» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Children Who Kill

Written By: southernspitfire on 04/16/03 at 11:49 p.m.

Ok, here is yall a new fight.....I want some opinions about what to do with children that commit murder.....should they be tried as children or adults?  And what is that fine line between the two??

Here is your topic.....run with it!

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: 80sRocked on 04/17/03 at 02:01 a.m.

Quoting:
Ok, here is yall a new fight.....I want some opinions about what to do with children that commit murder.....should they be tried as children or adults?  And what is that fine line between the two??

Here is your topic.....run with it!
End Quote



oh boy, its a hard topic.

I think if they can commit such a severe crime as murder, they deserve an adult-sized punishemnt.  After all, we're not talking about stealing a pack of gum from the 7/11, we're talking taking someone's life at will.

Therefore, YES, kids who murder should be tried as adults.

I am reminded of the 2 young brothers in FL(I think) a couple years ago that beat their dad's head in with a baseball bat then burnt the house down.  I think they were something like 10 and 12 yrs old(I could be wrong, but it was close to that).  And the defense tried to convince the judge they were too young to know better. ::)  Give me a break.  I knew it was wrong to beat my dad's head in with a bat at age 2!

Now, don't get me wrong, while I think they should be locked up for a long long long long long time, I am not adverse to them getting some intense therapy while they are still young during their prison time.  At least maybe that might sort out some of the reasons for the murder and possibly prevent it from happenein again when/if they are released from prison.

but YES, children who kill should be tried as adults.  

Murder is murder, whether you are 10 yrs old or 100 yrs old, its still murder.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 04/17/03 at 02:10 a.m.

Well....

It is a hard one, but I believe that the concept of a child not being responsible for their actions before the age of X or XX (whatever it is where you live) needs to be looked at.

In reality kids are overall much more savvy than they used to be.  As a parent is it hard enough trying to give them a decent upbringing when there so many more things these days to lead them astray.

And dig it, that statement is based on my experiences as a child, I comapre my situation to my kids and I KNOW just how many more temptations there are these days, peer pressure may not be any stronger than it was in my day but the stakes have been raised in relation to what kid's peers will do.

All too often though I still see that children are treated more leniently than I feel they should be.  A crime such as murder as SS has raised.  Is it wrong to murder ?  Yes.  Would a ten -year old know that ?  Yes.  Suffer the consequences as anyone else would.  Certainly in Aus, and I assume everywhere else, child delinquency/crime is on the rise and why ?

Because the offenders (who in the main are already street-wise and know that the system will be lighter on them) are then backed up by a bunch of PC-inspired social workers and psychologists willing to testify that it is all because the wheel fell off little Johnny's tricycle when he was 3, and society as a result has been mistreating him ever since.

Sorry, I went off on a rant and made some value judgements along the way I know, but that's how I see it.

Do the crime do the time.  Do it younger spend longer in jail.  Which leads me to a side-rant.  Why in hell doesn't life mean just that ?  >:(

FB (Rant over)  :)

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: karen (Guest) on 04/17/03 at 03:45 a.m.

I agree with the other posts.  In Britain the age of responsibility is 10 I think.  But most kids know long before that that killing someone is wrong.  It's hard to say what the age of responsibility should be, and I think it should be different for different crimes.  

A few years ago two boys (aged ten I think) kidnapped a two-year-old in a shopping centre and tortured then killed him.  Many of the tortures used came from an 18-rated horror film.  Can't think of the title now possibly Child's Play.  It had a 'possessed' puppet in it that went round attacking children.  How on earth were they allowed to watch this film?  Things like this I think have contributed to some of the problems in society.

The two boys concerned were found guilty of the murder and went to prison but later had their sentenced reduced because it was too harsh.  

I know that older people have always complained about the younger generation.  As a Cub Leader who has been involved for over 15 years, however, I think I have a pretty good picture of the changes in behaviour in that time.  A lot of the problems come from a lack of discipline at home and school.  I am not talking about caning children or anything like that but that children should expect something to happen if their behaviour is unacceptable.  Adults, such as teachers and youth leaders, should not accept verbal and physical abuse from children but this is what happens.  Many parents don't care that their children are doing this or even abuse the adults who complain.

Sorry, I'll shut up now

karen

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: 80sRocked on 04/17/03 at 03:56 a.m.


Quoting:
A lot of the problems come from a lack of discipline at home and school.  I am not talking about caning children or anything like that but that children should expect something to happen if their behaviour is unacceptable.  Adults, such as teachers and youth leaders, should not accept verbal and physical abuse from children but this is what happens.  Many parents don't care that their children are doing this or even abuse the adults who complain.
End Quote



Karen I agree 100%.

