I have mixed feelings on such harsh sentences for kids this young. What say you Languish?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32483792/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Quote12-year-old could face life in prison for slaying
Detroit boy accused of shooting a woman to death during street robbery
updated 9:16 p.m. ET, Wed., Aug 19, 2009
DETROIT - A 12-year-old Detroit boy accused of shooting a 24-year-old woman to death during a street robbery could face an adult murder sentence of life in prison without parole if he's convicted, authorities said Wednesday.
Demarco Harris was being held Wednesday at the Wayne County juvenile detention facility. Police said officers contacted the boy's father Friday, and the man brought his son in to be arrested.
According to police, the boy tried to rob Trisha Babcock, 24, of Davison, just after midnight on Aug. 1. She had come to Detroit seeking work as a dancer and was sitting in the driver's seat of a parked car when the boy pointed his gun at her and a struggle ensued, police said. He shot her once in the chest, police said, and she later died at a hospital.
Harris is charged with felony murder, armed robbery, having a firearm during a felony and violating curfew.
He is too young to be charged as an adult under Michigan law, but the prosecutor's office filed the case with an adult designation. That means the judge can choose to impose an adult sentence. For felony murder, that would be mandatory life in prison without possibility of parole.
Chief: 'Things have changed'
"I could not have been out at night when I was 12," police Chief Warren Evans told reporters Wednesday. "Things have changed."
Police have not said how Harris got the gun, which they have not found yet. But Evans expressed frustration at the widespread presence of guns on the city's streets, particularly in the hands of young people.
"There are days when the shootings — everyone (victim and suspect) is a juvenile," he said. "There are too many guns out there."
In Michigan, cases with an adult designation are tried in juvenile court. After a conviction, the judge has a choice to sentence the juvenile as an adult or as a juvenile, or to defer the decision until the child reaches adulthood.
"It's the most responsible way of charging in this case," said Maria Miller, spokeswoman for Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
Defense lawyer Jeffrey G. Schwartz represented Harris during his brief arraignment Saturday but said the family planned to hire a private lawyer. Schwartz said he knows little about the circumstances but said there are many directions such a case could take.
"The bottom line is in an adult designation case, the judge can sentence the defendant as an adult, as a juvenile or (give) a blended sentence," he said. "There could be a plea bargain."
Michigan's law allowing life prison terms for children first drew widespread attention when Nathaniel Abraham, then 11, was charged with murder in the sniper-killing of an 18-year-old Pontiac neighbor in 1997. He was convicted of second-degree murder and released after his 21st birthday.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
I say you are a goddamn retarded new-parrot, Tim.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 10:01:46 AM
I have mixed feelings on such harsh sentences for kids this young. What say you Languish?
You got to do something. Using kids to commit crimes is an old organized crime trick since they get off easier.
If at 12 he's shooting someone to death in a robbery he's past the point of no return. Keep him locked up. OR give him the french treatment and cut off his pointer fingers so he can't shoot a gun again.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 10:01:46 AM
Michigan's law allowing life prison terms for children first drew widespread attention when Nathaniel Abraham, then 11, was charged with murder in the sniper-killing of an 18-year-old Pontiac neighbor in 1997. He was convicted of second-degree murder and released after his 21st birthday.
He's back in jail again for selling ecstacy out of the trunk of his car after being free for all of 2 years.
QuoteNathaniel Abraham, then 11, was charged with murder in the sniper-killing of an 18-year-old Pontiac neighbor in 1997.
What? An 11 year old sniper?
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
If at 12 he's shooting someone to death in a robbery he's past the point of no return.
Agreed.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 10:26:43 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
If at 12 he's shooting someone to death in a robbery he's past the point of no return.
Agreed.
What about my finger amputation suggestion? :P
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 20, 2009, 10:26:33 AM
QuoteNathaniel Abraham, then 11, was charged with murder in the sniper-killing of an 18-year-old Pontiac neighbor in 1997.
What? An 11 year old sniper?
Yes, he didn't even know the person he killed. Abraham told his girlfriend he wanted to kill someone, stole a gun then shot and killed his neighbor.
Quote from: PDH on August 20, 2009, 10:02:58 AM
I say you are a goddamn retarded new-parrot, Tim.
