he banged his head on walls. No effort was made to find the cause of his distress.

(snip)

Thompson's father had abandoned his wife and children five years previously, one week before the family home was burned down. Ann Thompson was a heavy drinker who found it difficult to control her seven children. Notes obtained by author Blake Morrison from an NSPCC case conference on the family, described it as 'appalling'. The children 'bit, hammered, battered, {and} tortured each other'. Incidents in the report included Philip (the third child) threatening his older brother Ian with a knife. Ian asked to be taken into foster care, and when he was returned to his family, he attempted suicide with painkillers. Ann and Philip had also attempted suicide.

Venables' family was less chaotic; although his parents were separated, they lived near each other, and he lived at his father's house two days a week. Both his older brother and younger sister had learning disabilities severe enough to attend special schools for children too disabled to be taught in the main system. Venables was hyperactive, and had attempted to strangle a boy in a fight at school. The police had been called to Susan Venables's house in 1987, when she left her children (then 3, 5 and 7) alone in the house for three hours. Case notes from that incident describe Susan's 'severe depressive problem' and suicidal tendencies.

(snip)

No publication or vigilante action against Thompson or Venables has occurred. Despite this, Bulger's mother, Denise, told how in 2004 she received an anonymous tip-off that helped her locate Thompson. She said she saw him but was 'paralysed with hatred' and did not communicate with him.

more…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

[melody]

257. Believe whatever you need to believe

However, those who insist that their country/continent is superior to another by virtue of (fill-in-the-blank) are just as driven by petty nationalism as those in the US who trumpet "we're number one". The simple fact is ALL primates behave this way. It's part of the nature of our beast. The same elements will always be present in all primate cultures, including your own. They may express themselves differently but they are there. Europeans are every bit as human and flawed as Americans. There is no "first sin" that condemns Americans to subhuman status simply because someone wishes to believe that. Whatever flaw that is in our system is in your system. And perhaps, like Leonard Cohen said, that's how they light gets in. We have to stop this ludicrous finger-pointing at each other to determine the "big bad guy" and work together toward solutions.

And your English is excellent ... much better than my French/German/Russian.

[Divine Discontent]

32. murdering your dad for whatever reason (prob abuse) then calling in a family friend

and shooting him in the head shows a demented mind - he just needs to be put in an mental facility til he is deemed safe for human interaction to the best of the staff's belief. How said that he would think this was a good solution, but like many said, an 8 year old's mind is far different than a 16 year old, and much different than a 32 or 64 year olds! He will probably be a mess for a very long when he really realizes he murdered two people.

[Lex]

75. we don't know that happened

the "confession" isn't convincing

[girl gone mad]

204. They have other evidence.

the second man was talking on his cell phone with someone when he got called into the house by the boy.

[TexasObserver]

33. The answer is simple: not every police officer and prosecutor knows what the hell they're doing.

The police were terrible in this case. First they act like they're his mother, then his aunt, and finally, his principal. The police were pathetic.

The prosecutors probably overfiled, as is their practice, because they know they can always dismiss charges later. In this case, they also may have been trying to avoid looking "soft" on crime. Not saying that is true, just that they may have feared such a perception among their constituency.

[LisaL]

40. And WTF do you propose be done with kids that young, being

accused of violent crimes?

[PeaceNikki]

43. He needs help, not prison.

[LisaL]

47. Those are just empty words. How do you propose he be helped?

Without endangering the public, if he had done what he is accused of?

[PeaceNikki]

50. He's a fucking third-grader.

I am not tasked with creating a recovery plan for this child. But I do know that there is no way in HELL he ought be charged as an adult.

He's 8. And his life has to have been awfully fucked up for it to be where it is today.

[LisaL]

51. He was not charged as an adult.

[PeaceNikki]

53. Did you read the article linked in the OP?

[LisaL]

55. Did you? Now, where does it say he was charged as an adult?

[PeaceNikki]

Sure did

"St. Johns police Chief Roy Melnick has said he would push for the boy to be tried as an adult, though some analysts think even a juvenile court trial would be too much.