In so many cases in schools today, its the students that run the show instead of the teachers/principals.  Same goes at home where the kids do what they want because they know all they will get is a time out ::) and just have to go to their room.  

Lack of discipline and lack of consequences are both huge contributors to a lot of problems with kids these days.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Race_Bannon on 04/17/03 at 04:33 a.m.

Tough question there Southern Spitfire, one that I've rangled with a few times myself.
Two issues here to consider really, one is punishment, the other reform.
Growing up in a suburban mid-upper middle class bedroom  community I really wasn't aware of what youth were capable of until I pursued my (former) knee jerk liberal ways and pursued social work educationally and professionally for 2 and 1/2 years.  From ages 21-23 I went to work in a group home for adolescents with behavioral problems (Juvenile Delinquent was the old term) it was not a lock down facility, just a house teens would go to after release from the detention center (kid jail).
Boy did my eyes get opened :o
We had some 14 year olds in there that were very street and legal savvy, they new what the could and couldn't get away with, and what counselors, teachers, cops, and parents (most the kids we had didn't have parents involved any longer) etc could and couldn't as well.  
Many of my opinions changed from this experiance, kind of like a dumped bucket of cold reality waking you in the morning.  This was back in the late 80's, and I'm sure that the youth are far more savvy now.
Kids who kill in a deliberate manner should be tried as an adult, it's definatley an adult crime.  
Taking this to the Reform subject, adult trials should start from 13 on, to late in the development stage from there to make much differance.  12 and under should be held to 18 and determined from there if they are reformed and safe to return to society.  Tough call on this but there is much more services for youth and there is hope towards reform.
The two youngster in Britain who beat the 2 year old to death, I think they had been in for about 10 years or so, light sentence for the murder of the boy but I would hope that he was judged as reformed and competent.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Gis on 04/17/03 at 05:28 a.m.

Interestingly enough there is a case in the U.K at the moment about a woman who killed two toddlers back in the 60's when she was about 12 I believe. The question raging is as to whether she still has the right to anonymity now she is in her 40's and free in society.Apparently the same thing will happen if and when the Jamie Bulger killers are released (the two boys mentioned in previous posts) ie they will be given new identities and relocated under the police protection scheme.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: dagwood on 04/17/03 at 05:50 a.m.

Depends on wether or not they intended to harm.  Like the little boy who killed one of his friends demonstrating a wrestling move...in that case no.  But, if they intended to harm or kill then they should be tried as adults.  

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/17/03 at 07:38 a.m.


Quoting:
Depends on wether or not they intended to harm.  Like the little boy who killed one of his friends demonstrating a wrestling move...in that case no.  But, if they intended to harm or kill then they should be tried as adults.  
End Quote



I agree with this and what everyone else has said.  Many of the parents in our community have the "my son would NEVER do something like that" attitude and, GOD FORBID, would never spank them or even ground them OR have the "kids will be kids" attitude.  Basically, they are just told No over and over and over again.  And, since they know nothing is going to happen if they keep doing it, they don't stop.  Which is part of the reason why I think the parents should also be held responsible.  Many don't have a clue as to where their child is or what they are doing.  I can't tell you how many times a mom has called me or shown up at my door asking "Is 'Johnny' over there?"  Granted, we live in a small, semi-rural community, but still.  I know where my kids are all the time, usually, I'm with them.  But, if I'm not, they know that they have to ask to go to someone's house, or call to tell me if they decide to go to someone else's house.  

Okay, off my soapbox.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: princessofpop on 04/17/03 at 07:40 a.m.

I have some pretty strong opinions on this subject because I spent 5 months researching this subject back when I was in college.  It consumed me to the point I had to put it away in the back of my mind for a long time.

I think children should be tried as adults when it comes to murder.  There are too many cases of repeated offense & a life a crime when children slip through the justice system with a slap on the hand and a couple months in juvenile detention or rehab, whatever the case may be.  

Nathaniel Brazil (Florida) is a perfect example.  On May 26, 2000, at the age of 13 on the last day of school Nathaniel shot his  seventh grade English teacher right between the eyes, because this teacher sent him home for throwing water baloons, and also because he supposedly gave him a failing grade. In July, 2001 Nathaniel Brazil was later sentenced to 28 years in prison.

He had a history of disciplinary problems in the past.  He says it was an accident and he's sorry, but how do you justify strealing a gun and pointing in your teachers face & pulling the trigger?  To me, that's pre-meditated, not an accident.  

Because this happened in Florida which is a state known for putting criminals on death row for lesser crimes, the only way he escaped that sentence, was because of his age.  Which I agree with.  I think BECAUSE of his age, he might have a chance to live a "normal" life in 28 years (not literally, because he will most likely be granted parole way before then).