What about this thread prompted that response? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 10:30:08 AM
Quote from: PDH on August 20, 2009, 10:02:58 AM
I say you are a goddamn retarded new-parrot, Tim.
What about this thread prompted that response? :huh:
Possibly the goddamn retarded news-parroting. I'm just guessing here.
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
What about my finger amputation suggestion? :P
Sure, why not?
Quote from: Savonarola on August 20, 2009, 10:22:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 10:01:46 AM
Michigan's law allowing life prison terms for children first drew widespread attention when Nathaniel Abraham, then 11, was charged with murder in the sniper-killing of an 18-year-old Pontiac neighbor in 1997. He was convicted of second-degree murder and released after his 21st birthday.
He's back in jail again for selling ecstacy out of the trunk of his car after being free for all of 2 years.
I suppose finding legal work might be somewhat difficult for someone who has been in jail since they were 11 for murder.
Leave Tim alone. If sociologists hadn't destroyed the fabric of society he woudln't have to report this stuff.
I approve of this news-parroting. PDH's just bitter he can't do it.
PDH lit Timmy up but he broke the ROE.
I think there should not be any discretion for the judge or prosecutor whether a twelve year old falls under juvenile jurisdiction or not. That makes special juvenile jurisdiction pointless.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 11:08:12 AM
PDH lit Timmy up but he broke the ROE.
What are these mysterious rules of engagement?
I am the Siege of posts, no ROE for me. Tim is the corpse of the palestinian to be thrown down the well.
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
If at 12 he's shooting someone to death in a robbery he's past the point of no return. Keep him locked up. OR give him the french treatment and cut off his pointer fingers so he can't shoot a gun again.
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
That being said I am also opposed to the idea of automatically excluding the possibility of parole for someone for their entire life. What is the purpose of that? It also helps to manage inmates to give them some kind of hope, some kind of goal to work towards (even if it is 25 years out). If an inmate has zero hope they are going to become the absolute worst kind of prisoner, and human being, imaginable.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 11:24:31 AM
I think there should not be any discretion for the judge or prosecutor whether a twelve year old falls under juvenile jurisdiction or not. That makes special juvenile jurisdiction pointless.
Look at the section again:
QuoteHe is too young to be charged as an adult under Michigan law, but the prosecutor's office filed the case with an adult designation. That means the judge can choose to impose an adult sentence. For felony murder, that would be mandatory life in prison without possibility of parole.
So in order to receive an adult sentence the prosecutor must first ask for it, then the judge can choose to impose it. There's nothing mandatory about it, from either the prosecution or the judge.
I think it is silly to not allow the possibility of an adult sentence depending on the circumstances of a case.
Quote from: PDH on August 20, 2009, 11:47:44 AM
I am the Siege of posts, no ROE for me. Tim is the corpse of the palestinian to be thrown down the well.
I'm the goddamn Batman.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
Yeah, but it's not developing out of thin air, that brain development is based on what's already there. What's already there was OK with robbing someone at gunpoint and shooting them.
You're old enough to do the crime you're old enough to do the time.
The only difference I'd make is there been far far more of an emphasis on rehabilitation and easier appeals.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:08:29 PMSo in order to receive an adult sentence the prosecutor must first ask for it, then the judge can choose to impose it. There's nothing mandatory about it, from either the prosecution or the judge.
Yes. That's what I meant with discretion. I would make it mandatory that juvenile jurisdiction must be used.
QuoteI think it is silly to not allow the possibility of an adult sentence depending on the circumstances of a case.
I think it should not be allowed, no matter the circumstances.
By the way, in Euroweenie-Germany, you can only be tried for a crime starting at age 14. A twelve year old killing someone here would probably just get a lot of counciling from family services and psychiatrists.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:01:12 PM
By the way, in Euroweenie-Germany, you can only be tried for a crime starting at age 14. A twelve year old killing someone here would probably just get a lot of counciling from family services and psychiatrists.
What if you're a 12-year old who's a mass murder, and you make it clear that you'll continue murdering between the counseling sessions? Are you given a free reign until your 14th birthday?
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:01:12 PM
By the way, in Euroweenie-Germany, you can only be tried for a crime starting at age 14. A twelve year old killing someone here would probably just get a lot of counciling from family services and psychiatrists.
