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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

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$$  >:(