There is a book called "The Sacred Heart (Understanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill)" by Helen Smith that I recommend to anyone wanting to learn more on this topic.  She basicaly talks about what goes on in the minds of these kids and what happens to them in the justice system.  

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: cs on 04/17/03 at 08:12 a.m.


Quoting:

I am reminded of the 2 young brothers in FL(I think) a couple years ago that beat their dad's head in with a baseball bat then burnt the house down.  I think they were something like 10 and 12 yrs old(I could be wrong, but it was close to that).  And the defense tried to convince the judge they were too young to know better. ::)  Give me a break.  I knew it was wrong to beat my dad's head in with a bat at age 2!

Now, don't get me wrong, while I think they should be locked up for a long long long long long time, I am not adverse to them getting some intense therapy while they are still young during their prison time.  At least maybe that might sort out some of the reasons for the murder and possibly prevent it from happenein again when/if they are released from prison.

but YES, children who kill should be tried as adults.  

Murder is murder, whether you are 10 yrs old or 100 yrs old, its still murder.


End Quote


These boys were physically and sexually abused by the man (their father) they killed, weren't they?

Tough call.  

Good topic SS.  

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: princessofpop on 04/17/03 at 08:24 a.m.


Quoting:

These boys were physically and sexually abused by the man (their father) they killed, weren't they?

Tough call.  

Good topic SS.  
End Quote



Yes they were cs.  Also, if I remember correctly there was a "mastermind" behind all this who the defense claims he "forced" these children to kill their father.  I will have to check to see what happened with that, as my mind can't recall at the moment.  But, yes, this was pre-mediated, planned & thought out.  Whether somebody else forced these brothers or not, it doesn't take away the fact that they did it.  

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Chrisrj on 04/17/03 at 04:51 p.m.

Yes, they should definitely be tried as adults.  No reason to go soft on any murderers.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Don_Carlos on 04/18/03 at 04:29 p.m.


Quoting:


oh boy, its a hard topic.

I think if they can commit such a severe crime as murder, they deserve an adult-sized punishemnt.  After all, we're not talking about stealing a pack of gum from the 7/11, we're talking taking someone's life at will.

Therefore, YES, kids who murder should be tried as adults.

I am reminded of the 2 young brothers in FL(I think) a couple years ago that beat their dad's head in with a baseball bat then burnt the house down.  I think they were something like 10 and 12 yrs old(I could be wrong, but it was close to that).  And the defense tried to convince the judge they were too young to know better. ::)  Give me a break.  I knew it was wrong to beat my dad's head in with a bat at age 2!

Now, don't get me wrong, while I think they should be locked up for a long long long long long time, I am not adverse to them getting some intense therapy while they are still young during their prison time.  At least maybe that might sort out some of the reasons for the murder and possibly prevent it from happenein again when/if they are released from prison.

but YES, children who kill should be tried as adults.  

Murder is murder, whether you are 10 yrs old or 100 yrs old, its still murder.


End Quote



OMG  :o  In a general way I agree with 80's on this.  A thought out and reasonable response to a complex issue.  Nice going 80's.  I would add that one has to also concider the specific circumstances of each case.  In 80's example, as I recall - and memory might be failing me - the two boys in question were being sexually abused by another adult (not their father), and were very much under his influence.  So whether they are tried as adults or children is less important, I think, than the specifics of each case.  WHY did THIS PARTICULAR kid kill?  What is his/her history?  What was the motivation?  Would it be right for a sexually abused kid to kill his/her abuser, not knowing that help was out there?  I strongly believe in "Thou shalt not kill", but there may be a lot more to it than the act itself.  A personal incident might illustrate:

When I was maybe 7 I got a boy scout pen knife.  One night my dad came home and was hanging up his coat.  I put the knife against his belt and said "stick um up", in play and what I thought was fun.  Could have led to a tragedy if dad wasn't cool enough to just say, calmly, "put it down".  Suppose he didn't?  Suppose he had acted rashly, impulsively.  Suppose the worst had happened.  I would have been crushed, for sure - dad was my best friend - in many ways still is - but would I have been a murderer?  Would it have been right to lock me away with murderers?  Thank the fates it didn't happen, but my point is that blanket policies in areas like this just don't make for good outcomes.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Don_Carlos on 04/18/03 at 04:59 p.m.


Quoting:
I agree with the other posts.  In Britain the age of responsibility is 10 I think.  But most kids know long before that that killing someone is wrong.  It's hard to say what the age of responsibility should be, and I think it should be different for different crimes.  