So the family of the victim has to sit there and watch as the murderer gets counciling and services?
Wow that is viciously cruel.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 01:07:19 PMWhat if you're a 12-year old who's a mass murder, and you make it clear that you'll continue murdering between the counseling sessions? Are you given a free reign until your 14th birthday?
I guess they would lock such a twelve year old mass murderer up in a psychiatric ward for minors, but they would not try him for a crime or put him in prison. And as soon as the doctors say he's an alright chap, he's out of psychiatry again.
Are there a lot of 13 year old drug salesmen in Germany?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 01:11:04 PM
Are there a lot of 13 year old drug salesmen in Germany?
Never heard of that. My totally prejudiced guess is that drug salesmen are usually young males, often with some kind of migrant background.
I have also never heard of a child (i.e. <14 year old) having commited killing in Germany except in accidents. Youth crime is also declining in recent years here.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 12:48:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
Yeah, but it's not developing out of thin air, that brain development is based on what's already there. What's already there was OK with robbing someone at gunpoint and shooting them.
Based on my understanding or a lecture session from Dr. James Worling in July at the Ontario Crown Attorney's Crown School on adolescent offenders (primarily, but not exclusively, focused on adolescent sexual offenders) that is simply not true.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:16:54 PM
Based on my understanding or a lecture session from Dr. James Worling in July at the Ontario Crown Attorney's Crown School on adolescent offenders (primarily, but not exclusively, focused on adolescent sexual offenders) that is simply not true.
Did Dr. Worling drive to the Crown School in his Crownmobile?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:16:54 PM
Based on my understanding or a lecture session from Dr. James Worling in July at the Ontario Crown Attorney's Crown School on adolescent offenders (primarily, but not exclusively, focused on adolescent sexual offenders) that is simply not true.
Did Dr. Worling drive to the Crown School in his Crownmobile?
Why yes, yes he did.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.howstuffworks.com%2Fgif%2Fautoreview%2F400x266%2F1992-2007-Ford-Crown-Victoria-92113351990916.jpg&hash=f4dca9546c02ea6cb3d71bb1c349b08d7bcc413b)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:16:54 PM
Based on my understanding or a lecture session from Dr. James Worling in July at the Ontario Crown Attorney's Crown School on adolescent offenders (primarily, but not exclusively, focused on adolescent sexual offenders) that is simply not true.
Did Dr. Worling drive to the Crown School in his Crownmobile?
Sponsored by Royal Crown Cola.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:16:54 PM
Based on my understanding or a lecture session from Dr. James Worling in July at the Ontario Crown Attorney's Crown School on adolescent offenders (primarily, but not exclusively, focused on adolescent sexual offenders) that is simply not true.
Did Dr. Worling drive to the Crown School in his Crownmobile?
You can fit fifteen attorneys into it.
It would be even better if the school was called Crown College.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 01:19:56 PM
Sponsored by Royal Crown Cola.
Recently learned there's a RC bottler in the West Bank.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 12:52:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:08:29 PMSo in order to receive an adult sentence the prosecutor must first ask for it, then the judge can choose to impose it. There's nothing mandatory about it, from either the prosecution or the judge.
Yes. That's what I meant with discretion. I would make it mandatory that juvenile jurisdiction must be used.
QuoteI think it is silly to not allow the possibility of an adult sentence depending on the circumstances of a case.
I think it should not be allowed, no matter the circumstances.
Well it's an opinion, so I can't (unlike DGuller) say that you're conclusively wrong.
But I really disagree. The division between youth and adult crimes is very arbitrary. It has to be in order to give some certainty to the law, but it can lead to strange results. I just saw a youth that was charged with a youth crime one week shy of their 18th birthday and get treated as a youth, then get charged one week later and is now an adult, and treated very differently. Nothing has changed about the youth in the meantime.
But because it's arbitrary there are occasions when it leads to absurd results. An 18 year old convicted or murder in Canada gets life - automatically. A 17 year old, sentenced as a youth, would get a maximum of 3 years (and only 2 of that would be in an actual jail). That's an enormous difference in sentences for a very minor difference in offenders.
That's why I support, in certain circumstances, the possibility of sentencing a youth as an adult.
