Date: 8/5/2004 9:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62753
By the way Josh was placed in an adult prison when he was 16.  |
Date: 8/5/2004 9:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 57232
those 2 girls that just killed their grandparents should be! I think it depends on the situation  |
Date: 8/5/2004 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I agree with B Monkey that it depends on the situation but I definitely think they need to start sentencing juveniles harder at least in my state.  |
Date: 8/5/2004 9:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Personally I have no sympathy for Josh, or anyone who murders. Nothing that I will debate, but my compassion simply doesn't extend there. Child abuse is horrible but no excuse for killing others. Too often the victim, as in this case, "the girl across the street" has been forgotten, a casuality measured by the importance of Josh's circumstances, who still lives and therefore has gathered the concern of a section of society who refuses to accept the rationalization that "Joshua" is not the original victim. Does he deserve to pay the ultimate penalty of death, perhaps not, but I wouldn't want him living across from me. And that is me, but I've looked into the eyes of those who have no conscience and I'll always hope that none in my family or any my friends ever meet up with another who so easily takes a human life. I wish my understanding and perhaps some compassion could or would extend to those who can so willfully and easily take the life of another.. But the fear and terror that a loved one has in those last moments of life while being taunted and tortured by a killer, simply won't allow that, and age has little bearing, since conscience is a factor not determined by anything other than being human.  |
Date: 8/5/2004 9:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 62841
in my opinion, they should, but only for certian crimes... if its nothing that serious then no, but if it is then yeah they should.-PsYcHoTiCbEaSt  |
Date: 8/5/2004 9:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 42945
an excellent reply from Brenda and I agree wholeheartedly....she said it all for me....hugs  |
Date: 8/5/2004 9:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 62728
Brenda definitely said it. I don't think it should be a blatant across the board standard. It should go case to case. The only thing I do hold is that murder is not a mistake, so they deserve the punishment if they murder someone. -DeltaRebel  |
Date: 8/5/2004 10:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 22308
i think if a kid has done an adult crime, they should be sentenced as an adult.  |
Date: 8/5/2004 11:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 6473
I believe that the severity of the crime committed should decide the severity of the punishment.Murder is murder no matter how old you are. The same thing goes for any other serious offense. In my honest opinion, the "child" gives up all rights they have as a "child" the moment they decide to kill someone, or rape someone, etc. Not punishing kids because they are are 12 years old or whatever, just shows all the other kids out there that if they do these things they wont get punished as severely as they should.  |
Date: 8/6/2004 12:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 11348
I do not think that minors should be tried as adults. They are not at their full level of maturity yet, and shouldn't be punished as an adult. They absolutely need to be punished, but maybe not as harshly as an adult would be.  |
Date: 8/6/2004 2:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
trying children as adults makes no sense. They are not adults, simple as that and you can't pretend they are just because you want revenge for whatever they did. Im all for harsher punishments of juveniles but i dont see how trying someone as an adult when they are clearly not an adult makes any sense.  |
Date: 8/6/2004 3:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 35720
I think murderers should be punished accordingly.. who gives a crap what jail they go to.. they're MURDERS. And 12 year olds DO know better.. I have a 12 year old brother.. I think society nowadays forces kids to grow up way faster than they used to and they understand and are comfortable with alot more than say in the 70's or even 80's. I think a 12 or 13 year old could easily kill someone in cold blood with the right motive or if they are a violent person. I dunno, it just annoys me when people don't think young teens or pre-teens should be held accountable for their actions.. THEY SHOULD. They do know better, despite what alot of people think. And I don't think murder is a "mistake" as you put it.. it's the taking of someone's life.. quite honestly, I think certain murders are justified.. but that doesn't make it legal and I think all murderers should be convicted based on the level of their crime.. and age shouldn't be an issue.  |
Date: 8/6/2004 9:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 43186
If they think like an dult and react like an adult, then Yes, by all means they should have to face the penalties of adulthood. Just my opinion. Hugs,  |
Date: 8/6/2004 9:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 4144
if they can commit an adult crime they can go to adult prison. unless there is a mental problem i don't see the big deal. at 12 years old you know right from wrong and if you kill somebody i think you should be put to death. now, i know they won't kill a kid but that kid will grow up and become an adult. what happens then? they either get out of prison where they will probably end up commiting another crime. or, they will spend the rest of their life in prison where they will be fed, clothed, provided medical care and cable tv. i'm all for the tent city i read in an earlier post.  |
Date: 8/6/2004 10:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
As a general rule, those juveniles tries as adults go to a juvenile facility until they reach a certain age, when they are then placed in prison. There was a time when people who are now considered juveniles married and had kids in their early teens. They knew what they were doing, and did it. A juvenile who commits murder, or rapes another person, knows they are doing wrong, and that by doing the act, if tey are caught, they will be punished. A lot of teens think they can get away with crimes because they are a teen. For too many years, society held to the belief that they were just troubled teens who needed help. Now, society is saying, ENOUGH! You know what you did is wrong, and you must pay for what you did. An adult who murders another person, especially a child, in cold blood, sacrifices every right to freedom that they have, and even possibly their owm life. Why should it be any different for a teen who acts in such a manner?  |