A few years ago two boys (aged ten I think) kidnapped a two-year-old in a shopping centre and tortured then killed him.  Many of the tortures used came from an 18-rated horror film.  Can't think of the title now possibly Child's Play.  It had a 'possessed' puppet in it that went round attacking children.  How on earth were they allowed to watch this film?  Things like this I think have contributed to some of the problems in society.

karen
End Quote



I remember this case too.  Horrible.  I have to ask, though (and I have no answer), at what age to kids understand what death is?  Let me elaborate.

First, in our sanitized modern world, how many of us have actually seen a dead person?  My first was in August 2000, at 54, when we said goodby to my mother.  Of course by then I knew that death was for real and perminent, but the wake and burial sure brought it home to me emotionally, not just intellectually.

Second, death, violence, mayhem permiate the media, and especially entertainment.  As a kid I remember The Lone Ranger, The Cisco Kid, and Hopalong Cassidy shooting the bad guys Saturday after Saturday - AND THEY WERE THE SAME bad guys.  In those days, no blood, no broken bones, guys just got "knocked our", "came to" and rode out of town.  This "bloodless violence" also entered into our cowboys and indians play.  Clearly, it didn't make most of us killers, and I really don't know how it effected us.  Today, though, the violence is much more graphic, realistic - people bleed, body parts fly off, does this highten children's sensibilities to the effects of violence, or does it make them more callous to suffering?  My Psych Dept colleagues think it makes us callous.  I don't know.  How does it effect kids, who may not really understand death?  

To add a note of levity, there was a MASH episode where a Dutch (?) soldier was brought in, got lost, and was presumed dead.  They held a memorial for him (Lt LeClerk was his name) and the who company assembled to pay him homage as they played his national anthum.  As it played he staggered out of the post-op ward, stood at attention, and saluted.  Hawk Eye noticed him and said to Trapper "I thought he was dead?"
Trapper responded "yeah, but he got better".

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Don_Carlos on 04/18/03 at 05:53 p.m.


Quoting:


I agree with this and what everyone else has said.  Many of the parents in our community have the "my son would NEVER do something like that" attitude and, GOD FORBID, would never spank them or even ground them OR have the "kids will be kids" attitude.  Basically, they are just told No over and over and over again.  And, since they know nothing is going to happen if they keep doing it, they don't stop.  Which is part of the reason why I think the parents should also be held responsible.  Many don't have a clue as to where their child is or what they are doing.  I can't tell you how many times a mom has called me or shown up at my door asking "Is 'Johnny' over there?"  Granted, we live in a small, semi-rural community, but still.  I know where my kids are all the time, usually, I'm with them.  But, if I'm not, they know that they have to ask to go to someone's house, or call to tell me if they decide to go to someone else's house.  

Okay, off my soapbox.
End Quote



I completely agree CL.  Too many parents abdicate their responsibilities to their kids, for whatever reason.  I'm divorced, and my 17 year old (my youngest - OMG :-/) often stays with me for weekends or more.  She goes out to see her friends, of course, but I always know where she is going and when she plans to be home.  If her plans change, she calls.  Last time she was here she got home 10 min late and was very apologetic, hoping I wasn't worried.  Proud to say that she takes responsibility, lives by the house rules (which CAN BE lax because she is so responsible) and is a real person.  Takes love, attention, respect, and discipline to get kids to this point, and a "sixth sense" to figure out the right mix for each kid (my other three - a proud dad bragging) are now great adults.  It is up to the parents.

But let me ask a question that is somewhat off this thread.  What are the pressures on parents?  Lets assume (and I think this is legit) that overwhelmingly, parents want the best, and want to do the best for their kids.  Does not the necessity, that many families face, for two incomes, work against this?  And how about the "keeping up with the Jones" syndrom.  

Parents bear responsibility for the choices they make, but I think we need to be careful not to "blame the victim" for being victimized by forces beyond his/her control.  People have to do what they have to do to survive at a level of consumption that SOCIETY dictates, more than we, as individuals do.  For example, 2 years ago we were not on line at home, and at work I rarely went on line.  Now, we are on line just about every day - between my A and me, for hours.  A new need.  Suppose we couldn't afford it, but the kid's teachers, and peer pressure made them nag.  A proud and caring parent would try to find a way to provide this MATERIAL asset, but could very well wind up depriving the kids of a more important EMOTIONAL asset.  

I'm all in favor of expanding human needs so as to fully develop every possibility of the human potential - in the arts, the sciences and every other aspect of human endeavor, but I think that our class system puts pressure on working class to provide without giving them the resources to do so.  My employer, in our current negotiations, is demanding major, onorous give backs (NO is a good faith bargaining position).

These are very complex issues, that reverberate through just about every domestic social policy.  They can't be simplified, although they MUST be discussed.  But we must, IMO avoid blaming the victim.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: XenaKat13 on 04/19/03 at 11:30 a.m.