By the way in Canada it would be very difficult to get an adult sentence on someone between 12 and 14 years, but somewhat easier on someone who is between 14 and 18.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:16:54 PM
Based on my understanding or a lecture session from Dr. James Worling in July at the Ontario Crown Attorney's Crown School on adolescent offenders (primarily, but not exclusively, focused on adolescent sexual offenders) that is simply not true.
Did Dr. Worling drive to the Crown School in his Crownmobile?
I just so happens that our office vehicle (a beat up Grand Cherokee) is nicknamed the Crownmobile. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 01:11:04 PM
Are there a lot of 13 year old drug salesmen in Germany?
I looked it up. In 2007 the police in Germany reported 528 narcotics law related cases by children (<14 y.o.), in 2006 they reported 678 cases.
The top crime among <14 y.o. was shop lifting, followed by damaging property and (light) battery. Not particularly surprising I guess.
Apparently there were four cases of attempted or completed murders (they don't distinguish between those) by children and seven or eight (it's given in percentages) attempted or completed other homicides (manslaughter, killing on demand etc.) by children in 2007. Never heard about such a case, so I don't know any details.
What is "killing on demand?"
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:25:23 PMBut because it's arbitrary there are occasions when it leads to absurd results. An 18 year old convicted or murder in Canada gets life - automatically. A 17 year old, sentenced as a youth, would get a maximum of 3 years (and only 2 of that would be in an actual jail). That's an enormous difference in sentences for a very minor difference in offenders.
In general I always rather err on the side of leniency. Especially with youth. We don't deem them able to make decisions, so I am fine with not deeming them able to comprehend the full severity of a crime either.
But as I brought up the German juvenile law as a comparison: once you are 14, you can be sentenced for up to 10 years in prison. And on top of that, there is something called "preventive detention", which can be imposed on those deemed a threat to society because of their grave crimes (almost only for violent crimes). Preventive detention can last until you are no longer deemed a threat. A judge reviews that every two years, but theoretically you can be locked up until you die. So a 14 year old mass murderer in Germany could get life, even if it is not called that. But a 13 year and 364 days old mass murderer would not be charged with a crime.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2009, 01:36:31 PM
What is "killing on demand?"
QuoteSection 216
Killing at the request of the victim; mercy killing
(1) If a person is induced to kill by the express and earnest request of the victim the penalty shall be imprisonment from six months to five years.
(2) The attempt shall be punishable.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:41:04 PM
In general I always rather err on the side of leniency. Especially with youth. We don't deem them able to make decisions, so I am fine with not deeming them able to comprehend the full severity of a crime either.
Err... we do deem them able to make decisions, which is why we sentence them. We find them not as responsible as adults though, which is why we give them lighter sentences.
I guess I'm just prejudiced by my own childhood experience. I did many things back then that I now consider to be highly unethical and beneath myself of even considering. However, acting out on such extreme violence never even entered my mind. I personally can't imagine someone breaking down that mental barrier in their youth, and then somehow being able to re-establish it later on in life, but I guess I'm not an expert.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:41:04 PM
In general I always rather err on the side of leniency. Especially with youth. We don't deem them able to make decisions, so I am fine with not deeming them able to comprehend the full severity of a crime either.
Err... we do deem them able to make decisions, which is why we sentence them. We find them not as responsible as adults though, which is why we give them lighter sentences.
You are right, I wanted to write "children" instead of "youth". With children being those under 14 years of age.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:25:23 PM
Well it's an opinion, so I can't (unlike DGuller) say that you're conclusively wrong.
But I really disagree. The division between youth and adult crimes is very arbitrary. It has to be in order to give some certainty to the law, but it can lead to strange results. I just saw a youth that was charged with a youth crime one week shy of their 18th birthday and get treated as a youth, then get charged one week later and is now an adult, and treated very differently. Nothing has changed about the youth in the meantime.
But because it's arbitrary there are occasions when it leads to absurd results. An 18 year old convicted or murder in Canada gets life - automatically. A 17 year old, sentenced as a youth, would get a maximum of 3 years (and only 2 of that would be in an actual jail). That's an enormous difference in sentences for a very minor difference in offenders.
