Headlines Should children be tried as adults for the worst crimes?

[Jason]

Billy Junior (age 10) just killed his sister because she stole his He-Man "Teela" action figure. Do you think Billy should go to jail without possibility of parole? Be executed? Be highly drugged? Run for congress?

On most occasions, children are tried in juvenile court but under certain circumstances where it is deemed that the crime is more horrific it may be ruled that little Billy should be tried as an adult...

What say you?

 

[YUCK FOU!!!]

well its happened before do you remember those two nine yr olds who lured a toddler away from his mother and tied him to the traintracks? guess what happened? the wee tried as adults and were only let out of prison like a year ago (they've had their name changed and now live in australia) their like 18 but if he's ten he should be trialed as an adult imean stuff like that is stupid oh and how did e kill her?

 

[neckdemon]

i think it depends and it should be determined by the jurors. every case is different.

 

[Jason]

This was only a hypothetical example (though if someone stole my old action figures I'd toast them!).

neckdemon: You can do better than that.. Regardless of what a 10 year old did, and how he did it, you do believe then there are circumstances that warrant the kid going to prison until old age or executing him?

 

[SCOT THE GREAT]

If you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time...or be exectued, whichever comes first.

 

[teh anarchist]

yeah .. do the crime do the time - but not as an adult. Most kids aren't educated enough to realize the consequences of their actions and therefore shouldn't be tried as adults. There may be special cases, premeditated murders for example, in which if the kid is competent enough to do something truly horriffic, then they should get the competent, adult trial.

 

[stoj]

"Most kids aren't educated enough to realize the consequences of their actions"

bs

 

[SCOT THE GREAT]

yeah .. do the crime do the time - but not as an adult. Most kids aren't educated enough to realize the consequences of their actions and therefore shouldn't be tried as adults. There may be special cases, premeditated murders for example, in which if the kid is competent enough to do something truly horriffic, then they should get the competent, adult trial.

Fuck that, dude! If they are smart enough to kill someone, they obviously know what the fuck they are doing.

 

[teh anarchist]

You're sayin a 6 year old kid is smart enough to realize what the fuck they're doing? Have a kid of your own or find some nephew and see if your opinion changes...

 

[SCOT THE GREAT]

You're sayin a 6 year old kid is smart enough to realize what the fuck they're doing? Have a kid of your own or find some nephew and see if your opinion changes...

So what you're saying is that every 6 year is an innocent cold blooded killer...

 

[YUCK FOU!!!]

This was only a hypothetical example (though if someone stole my old action figures I'd toast them!).

neckdemon: You can do better than that.. Regardless of what a 10 year old did, and how he did it, you do believe then there are circumstances that warrant the kid going to prison until old age or executing him?

gotta love that pic

 

[magnolia]

If you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time...or be exectued, whichever comes first.

I agree. Nobody is above the law, especially not children.

 

[stoj]

Jesus, if you don't make children take responsibilty for their actions then children they will remain.

 

[Jason]

One issue to be addressed is that if a kid is taught "don't do that, you will go to prison for the rest of your life and you can even die!" he/she is likely not to know what the hell any of that is.. When they go and hurt someone else, or kill them they can't imagine how life could be ANY different than what they were living with before the action and are likely not to understand at 6 what they would as a teenager +.. Not really an easy solution...

 

[magnolia]

no, but I don't feel that they should get a pat on the butt and sent to bed without dinner either.

 

[Chris]

OK, the fucker is ten years old....I agree that he should be punished, not as harshly as adults, but more than "a pat on the but, and bed without dinner", I think they should give him "the time", but nt as long as an adult would...like a year or two, that is enough for someone that old, he would be scared half way to death (twice, hehe) which is what they wish to obtain, like "if you do ANYTHING abd again, you're going back, and you're gonna stay even longer"...now he's maybe nit gonna understand what the fuck he is/was doing, ubt he'll understand that he gets a very rough punishment, and so doesn't wanna do it anymore...

 

[Jason]

Yeah I generally agree with what you said above... No way in fuck he should be let off "without dinner", 2 years is a little low on my justice scale though. If a kid does something pretty nasty at a young age, we're certainly not going to shape him out of his violent tendencies by giving him life in prison.. Though of course, if we kill the little fuckers we won't have to worry about how he grows up and we can save some tax money and go bowling! Damnit, now I'm all confused!

 

[Chris]

IN other words, you agree with me, but you think two years isn't enough...? For the love of Satan, the kid is only ten,he only needs to be scared half way to death the first time, so that he understands that if he does anything like it again, he be scared the remaining half way...

 

[neckdemon]

neckdemon: You can do better than that.. Regardless of what a 10 year old did, and how he did it, you do believe then there are circumstances that warrant the kid going to prison until old age or executing him?

ok. at ten, yes i do believe that there would be circumstances warranting him to be treated as an adult. does that necessarily mean he is to be executed, no. like i said it depends on the case. was it a premeditated thought out execution. or was it two young children fist fighting and one is tragically killed? it all depends. it would also depend on the age of the kids we're talking about. if the kid is 6, well, if i was the juror, i'd have a hard time justifyng sending them to jail for life, mostly because most of the things you do at 6 you can't even remember as an adult. plus is there any pattern of aggressive behavior? mental illness? it's one of those things where you'd have to sit through the trial, hear all the testimony, and then decide. only problem with that is the 5th amendment, which i believe should be waived in certain cases where testimony from the defendent is pivotal.

 

[Skorch]

no, but if a kid hits someone with a rock, they may not realize that what they are doing could permanently damage or end someone's life. It may not be a concept that they grasp yet. Now, at what age does this concept become clear? I'm not sure, with every child it's different. In my case, I was fully acquanted with the concept of death for as far back as I can remember, but some kids are a bit more sheltered. I think all premeditated cases are probably worthy of stricter punishment, but I'm also not sure if sending a child to federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison is going to provide the healthiest experience for rehabilitation either. But then again, I don't know exactly what they do with kids found guilty in adult court, do they send them to the same prison facilities? Maybe someone can clue me in on that, it's been a while since I watched any Law and Order eps with child murder cases