Check out some similar questions!

excon · Nov 13, 2008, 08:33 AM

Hello:

An 8 year old boy just killed is dad and another guy in Arizona.

Should he be tried as an adult? Do you think a child of 8 can understand the ramifications of his actions?? If you do, why shouldn't children vote? Do you think the yes's and no's will break down along partisan lines?

If you think he should be tried as an adult, because murder is an "adult" crime, please tell me what a "juvenile" crime is. If you come up with any, should everybody charged with "juvenile" crimes be tried in juvenile court? How would you determine what crime is "adult", and what crime isn't?

I really want to know.

excon

NowWhat · Nov 13, 2008, 08:53 AM

I do not think he should be tried as an adult. If he is - does he go to the adult prison? I can't even imagine that. He definitely needs/deserves a harsh punishment - but not to be tried as an adult. He's 8!
I don't think he could understand fully what he has done. Take a look at society and what is available to children. There are video games out there that are exteremely violent, but each time you kill someone in the game - they are alive and well the next time you play.

I think the juvenile system shouldn't be set up for "juvenile crimes" but for those that are juveniles. Children.
Now, if you have a 16 year old doing what this boy did - I may feel differently, because I think a 16 year old is able to understand exactly what he did.

You have to wonder - if this boy spends the next 10 or so years in a juvenile prison - what is he going to come out as? Is he lost forever? Is he going to end up in the adult system eventually?

speechlesstx · Nov 13, 2008, 10:53 AM

No, of course not. I can hardly believe the authorities there are trying, I mean what idiot would want to try an 8-year-old as an adult? Do you really think the vote might come down on partisan lines?

excon · Nov 13, 2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I mean what idiot would want to try an 8-year-old as an adult? Do you really think the vote might come down on partisan lines?

Hello Steve:

Uhhh, the idiots they HAVE in Arizona, like Sheriff Arpio, who makes his inmates wear pink underwear and eat green baloney, while they're sweating their butts off in their tents, OUTSIDE, in the 120 degree Sonora Desert. People like that.

Partisan lines?? Sure. Who, but a bleeding heart would try to save a killer?? Seeee? I knew you was a closet liberal.

excon

classyT · Nov 13, 2008, 11:09 AM

Exy,

LOL speech a closet liberal.. lol lol lol. That is FUNNY!

I think it is horrible to even THINK of charging the 8 year old boy as an adult. My heart goes out to this boy and his family. I HAVE boys.. I adore boys... this whole thing makes me ill. Something went very wrong here... but trying the CHILD as an adult is so inappropriate. He needs help. Not jail. Not even juvenile prison. He is a so little.. he will be lost forever. The whole thing breaks by heart... (yes, I have one) :)

speechlesstx · Nov 13, 2008, 11:22 AM

A closet liberal, LOL. Hardly, but I do have at least a shred of common sense and decency. I think it's more you guys don't want to give us credit for having any.

tomder55 · Nov 13, 2008, 11:28 AM

I'd say there is a 90% chance the boy was abused. Either that or a fuse blew .

excon · Nov 13, 2008, 11:41 AM

Hello again, closeted libs:

So, tell me then. If an 8 year old is too young, at WHAT age should a child be charged as an adult? DOES it have to do with his AGE, or his CRIME?

Come on. You can engage me. I'm friendly.

excon

PS> And, I haven't heard you chime in with an opinion, tom, except to state the obvious.

excon · Nov 13, 2008, 11:47 AM

Hello again:

Ok, I won't keep you in suspense. We used to put people under 18 into the juvenile system, because we believed that children didn't have the capacity to understand the ramifications of their acts. It had nothing to do with the crime. It had everything to do with their age. It worked fine.

Then, sometime around the early 70's, when CRIME became an issue, and SOFT on crime became an anathema, we began charging children as adults... In my view, it was done strictly for political purposes.

It's time we ALL became the bleeding heart liberals that we once were.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 13, 2008, 11:55 AM

I knew where you were going with this line of questions.

No I don't think a 17 year old gangbanger should be tried in juvenile court.
No ;I don't think an 8 year old is capable of making adult decisions.

No ,I don't think that because a gangbanger can make adult decisions regarding the taking of a life and should be held accountable as an adult for murder ,that he is by extension adult in other aspects of his life .