That's why I support, in certain circumstances, the possibility of sentencing a youth as an adult.
By the way in Canada it would be very difficult to get an adult sentence on someone between 12 and 14 years, but somewhat easier on someone who is between 14 and 18.
The law always has trouble with crimes either by, or against, people in the transitional years of childhood. This is similar to the "statutory rape" conundrum.
I must say though that there simply has to be
some lower limits on the age of children treated as adults for purposes of sentencing. It is positively Dickensian to punish an 11 year old as if they were an adult.
Probably the Canadian way is the best of a bad business.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:25:23 PM
An 18 year old convicted or murder in Canada gets life - automatically.
:huh:
Homolka?
Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 02:46:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 01:25:23 PM
An 18 year old convicted or murder in Canada gets life - automatically.
:huh:
Homolka?
Plea bargained down to manslaughter, in return for testifying against her husband. Caused a huge scandal, that.
:lmfao:
They needed her to testify against him? Didn't they RECORD THEIR RAPES ON VIDEO!? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
If at 12 he's shooting someone to death in a robbery he's past the point of no return. Keep him locked up. OR give him the french treatment and cut off his pointer fingers so he can't shoot a gun again.
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
I'd agree with you for things like theft and vandalism, but murder? If a 12 year old sees nothing wrong with killing someone while robbing them i don't believe he'll get better once he becomes an adult.
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
I'd agree with you for things like theft and vandalism, but murder? If a 12 year old sees nothing wrong with killing someone while robbing them i don't believe he'll get better once he becomes an adult.
You can believe whatever you like. Do you have any evidence to back up that belief however?
My understanding of recidivism rates for youths, even those charged with very a serious offence, is far, far less than 100%. That is - most youths who commit a serious violent offense do not commit further offences.
And what does "all better" mean? I suppose that even if a purely normal child was charged with murder, the mere fact of going through the system and being convicted will ensure that youth will never be purely "normal" ever again. But will that person commit further crimes? Or can they become a contributing member of society? Possibly.
Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 03:09:52 PM
:lmfao:
They needed her to testify against him? Didn't they RECORD THEIR RAPES ON VIDEO!? :huh:
The deal was made before the tapes were found.
The controversy was whether what was shown on those tapes meant that Homolka had violated the terms of the deal, and coult still be prosecuted for murder. The Crown decided not to pursue that angle, and stuck by the deal.
I want those tapes.
Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 03:09:52 PM
:lmfao:
They needed her to testify against him? Didn't they RECORD THEIR RAPES ON VIDEO!? :huh:
The deal was made before the tapes were found. Obviously, it would not have been made after.
The fact that the lawyers for Bernardo had the tapes and did not turn them over to the cops was ANOTHER big scandal connected with this trial.
At the time the deal was made, H's testimony was the *only* evidence the prosecution had connecting B. to the crimes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
I want those tapes.
The tapes were destroyed.
Allegedly, they made very difficult watching.
Quote from: Malthus on August 20, 2009, 04:34:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
I want those tapes.
The tapes were destroyed.
Allegedly, they made very difficult watching.
Suposedly. I know there is a Mountie out there with some bootlegs.
I am extremely curious. :whistle:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:35:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 20, 2009, 04:34:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
I want those tapes.
The tapes were destroyed.
Allegedly, they made very difficult watching.
Suposedly. I know there is a Mountie out there with some bootlegs.
I am extremely curious. :whistle:
It wouldn't be a Mountie. OPP maybe, or Niagara Regional Police or TPS, but not the Mounties. :nerd:
If any police officer (or Crown) was found to have kept a copy of those tapes despite judicial court order they'd be charged six ways from Sunday.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:35:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 20, 2009, 04:34:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
I want those tapes.
The tapes were destroyed.
Allegedly, they made very difficult watching.
Suposedly. I know there is a Mountie out there with some bootlegs.
I am extremely curious. :whistle:
It wouldn't be a Mountie. OPP maybe, or Niagara Regional Police or TPS, but not the Mounties. :nerd:
If any police officer (or Crown) was found to have kept a copy of those tapes despite judicial court order they'd be charged six ways from Sunday.