Also: http://www.bloggernews.net/118624
Prosecutors have charged the boy as an adult and he is scheduled to undergo psychological examinations to determine if he is competent to understand the gravity of his actions. In Arizona an eight year old can be tried as an adult, if it is shown he is competent to understand the charges against him, posses a basic understanding of court procedures and due process and is able to cooperate and assist his lawyers in his own defense.

[LisaL]

59. Push for it doesn't mean it had already happened.

[Chan790]

67. Logic is against them here.

You'll notice that nobody who says that he should be helped or should not be institutionalized has any argument how to help him or any proof that you can help him...they all come back to the appeal to pity that the kid is 8. It's a fallacy of burden of proof. It lies with them to prove that he can be helped before they can assert that he must be helped on account of his being 8 years old.

[mondo joe]

78. Whether he can be helped or not is not relevant to the matter of whether he can or should

be charged or not.

An 8 year old is a minor and thus does not function at adult capacity.

[LisaL]

82. Minors can and have been charged as adults.

You don't have to be an adult to be charged as an adult.
But that is beside the point. Plenty of posters here seem to be arguing he shouldn't be charged as a juvenile either.

[mondo joe]

85. Correct, they have.

I don't agree with that, but it has happened.

[Chan790]

94. I don't think he should be tried even, but...

I think he needs mental help. I view this as a mental-health issue as much or more than a criminal one.

I think he has to be assessed with finding that if he has the sorts of mental problems that cannot be fixed (that is, if he is a sociopath) he should be institutionalized until they can be fixed or for as long as he lives. Even if he is not and going to be fine some day, he's going to need the sort of long-term intensive psychiatric help that he cannot receive in outpatient to come to grips with what he did and the guilt that will hit him someday. On the unlikely chance that someone else committed these murders, he's still going to need a great deal of therapy. There is no responsible solution where you give him a chastisement and an ice cream cone and send him home with his mother.

It's sad to see, but it's foolishness to argue that he must be released because he was 8 when he committed his crime. I'm more concerned with why he committed it and his mental state...that, not his age, is what will tell us how to approach this case.

[mondo joe]

97. In general, I agree. I just think none of us can know enough about the specifics,

or have the legal/psychiatric background, to have specific recommendations.

[PeaceNikki]

98. I don't think anyone is arguing that he should be released.

And I agree with everything you said.

My only argument in this thread has been that first-degree murder, especially charging/trying him as an adult, is not the appropriate course of action. This is a kid. A little kid who has serious issues. The issues may be genetic, a result of abuse or both. In any case, he needs help.

[LisaL]

131. If you don't think anyone is arguing that he should be released,

you are not comprehending what it is you are reading on this thread.

[PeaceNikki]

135. Show me one post where someone is advocating his unconditional release.

G'head.

[LisaL]

138. So what do you think is going to happen if the child isn't charged

with anything? Hello?

[PeaceNikki]

153. Social services. Therapy.

Hello?

[LisaL]

157. Oh jeez.

You are claiming that no one on this thread is arguing the kid should be released, while you personally arguing that the kid should be released.
What is it with you? Lacking in reading comprehension? By the way "unconditionally" is something you have added on in after claiming no one is arguing the kid should be released. It's not in your post that I was responding to.

[PeaceNikki]

163. I never argued he should be released. Nobody did.

What is it with you? Lacking in reading comprehension?

[LisaL]

165. So, what is it you are arguing for?

Where exactly do you think the kid should be receiving all this "help," if he did what he is accused of doing?

[PeaceNikki]

169. I am arguing against charging him with premeditated murder.

That's what the OP was all about. And he needs help. Not "help".

[LisaL]

182. Arguing for him not be charged, is the same as arguing for

him being out and about, is it not?