I tend to agree with most people here--that it must be determined what the intent was.  Did the "child" intend to to murder/harm to the other person?  Did/does the child have a history of behavior problems?

A child that has always been a discipline problem, while he/she may not intend to do murder should, in my opinion be tried as an adult for murder.  Reason being, he/she did not learn from past disciplinary measures because the child is/was incorrigible (or past punishments were too easy).

Other extenuating circumstances must be looked at too...some years ago there was a case of a child with Down's Syndrome on trial for the murder of his caregiver.  Was it reasonable to expect that he would understand what he did?  Did he understand that a gun could kill someone?  Or was the only thing he understood was stuff he had seen on tv and cartoons--that nobody dies 'forever'?  How severe was this boy's disability?

I don't remember the actual outcome of this case.  But every child has a different cognitive level that must be taken into account.  Some kids understand things at age 7 that some 18 year-olds do not understand at all.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: CatwomanofV on 04/21/03 at 11:55 a.m.

This is really a tough call. I do have a problem with these kids being tried as adults because, well, THEY ARE NOT ADULTS. There was a case in Florida I think, just last year. If I recall it correctly, this 13 year old was wressleing with another kid and it got a bit rough. The other kid was killed as a result and this 13 year old was being tried as an adult. Personally, I don't think this kid intended to kill this other kid. If I recall correctly, he was convicted. They showed him on t.v. and he just looked like a scared kid to me.

I think that each case should be looked at individually and not have a catch-all way of handling them. In some cases, I believe that the parents should also be held responable like when they find arms in the kids bedrooms.  



Cat

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Race_Bannon on 04/21/03 at 12:51 a.m.


Quoting:
This is really a tough call. I do have a problem with these kids being tried as adults because, well, THEY ARE NOT ADULTS. There was a case in Florida I think, just last year. If I recall it correctly, this 13 year old was wressleing with another kid and it got a bit rough. The other kid was killed as a result and this 13 year old was being tried as an adult. Personally, I don't think this kid intended to kill this other kid. If I recall correctly, he was convicted. They showed him on t.v. and he just looked like a scared kid to me.

Cat
End Quote

Is that the one where it was his 5-6 year old girl?  Originally when I saw that strory I felt the same way, but reading the whole story I had to change my view.  He was body slamming and pile driving a little girl, there is no way that a child of 13 could not recognize that this was dangerous.  
Here is a story I found on it, what is your conclusion?

FORT LAUDERDALE -- Lionel Tate was sentenced to life in prison Friday for the beating death of his 6-year-old playmate, a crime he committed when he was 12.

Broward Circuit Judge Joel T. Lazarus had been bombarded with public pleas to find a way around the mandatory sentence Florida law prescribed for the boy. He refused.

In a scathing 40-minute statement, he heaped scorn on Tate's mother, the boy's lawyer, the prosecutor and Tate himself, whose acts he called "cold, callous and indescribably cruel."

Each of the adults in the case, he said, made decisions that contributed to the boy facing life rather than a lesser penalty.

Tate kept his head bowed, his chin in his chest, as the judge lectured, and wept after the sentence was rendered.

In Tallahassee, Gov. Jeb Bush said he would consider a petition for clemency but made no commitment on how he would rule.

In January, a jury convicted the boy, now 14, of first-degree murder for battering 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick to death on July 28, 1999, in what he said was an imitation of wrestling moves.

Sharply rejecting suggestions for leniency by the defense, and even prosecutors, Lazarus emphatically denied the defense's request to reduce the charge for which the boy was convicted, a move that would have allowed him to avoid imposing the mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder. Tiffany's death, Lazarus said, was not, as the defense argued, simply an act of child's play turned deadly.

In the summer of 1999, Tate was 12 years old and weighed 166 pounds when he began wrestling in his South Florida living room with Tiffany Eunick, a delicate girl who weighed 46 pounds and whom his mother was babysitting.

When the paramedics arrived, Tiffany was lifeless. Her skull was fractured, several ribs were broken and her liver was torn. Autopsy photos would detail more than 30 injuries.

A few days after Tiffany's death, Tate told police he picked her up and accidentally hit her head on a table. In a videotaped interview with a court-appointed psychologist, Tate claimed to have accidentally thrown Tiffany into a stairway railing and a wall while trying to toss her onto a sofa.

The defense's experts conceded that Tate's story would not have accounted for all of Tiffany's injuries, which one prosecution expert said were comparable to falling from a three-story building.

Lazarus said there was no justification for reducing the conviction to a charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter because "the evidence of Lionel Tate's guilt is clear, obvious and indisputable."