Date: 8/6/2004 10:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 25828
yes, they should  |
|
Date: 8/6/2004 10:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 25828
yes, they should |
Date: 8/6/2004 1:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
When you have someone who commits a serious crime at a young age, how can one ever determine that he/she has been rehabilitated? I think that society has the right not to have individuals like that put back into the mainstream. It is indeed sad to think that a person so young can commit such a horrible act. I think there are people who lose the right to be free. So, to me, I think that violent people should not be allowed back out into society.  |
|
Date: 8/6/2004 3:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Do you people not understand the difference between a child and an adult? I cant believe there are people who see the logic in not letting a 10 year old smoke or drink or drive, or buy a gun or get married or vote or go to a strip joint or live by himself or move to another country or run for office or have sex, and yet you see nothing wrong with trying him as an adult? A child who murders does not suddenly become an adult and trying one as such is all about revenge, not justice. |
|
Date: 8/6/2004 3:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
I don't think that trying a child as an adult is about revenge. I think that it's about protecting society. We're not talking about accidents here. |
|
Date: 8/6/2004 4:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Dark Phoenix, I had a 15 year old stepson who one day decided he was man enough to curse me, and take a swing at me, thinking that if I struck back, then he could have charges filed on me. I did strike back, flooring him. When the cops arrived, I told them what had happened, and that it was in my home. His mother, who I was married to, did not have custody of him, so he was in fact a guest in our house. I was not charged with any crime, although he was a juvenile. The law told him that when he decided to act out in an adult manner, that he sacrificed any rights he had as a juvenile. A child of 12 or 13 knows right from wrong. They know that to kill another person is wrong. They are not actually tried as adults, but tried under the only laws applicable for the severity of such cases, which are the same laws that adults are charged by. If they are tried under juvenile laws, then at age 18, they are legally free, and their records sealed. Would you want some 18 year old kid who had killed someone in cold blood without any remorse just 5 years before living next door to you? I don;t think so. Besides, a lot of juvenile facilities are worse than adult prisons, since the older juveniles pretty much have free reign over younger juveniles when the guards are not around. I do not care if they are 12 years old. If they kill in cold blood, without remorse, then they should get what is given them. |
Date: 8/6/2004 5:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 23075
they do the crime...then they do the time...  |
Date: 8/9/2004 6:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 52140
Let put it this way: when you make any decision there are consequences. They made a CONSCIOUS decision. Just because someone has less experience in the world doesn't mean they should be delt with less mercy than someone who is older. There's a case in Georgia about two girls who were lesbians and one girl's grandparents didn't like it. They refused to let the girls be together. Anyway, the granddaughter smoked marajuana to lure her gramma into the basement and there the two girls attacked and killed the grandparents. They are like... I think only 15 and 16. Should they be tried as adults? YES! They made a conscious decision to plan out and murder. It shouldn't be based on age. If they commited the crime, they shouldn't be granted any special priveleges or a different trial or whatever. They should face the same punishment as an 18, 39, or 70 year old would face that commited a similar crime.  |
|
Date: 8/9/2004 6:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 52140
two spirit, you said what I couldn't express in words. I whole-heartedly agree with you! |
|
Date: 8/9/2004 8:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Ok so why does anyone make the distinction between a child and an adult? I mean, if they are all mature enough and able to make descisions as good as any adult, why not let them have sex and buy guns etc? I mean, if they get pregnant, they will have to face the consequences just like an adult, if they kill someone, same thing. right? |
|
Date: 8/9/2004 1:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 62829
They most definitely should. I just posted about the murder of James Bulger last week...basically the same situation, but the children who murdered him were 10. Yes, I know that's young and all, but they're still old enough to know better! |
|
Date: 8/9/2004 5:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
DP, with age comes responsibilities and privileges. At age 13, I did have a shotgun, but I was only allowed to take it out when an adult was with me. That was limited resonsibility, as well as limited privilege. You are doing your best to confuse the situation. Maybe the courts should just do away with the juvenile justice system, and try everyone by the same standards. I can guarantee you that it would make a big difference. |
Date: 8/9/2004 8:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
I never heard of Josh Phillips, but this debate reminds me of Sean Sellers. He killed his parents and a licquor store clerk when he was 14 (I believe), then tried to pass it off as a story about how "the devil made me do it." He got the death penalty, and was finally put to death around the age of 27.  |
|