[Pithlet]

223. He's a child

He's not an adult who can drive himself around, for god's sake. At any rate, treatment for such issues would assume inpatient treatment anyway. So, I think you'd be the only one making that assumption anyway.

[LisaL]

230. Treatment for such issues would assume inpatient treatment

anyway? Says who? What do you know?

[Pithlet]

240. Obviously more than you do.

You don't think children who have killed a human being aren't normally institutionalized at least for a time? Seriously? Okay, maybe that does account for your really odd viewpoint, then. Yes, normally what happens when children kill are indeed treated seriously. They aren't just tossed out on the streets. There aren't roving bands of 8 year killers who've been caught and released to kill again. It's true.

[LisaL]

242. There aren't roving bands of 8 year old killers because

cases of child killers are extremely rare. Almost unheard of, in fact.

[Pithlet]

244. Bingo! Exactly. Then why are you so adamant that he be charged?

It isn't a public safety issue. Not charging in such cases isn't going to lead to roving bands of 8 year old killers, is it? It's rare because when a child that age kills, it's because something is really, really wrong. It's not the cold blooded act of an adult killer. It isn't someone who rationally made the decision to kill. Exactly the point of those who are arguing charges shouldn't be brought. There you have it. These are cases where help is needed. NOT criminal charges. Because we're talking serious, serious mental, emotional and developmenal problems here, we aren't talking releasing right back on to the streets. Not normal kids. Anyone remotely close to such a situation is going to know that. It isn't going to happen. You're right that it so rarely happens. And I don't recall ever hearing a case where the child was simply released and nothing was done.

[LisaL]

252. What right do you have to hold someone in this country

without charges? Do tell. On what basis would you keep someone institutionalized, or not released on the street, if that someone was not charged with any crime?

[Pithlet]

269. People are institutionalized against their will all the time.

If they are a danger to themselves or others. What universe do you live in? No. The only way to keep people off the streets isn't to charge them with a crime. There is such a thing as mental hospitals in this thing here called the real world.

[LisaL]

272. Are you propose that people should be institutionalized

without a trial? The trial which should determine whether someone is not guilty or guilty?
How would anyone even know if the kid actually did it or not? Hello?
If there is any evidence, it would be evaluated at trial. You are seriously suggesting someone should just be institutionalized without any trial at all, and that's a better idea?

[FedUpWithIt All]

102. I know someone who killed a family member. She was a couple years older than this boy.

The person is a lovely, gentle, productive adult now. She is haunted by what happened.

She was given time, care and therapy.

[mudesi]

195. You're confusing logic with fact

It is a scientific fact that an 8 year old child does not have the same mental development as an adult. You can continue to bask in your own ignorance, or you can accept reality.

[NutmegYankee]

42. It's an ongoing trend.

First it was 14 years-old, then 12, and now 8. People refuse to treat children as children.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. Whatever happens, I hope he gets a VERY thorough evaluation

If he is a sociopath, then the chances are he's already learned how to be manipulative and to mimic contrition and empathy. A really good professional should be able to recognize that but, unfortunately, even therapists can be bamboozled.

[Chan790]

69. Then what?

It seems the vast majority of people would insist he not be institutionalized for life even if he is a remorseless killer and a sociopath.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

95. Don't ask me. That's above my paygrade. nt

[malaise]

52. I'm betting that it turns out that he didn't kill

either of them. The moronic police would better spend time finding out who killed them.

[LisaL]

58. I am not betting on it.

The NYT reported the renter's wife was on the phone with the renter (apparently just before the renter was shot). It also appears the father was shot as the renter was on the phone with his wife. And according to NYT, the renter told his wife he had to go because the boy was calling him.

[Lex]

72. The so-called "confession" sure didn't convnce me

because it sounded exactly like a confused and traumatized child making up a story to please an adult in charge.

Is there other forensic evidence that corroborates the child's story?

[LisaL]

80. There has been no information on the forensic evidence police

has or doesn't have.

[FedUpWithIt All]

105. lizzy do you really think that they wouldn't have clarified by now if they had convincing evidence?