Tears streamed down Tate's face after he heard the sentence. His mother, Kathleen Grossett-Tate, was at times stoical, at times weeping.

Grossett-Tate, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, had rejected several offers by prosecutors to have her son plead guilty to second-degree murder and accept a sentence of three years in a juvenile detention center and 10 years of probation. In addressing Lazarus before sentencing Friday, Grossett-Tate said Tiffany's death was an accident, so she could not let her son plead guilty to homicide.

Tate's lawyer, Jim Lewis, said he would appeal the decision and ask Bush to commute the sentence. Prosecutor Ken Padowitz asked the judge to uphold the conviction but said he supported the request for commutation.

At an unrelated news conference in Tallahassee, Bush said he would accept a request for a clemency hearing and asked that for now, the boy be kept in a juvenile detention center.

Lewis and Padowitz have said they would seek alternatives to putting the boy behind bars for life.

In an unusually sharp criticism of the prosecution, the judge said that if the state believed the boy did not deserve to be sent to prison for life, he should have been tried on lesser charges.

"To talk about travel to the governor to seek a reduction in charge or sentence, if accurate, is of tremendous concern to this court," the judge said.

"It not only casts the prosecutor in a light totally inconsistent with his role in the criminal justice system, but it makes the whole court process seem like a game where, if the results are unfavorable, they'll run to a higher source to seek a different result."

Padowitz defended the prosecution's handling of the case, saying that the severity of the crime justified trying Tate as an adult but should have included leeway in sentencing. He also noted that the defense had summarily dismissed an offer of a plea bargain.

Tate's supporters, including some human rights groups, say the sentence is too harsh for someone who was not a teenager when he committed the murder.

"The fundamental principle at stake here is that children are capable of change and growth and should not be denied that opportunity," said William F. Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Race_Bannon on 04/21/03 at 01:58 p.m.

Here is a link to another article about this killing.  Gives a bit more detail and quotes a juror saying that they didn't go buy into the "wrestling" story.
http://www.caribvoice.org/Features/tate.html

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: princessofpop on 04/22/03 at 07:01 a.m.


Quoting:
This is really a tough call. I do have a problem with these kids being tried as adults because, well, THEY ARE NOT ADULTS. There was a case in Florida I think, just last year. If I recall it correctly, this 13 year old was wressleing with another kid and it got a bit rough. The other kid was killed as a result and this 13 year old was being tried as an adult. Personally, I don't think this kid intended to kill this other kid. If I recall correctly, he was convicted. They showed him on t.v. and he just looked like a scared kid to me.
End Quote



I remember following this case back when it happened.  I feel that in this particular incident, Lionel Tate didn't intend to kill her.  However, he was 12 at the time, old enough to know that you don't throw around a 6 year old half your size.  I think he may have been in the situation and knew he was hurting her, he knew it was wrong, but he didn't stop.  I certainly don't feel that he planned on killing her.  During his trial, it was mentioned that he had some discipline problems and a history of anger troubles.  

I do not, however think a life sentence was necessary in this case.  I think that it is a bit extreme, because if he serves only half of his time, I don't feel that he will benefit from it.  Studies have shown that when criminals are given harsh sentences for lesser crimes (and I say "lesser" only because IMO this was manslaughter not first degree) that they are pretty much guaranteed to be a repeat offender after they serve their time.  These studies also have shown that the majority of repeats are under the age of 25 when they enter the system.  This is why I do not agree with mandatory sentencing.  I think every case is different & should be treated differently.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Race_Bannon on 04/22/03 at 11:28 a.m.

Good point and life in prison is harsh for this 12 year old.  The judge was working within the new legislation for "tough on crime" laws that had been recently instated.  I do think that the 90s obscured our thougth process witht the lowering of crime rates for the 1st time in recent history.  The "3 strikes your out" and "zero tolerance" adobted by penal and school systems, etc are often to narrow to allow for common sence to pass through.
When I originally read the story I was angered by the misleading headline however.  It said something about a 1st degree murder for "wrestleing" accident or some such crap.  If you read about the level of injury to the little girl this was never any "playful" wrestling.  This was brutal.  To beat someone to death takes a lot of effort and complete disreguard for others pain.  If in a fit of rage, there is some understanding of how it could happen, but to accomplish the level of brutality that the little girl did and the only argument is that it was "wrestling" that got out of hand is madness.  1st degree, perhaps argument against, but at least 2nd degree is applicable.
I also found it intersting that so many headlines lable the stories and "wrestling" taken to far (or whatever) and the lead juror was guoted as saying that the jury never accepted that story.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Apple_99 on 04/22/03 at 01:57 p.m.