As far as an exact year of deliniation ,I'm willing to go with what society has established

speechlesstx · Nov 13, 2008, 12:02 PM

I think it has more to do with circumstances. I bet you know what I mean.

excon · Nov 13, 2008, 12:14 PM

Hello again, Steve:

I think I do, but why don't you want to spell it out? I suspect you mean that if the crime was particularly brutal, THEN you could really slam the kid... What if it turns out that THIS 8 year old was particularly brutal in THIS killing.

You also refused to state an age limit. Or you'd rather make those judgments on a case by case basis... Come on, Steve. You can tell me.

excon

startover22 · Nov 13, 2008, 08:18 PM

I am sitting here thinking of my 7 year old boy. I can't imagine holding him accountable for something like this in an adult prison...
I think of my 11 year old daughter, I can see she has a mind and has the wrong and right factor, I would ALMOST be able to see her closer to getting tried as an adult.
My oldest boy is 14 and holy crap yes, they know what the heck is going on. BUT that isn't to say he needs to be in a jail with older inmates, teaching him the ropes and learning things he just SHOULDN'T know at that age.
As far as your case by case, I say yes, all kids are different, there are terrible different reasons or no good reasons at all why kids do these sorts of things. A case by case basis sounds about right if you ask me. I know all of my kids have been at different levels at the same ages so a straight up law just doesn't make sense at this point.
I also agree that there should be separate institutions where these kids can be handled in a positive manner towards getting the help they need to come out of whatever it is they are in.
Liberal or whatever, none of us want to see a kid or a family go through this and they deserve the help they need. It saddens me to know of it at all to tell you the truth.

rankrank55 · Nov 13, 2008, 08:31 PM

Nope... it's simple! According to child psychology studies... his brain is not fully developed by no means. Therefore he doesn't have the brain capacity to think like an adult.

inthebox · Nov 13, 2008, 11:17 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/13child.html?em

A Phoenix defense lawyer, Karyn Klausner, who is a former municipal judge, said that for the boy to be tried as an adult, the tests must show that he is competent to understand the charges against him, has a basic understanding of the court process and is able to assist in his defense. In addition, prosecutors must prove that he cannot be rehabilitated by the time he turns 18 and leaves the juvenile justice system.

NO, because of the above quoted conditions.

What does partisanship have to do with this?

It is tragic. In my opinion, I suspect the boy was being abused.

spyderglass · Nov 13, 2008, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, closeted libs:

So, tell me then. If an 8 year old is too young, at WHAT age should a child be charged as an adult? DOES it have to do with his AGE, or his CRIME?

Come on. You can engage me. I'm friendly.

excon

PS> And, I haven't heard you chime in with an opinion, tom, except to state the obvious.

I don't see it being as simple as age and crime. There are all shades of gray in between that should determine whether they should be tried as adult.

excon · Nov 14, 2008, 06:13 AM

Hello spy:

I disagree. When you leave it to a prosecutor, he's running for governor, so he'd charge a 3 year old if he thought it could get him elected.

excon

speechlesstx · Nov 14, 2008, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I think I do, but why don't you want to spell it out? I suspect you mean that if the crime was particularly brutal, THEN you could really slam the kid.... What if it turns out that THIS 8 year old was particularly brutal in THIS killing.

You also refused to state an age limit. Or you'd rather make those judgments on a case by case basis... Come on, Steve. You can tell me.

excon

I guess I was wrong that you would know what I mean. Circumstances like the development of the child. No way, no how would an 8-year-old have the comprehension levels of an adult. I don't think you can put some magic age figure on it so I think you have to judge on a case by case basis, but certainly not 8-year-olds. Times have changed, ex, isn't that what you keep telling us about drugs and gay marriage? I think we probably have a lot more youth running around with guns, gang banging, forced to be the adult in the family, etc. now than 25 years ago, don't you?

spyderglass · Nov 15, 2008, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello spy:

I disagree. When you leave it to a prosecutor, he's running for governor, so he'd charge a 3 year old if he thought it could get him elected.

excon

I was talking as if the prosecuter was a sensible person.
Maybe he's a robot...

asking · Nov 15, 2008, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd say there is a 90% chance the boy was abused.

That was my first thought too.
I don't think an 8 year old should be tried as an adult.

I'm an "out" liberal. :)