I mean they are letting the boy go home for Thanksgiving.

[bettyellen]

114. there are rules about what can be released + forensics falls under gag order.

[LisaL]

130. Why yes I do. They are under gag order.

[alphafemale]

62. Awww...just look. Couldn't possibly harm a soul.

[FedUpWithIt All]

104. Are you kidding me? You DO realize that the "Bad Seed" is FICTION written by an adult?

:eyes:

[alphafemale]

120. Yep. An ADULT. Who'd seen that the world is not always full of happiness.

And that all things can not be solved if only there was more love and hugging.

Much as we'd like it to be...

That just isn't so.

[mondo joe]

139. Let's try not to make legal or psychiatric determinations based on fictional works

of entertainment, please.

[alphafemale]

184. Ok then. He's in need only of hugs...and is staying at your house tonight.

How's that?

[Crunchy Frog]

214. Yes, because there's no middle point between two extremes.

[mondo joe]

248. Since I never said or suggested such a thing, I can't think why you'd say that to me.

If all you can think of is fiction or fictionalizing the opinions of others, it doesn't bode well for your ability to discuss a serious matter.

[cali]

63. Fair to ask what kind of a state, but this hardly reflects the entire country

That would never happen in my state or in fact in any state in New England.

[FedUpWithIt All]

100. One has to assume that they did not find convincing evidence

to keep with a prosecution of this very young boy. If they had found evidence that he had fired a gun at the two men i do not think the judge would let the boy attend Thanksgiving with his mother.

I think it is disgusting that many here have already decided the boy is definitively guilty and have condemned him. This is not entertainment. It is not some movie. It is a child's life. A child who has not been provided any of the protections that ANY/ALL the adults here would demand for themselves. A child who may have done nothing wrong but stumble upon his dying father. We do not know and THAT is why he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[bettyellen]

112. if they had a negative on gun residue, the kid would be free. forever. period. no charges at all.

that's why the cops are certain it;s the kid- not the confession.

they are dropping the dad because the case will get messy - he can claim abuse, etc. the other case is much more clean cut. there's witnesses hearing the child calll that man w/ intent to kill. pretty simple to see why they'd choose to prosecute this way.

[alphafemale]

183. Since the guy was on the phone at the time he probably mentioned something.

In fact, I'd imagine that is what broke the case for them. The second guy was still on the phone when he was shot and called out the kids name.

[LisaL]

192. Police probably wouldn't have suspected the kid at all, if

the second guy was not on the phone with his wife prior to his murder. The renter's wife apparently is the one who had told police to question the boy regarding what he knows.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-arizona-boy-killer23-2008nov23,0,243779.story

[bettyellen]

212. i heard the kid called that guys name lured him inside to be shot- and that's what f'd up his story

that he would be callling this guys name when A) his car would have been outside at the time-so he knew he'd be there and B) he was pretty much just inside the front door so why would he be loking fo rhim.
i believe this is the pre meditated part. and the part that really tripped him up w/ the cops.

[alphafemale]

233. The guy was talking to his wife on the phone. She heard what happened.

As I understand it, THAT is how the cops figured it out.

[LisaL]

136. I don't think I have to assume anything of the sort.

They dropped the charge on the father, not the charge on the second victim. So I don't have to assume they have no physical evidence, because then they would likely have to drop all the charges, because that confession isn't likely to be worth anything at all.

[gollygee]

143. It's possible they aren't talking about evidence

because the more that is in the news, the harder time they'll have finding a jury.

I have no assumptions at this point. I don't assume he's guilty, but I don't assume he isn't either. I'd have to sit in the trial, or read more about it.

[BlooInBloo]

147. No matter what he did, or how much of a "rationale" he left behind, an 8 year old is not an adult.

End of story.

[Pithlet]

226. You'd think it was so simple.

But there's no level of fucked up, twisted thinking that leads to fucked up, twisted opinions that surprises me any more. A few years ago I would have thought that "Charge an 8 year old with murder" would have been a fringe troll opinion on DU. Not anymore.