Quoting:
I agree with the other posts.  In Britain the age of responsibility is 10 I think.  But most kids know long before that that killing someone is wrong.  It's hard to say what the age of responsibility should be, and I think it should be different for different crimes.  

A few years ago two boys (aged ten I think) kidnapped a two-year-old in a shopping centre and tortured then killed him.  Many of the tortures used came from an 18-rated horror film.  Can't think of the title now possibly Child's Play.  It had a 'possessed' puppet in it that went round attacking children.  How on earth were they allowed to watch this film?  Things like this I think have contributed to some of the problems in society.

The two boys concerned were found guilty of the murder and went to prison but later had their sentenced reduced because it was too harsh.  

End Quote



I heard about those two boys. Weren't they relocated to the US, because there was so much public outrage in the UK over the murder?

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: BrianMannixGirl on 04/23/03 at 04:57 a.m.

Nope - at the time that they were released they were going to be given new identities and relocated in either Australia or Canada.  Both countries speedily reminded the UK that its 110 years since we last accepted their garbage (oops - I mean criminals) and that idea was dumped.  Australia also reminded the UK that you cannot get a visa nor citizenship in Australia if you have a criminal record.

In the end they were still given new identities but they remain in the UK.  One was identified in the papers within weeks of his release - with his recent photo and new name splashed across the front page of every paper.  The other - from what I gather from friends who have the misfortune to live in the town he is located in - has become a shoplifter and general theif.

My belief is that neither should have ever been released.

I am a firm believer in the death penalty - unfortunately I live in a country that outlawed it in the late 60's.

I believe you should be treated as a criminal if you have committed a crime - regardless of age.  

several examples spring to mind.

In the 80's most of the guys in my science class kicked a guy to death outside a nightclub.  The guys that were already 18 at the time of the murder were tried and sentenced as adults and the guys who were just days or weeks away from their 18th birthday were tried and sentenced as children.  Utterly ridiculous when you think they all were basically the same age give or take a few months and had all committed the identical crime.  Anyway - about 2 years later the older guys took the case back to the high courts and demanded the younger guys get longer sentences - they won and it resulted in all the guys serving the same amount of time.

Another example - when i was 8 a boy in my class was somewhat worse than the general class torublemakers etc.  He took the school mascot out of its cage and ate it in front of the whole class.  He would sit on kids and cut them with knives.  So many things I can no longer think back that far for more examples !!  Anyway - when he was 14 he raped and murdered a 12 year old girl - he hung her in a tree and tickled her feet and laughed while she slowly and painfully died.

He was the first juevenile in West Aust to be tried as an adult and recieved a sentence that is considered the most severe available here - "At The Governors Pleasure".  Basically meaning never to be released.  Then 18 years later they decided to release him.  he was moved to a country town and was made to wear one of those electronic braclets that doesnt let you move more than 500 metres from your home.  Unfortunatley there were plenty of women within that 500 metre radius and within months of his release he had raped and bashed many of them.  He is now back in jail - funny that.

We all know right from wrong - regardless of a model or crappy upbringing.  If we commit a crime we deserve to be punished (including the death penalty when required) - regardless of our age.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: Apple on 04/24/03 at 00:17 a.m.

Thanks for the info BrianMannixGirl. I read somewhere that they were thinking about relocating them to the US. I remember reading some of the things that those two boys did to the little boy they killed, truly horrific stuff :'(  I agree with you, those kids should have gotten a more severe sentence.   

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: philbo_baggins on 04/24/03 at 02:50 a.m.

I'm going to take a different line here, having been swayed by what the probation officer (or it might have been the parole officer) of one of the two boys convicted of the murder of James Bulger said.  He was arguing that if the boys were transferred to an adult jail to continue serving their sentence, then in effect that was it: they'd never have a chance at a normal life - YOIs are bad enough, but after a few years in an adult prisons, they'd be so dehumanised they'd not be able to survive in the outside world.  Does giving them a longer sentence help to deter other 12-year-olds from doing the same thing?  Does a longer sentence benefit society in any way?

IMO it's terrible that a child has committed an offence like this, but it's wrong to deny the adult that the child becomes the chance to atone or be "normal"- if the professional opinion is that they are not a danger to society, then release them and give them a chance to live.  I think the behaviour of the News of the World in releasing the chap's new name and location was utterly despicable... but then, as a newspaper who "outed" paedophiles and got half their list wrong, causing dozens of innocent people to be forced from their homes (just because they happened to have the same name as some other convicted felon), I guess their standards of journalism are nothing to be surprised about.

Phil

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: karen (Guest) on 04/24/03 at 03:14 p.m.

I can't agree with BrianMannixGirl about reintroducing the death penalty.  There have been too many cases of the wrong people being convicted and being released after many years in prison.

