US boy, 11, held for shooting dead eight-year-old neighbour

[crazy canuck]

by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

I would guess that the bigger concern is understanding what killing means. Has this child ever had someone close to him die? Has he ever been in a situation to fully understand what death means? What we're talking about is the ability to grasp concepts beyond the concrete.

All of this, to me, is more a question not of what did he do, but rather, how did he react after it happened? Is he upset now? Does he understand what happened and what that means for those around him? Is he sorry?

If he doesn't care, if he's unsympathetic to what he did, then it's a very different story. He should be punished in such a way as to show him what he did was completely and utterly wrong. He needs to be taught compassion, empathy, and feelings of guilt. He, in affect, needs a conscious instilled him as his own is clearly lacking.

If, however, he gets it, if he's hurting because of the pain that he's caused and because he's the cause of that little girl's death, then it should be approached differently. He'll need therapy, compassion, and a great deal of support from his family. Yes, and punishment, but not as harshly as if he couldn't care less what he did.

In the end, a little girl is dead, a little boy's life is changed forever, and all of it could have been prevented if the boy's parents had been responsible gun owners. In my mind, the blame lies there.

I think you are conflating two different concepts.  Did he know that shooting the girl could kill her.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he didn't understand that.  Your real point seems to be whether he appreciated that act in the same way an adult would.  I don't see anyone suggesting that is true.  That is why this kid is not being tried as an adult.

[merithyn]

I think you are conflating two different concepts.  Did he know that shooting the girl could kill her.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he didn't understand that.  Your real point seems to be whether he appreciated that act in the same way an adult would.  I don't see anyone suggesting that is true.  That is why this kid is not being tried as an adult.

If you don't understand what "kill" actually means - in real terms - then knowing that he'll kill her isn't the question. Don't you have to understand what the end result will mean in order to be held accountable?

[Razgovory]

If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

Has anyone suggested he should be punished like an adult?

That is the implication to the arguments that he knew what he was doing.

[dps]

Not that I've seen on this forum, at least. 

I think the impression that he is being tried as an adult comes from the way the article in the OP is worded: 

The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.

People see the "has been charged with first-degree murder" part and think it means he's being tried as an adult, missing the "as a juvenile" part.  I know that I did at first, and my initial reaction was like, "Whoa, I didn't think someone that young could be tried as an adult in any US jurisdiction" which lead to me re-reading that section more carefully.

And what does it mean for a kid this age? Charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile at 15 should be different than at 11. Do they do that in juvenile court? Is that a mitigating factor? I don't know enough about the juvenile legal system to have any idea how it will play out in court.

I'm not sure, and the exact answer in this case would be specific to Tennessee.  In fact, to be 100% honest, maybe they are trying him as an adult, and the bit about "as a juvenile" is just poor reporting.  But I think it simply means that they are going to try him in juvenile court.

See, the thing is, under a certain age, there is a basic presumption that one cannot form criminal intent, and therefore cannot be tried for any criminal offense, and that presumption, traditionally, couldn't be challanged.  This concept is, or at least used to be, present in almost every jurisdiction in the US, and the age was usually 8.  So if the victim had been the 11 year old and the shooter the 7 year old, she couldn't have been charged with any crime at all.  On the other hand above a certain age (used to be 16 most places, but I think 15 is more commonly used now), the presumption is that the accused is capable of forming criminal intent, subject basically to the same exceptions for mental defects as would apply to adults.  In between those ages, there was a presumption that one couldn't form criminal intent, but that presumption could be challenged on a case-by-case basis.  Assuming that those presumptions are still basically in place in Tennessee law, the article probably means that the prosecutor intents to demonstrate that the 11 year is capable enough of forming criminal intent to be charged in juvenile court.

That's what I think is going on.  But just that basic knowledge I have of the juvenile justice system may be hopelessly outdated, anyway.

[jimmy olsen]

Americans have forgotten the tactile pleasure of beating someone with a baton.

Apparently not, since the chart posted with the article indicates we have a significant lead on the rest of the developed world in non-gun homicides as well.  In fact, we appear to still beat everyone else in total homicides with all the gun homicides removed.

,

Is there no correlation between homicide rate and say...population? I saw this that suggested at least when looking at municipalities you need to think about the extent to which a crime rate is influence by population of each city. (http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf) And then here we are looking at comparison countries where at best only the UK can be said to have any sort of comparison on pop size.

Not to negate, of course, cultural factors that go into US rates.

Canada is actually very similar in that respect to the US - most of the population is urban. While Canada as a whole isn't densly populated, most of the population lives in a small area of it, a strip across the southern border - much of Canada is very sparsely populated.

I don't know about Canada, but the US census bureau clings to the ridiculous original definition of urban from the 1790 census. Any town bigger than 2500 people is urban. 

[Eddie Teach]

That is the implication to the arguments that he knew what he was doing.

Nope.

[dps]

I think you are conflating two different concepts.  Did he know that shooting the girl could kill her.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he didn't understand that.  Your real point seems to be whether he appreciated that act in the same way an adult would.  I don't see anyone suggesting that is true.  That is why this kid is not being tried as an adult.

If you don't understand what "kill" actually means - in real terms - then knowing that he'll kill her isn't the question. Don't you have to understand what the end result will mean in order to be held accountable?

I may be on real shaky ground here, both morally and legally, but I don't think so.  To hold someone accountable they have to have the capacity to know their consequence of their actions, and the capacity to know that there actions were wrong.  I think it's enough that he knew that you could kill someone with a gun, not that he had to have a complete understanding of what all death entails.

[merithyn]

I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

[jimmy olsen]

I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

I thought their victim lived, so shouldn't that be attempted murder?

[merithyn]

I may be on real shaky ground here, both morally and legally, but I don't think so.  To hold someone accountable they have to have the capacity to know their consequence of their actions, and the capacity to know that there actions were wrong.  I think it's enough that he knew that you could kill someone with a gun, not that he had to have a complete understanding of what all death entails.

It's that "and the capacity to know that their actions were wrong" bit that I think is the sticking point. If you don't fully understand what "killing" means, it's kind of hard to understand completely that it's wrong.

[merithyn]

I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

I thought their victim lived, so shouldn't that be attempted murder?

It appears so. I thought the girl had died. Incredible that she survived 19 stab wounds.

Regardless, they're still trying to decide if the girls should be tried as adults or not.

[dps]

I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

To be honest, I'm somewhat dubious of the idea that if you don't have a conscience by about age 8 or so you can ever be taught to have one by any outside agency.  I certainly think that you can develop one even much later in life, but you have to do so through self-realization, rather than it being something that can be "taught".

But yeah, an adult penitentiary isn't someplace I'd expect an 11 year old to learn about much of anything, except maybe sodomy.

[Barrister]

One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

[dps]

I may be on real shaky ground here, both morally and legally, but I don't think so.  To hold someone accountable they have to have the capacity to know their consequence of their actions, and the capacity to know that there actions were wrong.  I think it's enough that he knew that you could kill someone with a gun, not that he had to have a complete understanding of what all death entails.

It's that "and the capacity to know that their actions were wrong" bit that I think is the sticking point. If you don't fully understand what "killing" means, it's kind of hard to understand completely that it's wrong.

Well, as I said in my previous post, I don't think you have to completely understand something why something is wrong to know that it's wrong. 

[merithyn]

One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?