Thank you Captain Buzzkill. My profuse apologies for killing some time. :blush:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:44:12 PM
Thank you Captain Buzzkill. My profuse apologies for killing some time. :blush:
Just videotape yourself with your wife. Same effect. :p
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 04:45:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:44:12 PM
Thank you Captain Buzzkill. My profuse apologies for killing some time. :blush:
Just videotape yourself with your wife. Same effect. :p
That gets boring.
How old (or young) is MBs wife that he gets all this cradle robber jokes?
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 05:18:01 PM
How old (or young) is MBs wife that he gets all this cradle robber jokes?
27.
Give me a fucking break. What a lame joke then. You guys make it sound like he married a girl of only 19.
MB you are what..35ish?
When I get married, I know damn for sure I'm going to nab me a nice, younger girl barely of legal age to ensure my youth remains solidified forever. :)
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Give me a fucking break. What a lame joke then. You guys make it sound like he married a girl of only 19.
MB you are what..35ish?
When I get married, I know damn for sure I'm going to nab me a nice, younger girl barely of legal age to ensure my youth remains solidified forever. :)
37. 38 in October.
I don't mind the jokes.
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Give me a fucking break. What a lame joke then. You guys make it sound like he married a girl of only 19.
MB you are what..35ish?
When I get married, I know damn for sure I'm going to nab me a nice, younger girl barely of legal age to ensure my youth remains solidified forever. :)
He married her like 3 years ago, so he was 34 and she was 24.
Shit, I'm 9 years and one month older than my wife.
:)
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but at our middle school we've had two students that I would classify as absolute sociopaths. In fact, they're diagnosed as having dissocial personality disorder. One of them, at the age of 11, actually scared several staff members by his complete lack of ability to empathize or otherwise recognize how his actions affected others.
Both kids are now in psych hospitals. According to their profiles, their psyches believe that their horrible upbringing - involving extreme neglect, severe physical abuse, and drug use - was the cause of their sociopathic tendencies.
There's no reason to believe that these two kids are unique. Many of our kids aren't far off this mark, though never diagnosed.
Execute him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 05:42:21 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Give me a fucking break. What a lame joke then. You guys make it sound like he married a girl of only 19.
MB you are what..35ish?
When I get married, I know damn for sure I'm going to nab me a nice, younger girl barely of legal age to ensure my youth remains solidified forever. :)
He married her like 3 years ago, so he was 34 and she was 24.
the 1/2 + 7 rule is bullshit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
the 1/2 + 7 rule is bullshit.
I agree, >18 is sufficient.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
the 1/2 + 7 rule is bullshit.
*does some quick math*
Phew! Made it by two. :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 05:42:21 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Give me a fucking break. What a lame joke then. You guys make it sound like he married a girl of only 19.
MB you are what..35ish?
When I get married, I know damn for sure I'm going to nab me a nice, younger girl barely of legal age to ensure my youth remains solidified forever. :)
He married her like 3 years ago, so he was 34 and she was 24.
the 1/2 + 7 rule is bullshit.
34/2 +7 = 24.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 07:57:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 05:42:21 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Give me a fucking break. What a lame joke then. You guys make it sound like he married a girl of only 19.
MB you are what..35ish?
When I get married, I know damn for sure I'm going to nab me a nice, younger girl barely of legal age to ensure my youth remains solidified forever. :)
He married her like 3 years ago, so he was 34 and she was 24.
the 1/2 + 7 rule is bullshit.
34/2 +7 = 24.
It is still bullshit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 05:42:21 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Give me a fucking break. What a lame joke then. You guys make it sound like he married a girl of only 19.
MB you are what..35ish?
When I get married, I know damn for sure I'm going to nab me a nice, younger girl barely of legal age to ensure my youth remains solidified forever. :)
He married her like 3 years ago, so he was 34 and she was 24.
the 1/2 + 7 rule is bullshit.
Indeed.
The older I get, and therefore the more I look like Sean Connery in his mannish prime, the more the 1/2+7 rule looks like rubbish to me too.
Quote from: merithyn on August 20, 2009, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but at our middle school we've had two students that I would classify as absolute sociopaths. In fact, they're diagnosed as having dissocial personality disorder. One of them, at the age of 11, actually scared several staff members by his complete lack of ability to empathize or otherwise recognize how his actions affected others.