Date: 8/10/2004 5:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Two Spirit, im not the one who is confused here. A child is not as mature as an adult and therefore does not have the same capacity to make decisions. That is why there is a distinction made between a "child" and an "adult". That is why laws exists that prohibit children from doing many things they are not mature enough to do. It's called the justice system, not the revenge system. Why is it that children are only tried as adults when their crimes are especially horrific? Is the capacity to kill in a brutal fashion directly related to whether or not someone is an adult? this person called Jeremiah Cameron seems to be saying the same thing: "If a child does not have the judgement to drive at 14, to vote at 14, to go into the military at 14, they why do courts declare that he has the wisdom and judgment to understand the nature and consequences of murder at 14? Neurologists tell us that the prefrontal lobe of the brain, where judgment and thoughtfulness take place, is not fully developed at 14. And if the cingulate gyrus, which permits us to move from one thought to another, and the left temporal lobe are not mature, then awful behavior can result." |
|
Date: 8/10/2004 9:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
DP, maybe you do not understand right from wrong. Maybe you are too young to understand. When I was that age, we did know the difference, and we knew it was wrong to kill, or to do other things. I have heard every possible excuse possible for kids doing things they should not do. Most of it is BS, plain and simple. If I did something wrong as a kid, I paid the consequences, usually by a belt that my dad used. Was that abuse. NO WAY. It was discipline, plain and simple, and we learned from it. You can bet we did not make the same mistake a second time. I know it was wrong for this kid to kill someone, you know it was wrong, and you can darn sure bet the kid knew it was wrong. Do I feel sorry for him? NO! A hundred years ago he would have hung at the end of a rope in public, regardless of whether he was 13 or not. It is time to stop playing "poor little kid" with juvenile deliquents, and get hard down tough on them. You do the crime, you do the time, regardless of age. If you don't like that concept, tough. The only other alternative is to give parents back the right to punish their child properly when they do wrong. The old adage "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is exactly right. |
|
Date: 8/10/2004 10:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
I stand by my earlier argument, if a child's judgment is so sound, then why are children prohibited from doing so many things? Im not sure what your bit about a child being hanged 100 years ago ahs to do with anything. The simple reason why children should not be tried as adults, is becasue CHILDREN ARE NOT ADULTS. Nobody is saying there shouldnt be any consequences for children who commit crimes, but treating them as adults when clearly they are not, makes no sense to me. as for the whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" thing, i think needing the rod in the first place says more about the parent than the child. |
|
Date: 8/10/2004 6:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
You can think what you want, but I will tell you that my parents were the best parents any kid could have ever asked for. If we did wrong, we were punished, as well it should be. The reason kids aren't allowed to own guns and other things is because of the simple fact that it is a privilege that is reserved for proper law abiding adults. There is a big defference between responsibility and privilege. Kids have certain privileges regarded to them because of age, as do adults. Responsibility though, especially for criminal actions, is the same regardless of age. Although a kid may be tried as an adult, until they reach a certain age, they are still retained in the juvenile justice system. After a set age, they are then remanded to the normal penal system. Maybe you missed that part in my earlier post. In all actuality, they are NOT actually tried as adults, but as juveniles. When the term "trying them as adults" is used, it means they can be given a stricter sentence, which does end when they reach 18. Maybe you should spend a day or two with my uncle. He works at the main juvenile detention facility in our state. After a couple of days you wouldn't be whining so much about the rights of punks. |
|
Date: 8/10/2004 7:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I wont address your last comment, but as far as gun ownership goes, correct me if i am wrong, but it was my understanding that in America, one has the right to bear arms? Thats not a privilage. If a child is mature enough to be responsible for his actions, why not give him a gun? |
|
Date: 8/11/2004 3:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
One has a right to bear arms under certain criteria, thus it becomes a privilege. A person can lose the right and privilege for any number of circumstances. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights only apply on a limited basis to minors. This is a point that has been clarified numerous times in the courts. If you want to feel sorry for kids like this, then become a pen pal to them. A lot of us though have no use for such punks. |
Date: 8/11/2004 7:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 61013
I think they should be sentanced as adults if they kill someone cause its wrong no matter what and they should not just get juvinile Hall. You can be held responsible for a mistake at 12 no matter what the cause was. there was this insident when these 15 year old boys beat a older man to death with a club. Love, Keri aka- PG*13  |
Date: 8/13/2004 6:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 50434
Its a hard topic I think. So a young teen kills yes they deserve jail time but not life, but of course it depends on the case.If a kid kill and shows no remores what so ever they need to be locked up and some serious therapy and then say after 5 years do a complete evaluation, if they seem fit they should be put on probation for another 10 years and have to do therapy. If they commit any criminal act after being released they they themselve proven jail should be there home. As far as being locked up with adults I dont think thats a good idea, cause they could be taken advantage of in so many ways and theres not always going to be a guard or someone to help or guide them. I dont think kids understand the full impact of the actions they do until after its done, but like I stated before every case is differnt.  |
Date: 8/19/2004 8:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 56063
Any one that dosen't have the heart and kills someone deserves everything that comes there way  |
