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

[dps]

Yep.  A person must understand a crime to be punished for it.  Arguing that an 11 year old knows just as well as an adult year old that murder is wrong is arguing that the 11 year old had Mens Rea and thus should be punished in the same way as an adult.

Again, who is making this claim?

It's a natural assumption from statements like "I knew it was wrong to kill at 11".  Presumably that knowledge stays with you at 18, you don't find out that killing got more wrong.  Hell, at that age you can legally join organizations that train you to kill people and tell you that it is much less wrong to kill people if you have permission first.

Knowing that murder is wrong at age 11 doesn't mean that there isn't other knowledge you might acquire by age 18 that you don't have at 11.

What additional knowledge is required for mens rea?

A basic understanding of the consequences of your actions. 

As I said before, there a legal presumption that children in that age group can't form intent, but the presumption can be challenged in individual cases.  The thing is, that presumption is a very useful legal fiction for the kind of petty misbehavior that kids normally engage in.  Two ten year olds get into a fist fight?  Normally almost nobody sees any utility or justice in prosecuting them for assault, so we say that they were too young to form criminal intent.  That doesn't mean that we think that they literally didn't know that getting punched hurts, or that they didn't know it was wrong to hit each other.  The doctrine kind of breaks down when a kid takes a shotgun and deliberately shoots someone.

Of course, there are situations where a child might reasonably be expected to actually not have any understanding of the consequences of what they are doing.  If the 11 year old in this case, instead of shooting the little girl, had happened to get ahold of the girl's mother's debit card, and started using it to buy himself stuff, I would find it credible to believe that he really had no understanding of how debit cards work, and that using it like that would harm the actual owner of the card.

[Berkut]

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?

I don't think it's anything societal.  It just goes to the undeveloped youth brain.  Like I mentioned with this young girl she'd never gotten in trouble with the law before, and her chance of getting in trouble with the law again seemed minimal.  She did, however, murder a man in fairly cold blood.  She was remorseful, but a lot of that remorse was also tied up in how this murder affected herself.

Anyways - as hard as adult crime can be to understand, youth crime is absolutely unfathomable.

I think I remember you talking about this a few years ago - how did it all end up?

[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.

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?

I don't think it's anything societal.  It just goes to the undeveloped youth brain.  Like I mentioned with this young girl she'd never gotten in trouble with the law before, and her chance of getting in trouble with the law again seemed minimal.  She did, however, murder a man in fairly cold blood.  She was remorseful, but a lot of that remorse was also tied up in how this murder affected herself.

Anyways - as hard as adult crime can be to understand, youth crime is absolutely unfathomable.

I think I remember you talking about this a few years ago - how did it all end up?

PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

[DontSayBanana]

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

I'd been led to believe that (depending on the state) children under 9 are not generally criminally charged, and children 9 to 12 are only charged given evidence of the cognizance of their actions.

By your logic, no teenagers should be charged because hormone imbalances impair their judgment.

[merithyn]

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

I'd been led to believe that (depending on the state) children under 9 are not generally criminally charged, and children 9 to 12 are only charged given evidence of the cognizance of their actions.

By your logic, no teenagers should be charged because hormone imbalances impair their judgment.

My logic brought you to that conclusion, did it? Perhaps you should reread what I wrote.

[Barrister]

As I said before, there a legal presumption that children in that age group can't form intent, but the presumption can be challenged in individual cases.  The thing is, that presumption is a very useful legal fiction for the kind of petty misbehavior that kids normally engage in.  Two ten year olds get into a fist fight?  Normally almost nobody sees any utility or justice in prosecuting them for assault, so we say that they were too young to form criminal intent.  That doesn't mean that we think that they literally didn't know that getting punched hurts, or that they didn't know it was wrong to hit each other.  The doctrine kind of breaks down when a kid takes a shotgun and deliberately shoots someone.

It's not that there's a presumption that children can't form intent.  Rather, it's that we've decided we will not hold them responsible in the criminal courts for their actions.

[MadImmortalMan]

By your logic, no teenagers should be charged because hormone imbalances impair their judgment.

Plenty of adults have that problem too. 

[Capetan Mihali]

PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

BCC me?

EDIT:  I am still very interested in comparative criminal law (esp. the sentencing component) as an under-studied topic in the legal academy, and finally got around to reading a couple of the few books on the topic this summer.  Finland has a pretty interesting story; in the 50s and 60s, DWI convictions used to almost always result in to-serve jail sentences, but they progressively reduced them to suspended sentences and fines, just as the US and other countries were starting to make the opposite transition.

[Malthus]

PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

BCC me?

EDIT:  I am still very interested in comparative criminal law (esp. the sentencing component) as an under-studied topic in the legal academy, and finally got around to reading a couple of the few books on the topic this summer.  Finland has a pretty interesting story; in the 50s and 60s, DWI convictions used to almost always result in to-serve jail sentences, but they progressively reduced them to suspended sentences and fines, just as the US and other countries were starting to make the opposite transition.

Otherwise all Finns would be incarcerated? 

[Caliga]

Femme qui rit, femme au lit. 

Funny cause it's true.

[mongers]

Earlier  I watch a report about Obamas visit to the scene of one of the more recent shooting outrages, they interviewed some of the protestors and one of them, voice quaking with emotion said:
"I need to defend myself with as much ammunition as I can get. And I don't want him to take it away from me."     


edit:
Originally posted in wrong thread. By the way what happened to the gun control thread?

[Caliga]

Originally posted in wrong thread. By the way what happened to the gun control thread?

Lobbyists paid to have it removed.

[Tonitrus]

Originally posted in wrong thread. By the way what happened to the gun control thread?

Lobbyists paid to have it removed.

It was one of our accidental megathreads.  And this one appears to have the making of it's sequel.

I blame Tim (even though he didn't start either thread). 

[Barrister]

PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

BCC me?

Same rule applies: PM me your email and I'll be happy to do so.

[Razgovory]

I don't want any details, but I can email you to show that I care.