[gravity]

161. What do you expect the kid to be charged with?

An 8 year old kid probably understands what murder is and that is wrong. They aren't totally clueless by that age.

I am more concerned about what happens to the child if he gets convicted of something. He shouldn't be treated like a full grown criminal, but something needs to be done about it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

185. Because the 8-year-old is a fucking murderer

Kids that age know what killing something means. This kid certainly did.

Some animals are just plain wired wrong. The includes people. If a dog is wired wrong, you kill the dog. If a person is wired wrong, they should be jailed or institutionalized for life.

[alphafemale]

194. Sad but true.

The kid's fucked up. Period.

So what that he's 8? How many more people would have to die before we lock him up?

Some people here are really naive.

[WildEyedLiberal]

197. Yep - some people are just born evil

Psychiatrists call them "sociopaths." I am reminded of this awful case from the UK about 15 years ago, in which two ten-year-olds coaxed a toddler away from his mom at a mall, took him out by a railroad track, and proceeded to beat and torture him until tying him to the tracks where he was killed. I don't give a rat's ass if they were ten - it takes an evil, sick, diseased mind to come up with something that horrendous. But because they were OMGZ TEH CHILDREN, they were put in juvie, had their names changed, and were released at age 18. I imagine it's only a matter of time before those sick urges take over again.

I have no idea if this particular kid is a sociopath or not, but he damn sure ought to be subject to lots of evaluation, and if he is one, then yes - he shouldn't see freedom ever again. He's already proved at age eight that he's capable of mutliple homicide.

[mudesi]

200. You are completely ignorant of what sociopathy is

Educate yourself.

People are not "born evil".

[WildEyedLiberal]

203. You're completely ignorant about most everything in this thread

And you overuse the word "ignorant."

"Inconceivable!"
"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

[ismnotwasm]

187. Oh God

That is so horrible. I watched the interview, looked at pictures, and I'm no expert, but I have to agree, why murder charges? Why? And then it's even more horrible when the child says "he was already shot" indicating, what? A second shooter? And the police gently tell him all the bullets came from the same gun. They are try to indicate that the child was angry for being punished and simply shot two people to death.

This child needs intensive help. I feel for the victims families, but to even consider a murder charge, and then trying him as an adult?

I'm literally sick, what in God's name is this going to accomplish? If the victims families think revenge disguised as justice will relieve their suffering, they are sadly, so sadly mistaken.

[LisaL]

189. Who are you to think you know better than the family of the victim?

[gollygee]

199. Families of victims don't get to decide what happens to people charged with crimes

and with good reason. It would be a revenge fest.

[LisaL]

206. Not exactly true. While they don't get to decide, prosecution

can and does ask for their wishes plenty of times.

[gollygee]

222. They don't get to decide but they can make a statement

But it is exactly true that they don't get to decide the fate. Even the prosecution doesn't get to decide the fate. A jury or a judge does.

[LisaL]

227. Prosecution can ask victim's family on whether to agree with a

plea deal, or ask for a death penalty (not in this case, obviously, but in general), etc.

[WildEyedLiberal]

193. What I find beyond irritating is the number of starry-eyed idealists who romanticize children

Obviously most of the people posting here are a) middled-aged and/or b) parents of small children. Either way, their lack of recollection of their own childhoods and/or their skewed perspective of parenting children has caused them to romanticize and idealize childhood in an unhealthy way. The vast majority of posters in this thread seem to think that eight year olds are incapable of understanding damn near anything, especially in regards to morality; that they are invariably innocent wide-eyed naifs who are incapable of guile, meanness, or deception.