I do however believe that a life sentence should mean life.  I'm never sure that the deterrent factor works for many people but prison should be there as a punishment as well.

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: BrianMannixGirl on 04/24/03 at 11:03 p.m.

Karen believe me - I am totally with you when it comes to wrongly convicted people - and yes it happens a little too often.  One hopes that with technology improving daily - mistakes will be a thing of the past.

But when there is utterly no doubt whatsoever as to who committed the crime, and the crime is so revoltingly bad, then I dont believe the perpetrator should be allowed to walk this earth (even if it is in a 5 foot square gaol cell).

The boys who killed James Bulger were caught on video.  There was no mistaking who committed the crime.  
When armed kids go to a school and kill dozens of students - there are more than enough witnesses to have no doubt as to who killed who.
When Martin Bryant walked thru the historic ruins of Port Arthur shooting dead 35 people and injuring dozens more - there was no mistaking that each and every witness was able to identify the killer (ok he isnt a juevenile so I am now off the track !!).

If anything - I believe the death penalty should be brought back everywhere to be used as a deterrant.  If the threat of a decent punishment isnt even available - then people (and kids) will continue to commit the most vile of crimes solely because they know they will get away with a lesser punishment.

In West Aust - we currently have less than 20 people serving "life".  They are serial killers, mass murderers, and multiple rapists.  Because our life term isnt a genuine life term - any one of them could be released tomorrow if the parole board is in a good mood.  Why are my taxes paying for their upkeep ?????  Why are they sitting there with a roof over their head, with 3 meals a day, showers, tv and computer - when there are law abiding citizens that cannot afford some of lifes basic ammenities ?

OK I am seriously off the beaten track here now - back to kids !!! Kids who commit crimes as young as 8 years old will never - NEVER - grow up to lead a normal life - whether they are in a loving home or not.  If they are not taught a lesson straight away - they will continue leading that kind of life.

Example:  Back in the early 90's a 13 year old boy was arrested for speeding thru a red light during a high speed car chase.  he crashed into a VW and killed a heavily pregnant woman and her toddler and left the husband seriously injured.

At the time of his arrest it was discovered his criminal record totalled over 800 convictions dating back to age 7 or 8.

He was placed into juevenile detention, whereupon he escaped and basically held our city to ransom.  He rang radio stations and announced he was going to steal cars and drive through red lights at 140kph all over the city until he had killed as many people as possible.  It wasnt a light threat - he had done it before remember.  For the first time in Australian history a jueveniles name and photo was released to the press as he presented a severe danger to the public.

It was several nerveracking days before he was arrested again and this time they dcided they should put him in a middle prison - mixed age group of 15 to 25 - rather than a fully adult prison.  It was they type of prison that had schooling, university, counselling etc etc.

He escaped again and by this time he was over 18 so when he was caught (after committing several car thefts and rapes) he was jailed in an adult prison.  

A couple of years ago he served his time and supposedly had passed all the rehabilitation tests so they released him.  Within days he had abducted and raped and tortured several women and stolen several high performance cars and raced them thru the city causing many accidents.

This time the judge got off her/his bum and said enough was enough.  He is now in at the Governers Pleasure and will hopefully never be released.

But the fact is - if someone had done something about him when he was 13 with 800 convictions - lives wouldnt have been lost or destroyed.  Rape victims would not have to live with the memory of the degridation and torture he put them thru.  Fathers wouldnt have to live without their wives and children.

He should not have been allowed to have a further 12 or 13 years to commit more crimes.

Sorry - I know I am ranting !!  I am a compulsive Letter To The Editor writer - have been since I was a teen - and crime is something that really gets my back up !!!!!

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 04/25/03 at 06:59 a.m.


Quoting:This time the judge got off her/his bum and said enough was enough.  He is now in at the Governers Pleasure and will hopefully never be released.End Quote



Sadly, BMG, both you and I and everyone else in this country knows that it is unlikely he will be retained indefinitely, because the law IS an a$$  >:(

Subject: Re: Children Who Kill

Written By: BrianMannixGirl on 04/26/03 at 05:35 a.m.

Too true FussB - sad but true.

Mind you - my heart hopes different.  Govs Pleasure is so rarely handed down - and as yet has only ever let one be released - the guy in my first post not my second.  Because that was such an outstanding failure I hope they will think twice about releasing others.

I keep forgetting which state you are in - you know those Sydney teen rapists - the gang - the two brothers who got about 45 year sentences - well my cousin is their personal prison guard at Goulburn - they share a 6 room cell lock with Aust's worst - Ivan Milat, the Syd granny killer - and two other delights !  ICKY.