Both kids are now in psych hospitals. According to their profiles, their psyches believe that their horrible upbringing - involving extreme neglect, severe physical abuse, and drug use - was the cause of their sociopathic tendencies.
There's no reason to believe that these two kids are unique. Many of our kids aren't far off this mark, though never diagnosed.
I have two thoughts:
1. I'm not certain about how well you can diagnose young people (especially that young) wit major personality disorders like that. I know many diagnostic tools have particular warnings that they are not to be used on adolescents.
2. To the extent that a youth can be diagnosed with a significant personality disorder, yes they may well have a very elevated chance of re-offending. High, but not 100% HOWEVER most young people that commit crimes, even very violent crimes, do not have a diagnosable illness. That was one of the major points the forensic psychiatrist I referenced earlier made.
I'm not saying that some adolescents can't be vary dangerous. What I am saying is you can't make that assessment based simply on what the crime was.
What about giving them a conditional adult sentence? If there's such a thing. if their crime is so henious as to deserve an adult sentence then they serve the maximum child sentence, and after that the get a psych eval, and another one every two or so years until either they're cleared or the fulfill they full sentence (ie the sentence they would have gotten as an adult). If they pass their first eval then there record gets cleared like any other child offender. that way both sides when. the one that think kids can change, and the ones that think truely fucked kids become truly fucked up adults
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
If at 12 he's shooting someone to death in a robbery he's past the point of no return. Keep him locked up. OR give him the french treatment and cut off his pointer fingers so he can't shoot a gun again.
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
That being said I am also opposed to the idea of automatically excluding the possibility of parole for someone for their entire life. What is the purpose of that? It also helps to manage inmates to give them some kind of hope, some kind of goal to work towards (even if it is 25 years out). If an inmate has zero hope they are going to become the absolute worst kind of prisoner, and human being, imaginable.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:01:12 PM
By the way, in Euroweenie-Germany, you can only be tried for a crime starting at age 14. A twelve year old killing someone here would probably just get a lot of counciling from family services and psychiatrists.
Same, only the age here is 15 (and that only for the worst crimes; the standard age is 17). Below that age you can be sent to a juvenile perp institution but you are released upon adulthood.
Anyway, the purpose of the prison system is to (i) serve justice, and (ii) offer the perp some attempt at resocialization. It's not to "lock him away" because he is a threat - that's what psychiatric wards are for.
When you are dealing with kids, the stress should always be on resocialization first, and justice second, because, well, because we are humanists, and not damn barbaric apes.
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
If at 12 he's shooting someone to death in a robbery he's past the point of no return. Keep him locked up. OR give him the french treatment and cut off his pointer fingers so he can't shoot a gun again.
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
I'd agree with you for things like theft and vandalism, but murder? If a 12 year old sees nothing wrong with killing someone while robbing them i don't believe he'll get better once he becomes an adult.
The point is not to just let them go and hope they get better, but to engage in education and resocialisation of the kid, because at that age he can still get better, provided he is subjected to proper counseling and supervision.
When a 12 y.o. kid commits a crime, then the society (aka "we") have clearly failed the kid in one way or another, and it is both immoral and counterproductive to just lock him away for life.
To be honest, I am appalled by the blind knee-jerk idiocy from you and other people in this thread. The old quote by Churchill about a 5-minute chat with an average voter being the best argument against democracy has never been more true.
Quote from: merithyn on August 20, 2009, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but at our middle school we've had two students that I would classify as absolute sociopaths. In fact, they're diagnosed as having dissocial personality disorder. One of them, at the age of 11, actually scared several staff members by his complete lack of ability to empathize or otherwise recognize how his actions affected others.
Both kids are now in psych hospitals. According to their profiles, their psyches believe that their horrible upbringing - involving extreme neglect, severe physical abuse, and drug use - was the cause of their sociopathic tendencies.
There's no reason to believe that these two kids are unique. Many of our kids aren't far off this mark, though never diagnosed.
What about your criminal kid? Is he a sociopath too or is his criminal behaviour just a result of you failing as a parent?
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2009, 07:07:00 AM
It's not to "lock him away" because he is a threat - that's what psychiatric wards are for.