These people obviously do not remembering BEING a child, and are obviously incapable of viewing their own child and his/her peers with anything resembling objectivity. We are NOT talking about a toddler here. We are talking about an 8 year old. To suggest that eight year olds "don't really know what death is" or aren't capable of harming someone else deliberately, or are incapable of coming up with even the most rudimentary foresight or planning is incredibly naive and foolish. Eight year olds damn well DO know the difference between good and evil - or "right" and "wrong", as it's more often phrased at that age. They ARE old enough to understand that actions have consequences. And they can and often do engage in deceptions, and form plans, to manipulate other people - those people claiming to have children and yet who act as if this behavior doesn't exist have obviously not been paying attention to their kids.

Since we don't know why this kid decided to shoot his father and the father's friend, it's impossible to speculate on his motive. Maybe he was abused and decided to stop it once and for all. Maybe he wasn't, and something more sinister is at hand here. But EITHER WAY, he knew what he was doing. He knew that firing a gun at a person would kill them. He knew that if you killed someone, they're dead, forever, and will never come back. A toddler wouldn't understand such things, but an eight year old damn sure does. Whatever his motivations, he knew he was inflicting death. And the blind idealists here screeching that THE INNOCENT CHILD just CANNOT UNDERSTAND such big adult things as "death" or even "hurting other people" are not doing this debate any favors.

[gollygee]

196. Psychologists agree that young children don't understand the permanence of death

It's been studied by professionals.

[WildEyedLiberal]

201. Eight year olds?

Of course infants and toddlers don't understand the permanance of death. I said that in my post. That's why little kids at funerals ask when "grandma" is coming back. "Little kids" as in five years old or under. I have never seen or heard of an EIGHT YEAR OLD that thinks grandma is gonna come home again after she dies. Just because you and other DUers want to developmentally retard 8 year olds and pretend that they have the same mental capacity as toddlers and preschoolers doesn't make it so.

[Pithlet]

220. Yes. Eight year olds.

But I guess you think you know so much more than everyone else.

[WildEyedLiberal]

249. So eight year olds don't know what death means?

If you can find me ONE mentally, psychologically, and emotionally normal eight year old who has no clue that death isn't permanent and really believes that people can come back after dying, then be sure to let me know, so I can eat my words.

I guess I "know more" than you if you insist on thinking that there is no mental or psychological maturity gained from age 4 to age 8.

[mondo joe]

251. 8 year olds may well know what death is. That, IMO, is not the issue.

An 8 year old does not have adult capacity to appreciate significant or long term consequences.

That is why an 8 year old cannot legally consent to a binding contract, or sex, to name 2 examples.

[Pithlet]

268. Exactly. 8 year olds aren't adults.

I'm not sure why some are having a hard time with that concept.

[gollygee]

221. Why don't you google a little bit or something

before you spout off like you're an expert.

[WildEyedLiberal]

247. I never said I was an expert, but I highly doubt anyone on DU is an expert

Including you.

If you want to believe that 8 year olds have no idea what death really is, I'm sure you can find some spotty "expert" to back you up. There's a lot of BS in the field of child psychology, and always has been. Meanwhile, anyone who actually honestly knows any eight year olds, or who can actually remember BEING an eight year old, knows this is a load of bullshit.

[Pithlet]

270. Regardless

It doesn't take being an expert to know that the opinion that charging 8 year olds with murder is the right thing to do is a draconian opinion normally reserved for the right wing loonies at Free Republic. It's the kind of opinion my Rush Limbaugh loving dad would have. It's nuts in other words. Rational people know that children and adults aren't the same. It doesn't take experts to know that. It has nothing to do with whether children know what death means and at what age. It has everything to do with the fact that children that young killing means that something is very, very wrong. It isn't the same as an adult committing cold blooded murder. Killing at that age is extremely rare for a reason. It isn't right to charge them with murder. It is right to get them the help they need.

[suzie]

276. Most of us were 8 year olds. Most of us were not sociopaths.

Very often, we haven't dealt directly with the 8 year olds who are.

They are scary and they do exist.