Psychiatric wards can not do that in the US unfortunately. The insane have the civil right to leave if they want. As a result we usually have to wait for the dangerously insane to actually commit a crime to remove them from society. So it is the only legal way to "lock him away" because he is a threat. Only a court order can keep anybody anywhere against their will.
Hurrah for civil rights!
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2009, 07:10:32 AM
What about your criminal kid? Is he a sociopath too or is his criminal behaviour just a result of you failing as a parent?
I suppose you know all about kids since you spend so much time with them.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2009, 07:10:32 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 20, 2009, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
To say that someone at the age of TWELVE is beyond the point of no return is absolute foolishness. It is not based on any kind of experience or evidence. The Brain is just barely beginning puberty at that point, and has an enormous amount of developing and maturing to do.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but at our middle school we've had two students that I would classify as absolute sociopaths. In fact, they're diagnosed as having dissocial personality disorder. One of them, at the age of 11, actually scared several staff members by his complete lack of ability to empathize or otherwise recognize how his actions affected others.
Both kids are now in psych hospitals. According to their profiles, their psyches believe that their horrible upbringing - involving extreme neglect, severe physical abuse, and drug use - was the cause of their sociopathic tendencies.
There's no reason to believe that these two kids are unique. Many of our kids aren't far off this mark, though never diagnosed.
What about your criminal kid? Is he a sociopath too or is his criminal behaviour just a result of you failing as a parent?
That was totally uncalled for.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2009, 07:10:32 AM
What about your criminal kid? Is he a sociopath too or is his criminal behaviour just a result of you failing as a parent?
WTF? :unsure:
Also, isn't that a backroom violation Marty?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 21, 2009, 10:05:58 AM
Also, isn't that a backroom violation Marty?
PURGE MARTY.
What's a back room violation? :unsure: Is that where you get taken to the back room for something bad that you did?
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
What's a back room violation? :unsure: Is that where you get taken to the back room for something bad that you did?
There is a back room where all the Kool kids hang out. And Marty, the Homer Simpson in the back room.
Anyways, what is said back there isn't supposed to leak out here where the plebs can read it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 10:11:47 AM
There is a back room where all the Kool kids hang out. And Marty, the Homer Simpson in the back room.
Anyways, what is said back there isn't supposed to leak out here where the plebs can read it.
I feel left out. :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2009, 10:19:40 PM
I'm not saying that some adolescents can't be vary dangerous. What I am saying is you can't make that assessment based simply on what the crime was.
I agree with this. I also believe that there are absolutely children out there who at the age of 11 are not savable.
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2009, 10:38:21 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 10:11:47 AM
There is a back room where all the Kool kids hang out. And Marty, the Homer Simpson in the back room.
Anyways, what is said back there isn't supposed to leak out here where the plebs can read it.
I feel left out. :cry:
You'll never be cool.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2009, 07:10:32 AM
What about your criminal kid? Is he a sociopath too or is his criminal behaviour just a result of you failing as a parent?
He's been punished and resocialized without any further incidences, so I guess just poor parenting. ^_^
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 05:48:31 PM
You'll never be cool.
I'm not cool anymore, either, as I've not been added back there since the move. :(
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2009, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 05:48:31 PM
You'll never be cool.
I'm not cool anymore, either, as I've not been added back there since the move. :(
katmai is a very lazy beaner.
aren't we all?
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2009, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 05:48:31 PM
You'll never be cool.
I'm not cool anymore, either, as I've not been added back there since the move. :(
If you were a member all you have to do is ask.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 21, 2009, 05:58:59 PM
If you were a member all you have to do is ask.
I didn't know. :(
Shut up, white woman.
Quote from: Jaron on August 21, 2009, 06:03:34 PM
Shut up, white woman.
:console:
I can teach you the Mexican Hat Dance if you really want to learn it.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2009, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 05:48:31 PM
You'll never be cool.
I'm not cool anymore, either, as I've not been added back there since the move. :(
Actually we had a thread back there asking for you...
Oh crap BR violation!
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 06:25:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2009, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 05:48:31 PM
You'll never be cool.
I'm not cool anymore, either, as I've not been added back there since the move. :(
Actually we had a thread back there asking for you...
Oh crap BR violation!
PURGE VALMY