[mudesi]

198. You are unbelievably ignorant

Children don't have the same mental development that adults do. There is a vast difference between a child's understanding of right and wrong with that of an adult. Of course a child can know something is wrong, of course a child can lie, can plan, can deliberately harm someone else. That's not the point. A child does not have the same brain as an adult.

[WildEyedLiberal]

202. Except I didn't say they "had the same mental development as adults", did I?

So who's the ignorant one here, buddy? Ignorant and incapable of basic reading comprehension. That's unfortunate.

The fact that children CAN lie, make plans, and deliberatly harm others is EXACTLY the point, because that's what this kid DID. But keep on arguining against your straw man, dumbass.

[Bluebear]

209. Says the guy who spells it "Santa Clause"

Just sayin'. :hi:

[LisaL]

229. This kid had the whole story flat, how he came in, saw dead

renter, saw white car speeding away, saw his dead father, might have touched the blood, and cried for 30 minutes. There were a lot of details there. Yet the dead renter's wife was on the phone with the renter, and she (according to published reports) says the boy called the renter and said something was wrong. So, if the renter's wife story is true, that story the kid initially told appears to be not true. Why would the kid tell this story if he doesn't know right from wrong? And if renter's wife didn't tell the police about that phone conversation, I bet the police would be out there looking for that white car.

[Divine Discontent]

211. and despite many agreements to what you wrote -

as an 8 year old, I barely remember ANYTHING, and that wasn't so long ago. I remember reading a book, and the way our home looked we lived in, and 3 or 4 major events that year, but to say this kid really understands what it means to murder your father and his friend - that's up for major debate... I think he's mental, obviously, but to say he's a stone cold murderer that knew what he was doing - may be a bit of a stretch at that age. 10, probably, but 8... I don't think so.


Many different Yes We Did items in the Obama/Biden section www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Crunchy Frog]

213. I place responsibility for the deaths firmly on the shoulders of...

whichever adult owned the firearms and irresponsibly allowed them to fall into the hands of a deeply disturbed 8 year old. If that was the father, then I have to say that his death was coming to him.

I thought all the gun rights people acknowledged that responibilities go along with rights.

[LisaL]

239. He taught the kid how to hunt.

And I've yet to see any indication anyone believed the kid was deeply disturbed. According to published reports,the kid has not been in trouble before. There were no reports with CPS.

[Crunchy Frog]

241. When adults own guns, they have a responsibility

to keep them out of the hands of young children except in circumstances of extremely close supervision and control. No 8 year old should ever be presumed to be responsible enough to be left with unsupervised access. And kids can be deeply disturbed, even if there haven't been any incidents reported to CPS. If the kid really did this, I absolutely refuse to believe there were no signs of any sort of problem. Adults can be very self-decieving when it comes to children, but there was still a massive abdication of responsibility.

[JohnnieGordon]

258. Maybe that's how he learned to devalue life as well

If he'd taught the kid to make veggie burgers instead, he'd still be alive.

In seriousness though, he certainly shouldn't have taught a child so young how to operate a gun. I also think it's too young to teach a child to kill, especially if he was one of those fathers who would've mocked the child as a sissy if he had refused. The father sounds like an irresponsible, redneck asshole.

[LisaL]

259. Had he been irresponsible, I doubt he'd end up raising the kid.

Neighbors say he was very involved with his kid. While I am against it, many people do teach their kids to hunt at a young age.

[JohnnieGordon]

260. Many people do all sorts of stupid things...

Vote Republican for instance, I'll bet that's another in a long list of stupid things daddy did.

[Crunchy Frog]

266. Had he been responsible, I bet he'd still be alive.

[20score]

273. Wow, there are actually people sick, stupid and twisted enough to want

to charge an 8 year old as an adult! God, I wish assholes like that couldn't vote.
There are intermediate steps you know.

[librechik]

275. Didn't this happen in that crazy Sheriff Arpaio district?

Some police orgs go overboard trying to make their useless selves look like they are busy and important.
Better to shout and wave fingers than do any quiet methodical investigation .