BF2S Forums Killer, 13, sent to juvenile detention until age 21

pace51 wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Kids like these don't learn any lessons while in prison. He's just gonna come out with more hate and issues/problems, and kill at least 2 or 3 more, guarantee it.

They should put him in a maximum security youth detention facility, and then trandsfer him to an adult prison. They shouldn't release him at 21, they should wait till' he's muh older, and then put him on parole. With very constant monitoring. There may be a way to fix this kid, but what he did, is really terrible. He deserves life imprisonment, but maybe he can be fixed. Not likely, but maybe. Aa life in jail will just increase his resentment, if he''s in jail for too long, he'll just get more resentful.

he'll just get worse then

mcminty wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

At the same time, however, 15 year olds should be allowed to drive unsupervised as well -- assuming that they've gotten in enough practice and passed the driver's test before then.

I hope that was sarcastic..

When I was growing up, they had permits for 15 year olds.  Now, in my area, they don't even let you have a permit until you're 16 (or possibly 17 now).

People always complain about the pussification of America and other societies in general.  The reason why that happens is because we seem to be elongating the period known as adolescence.  Aside from the biological side of this, adolescence is a societal construct that seems to have grown out of limiting competition among unskilled workers.  We outlawed child labor partially because many adults didn't want to compete with teens for jobs.  Nowadays, things have changed so much in America that this mindset is outdated.

What we really need to do is go back to the idea of adulthood starting in the mid-teens.  If we start expecting more out of teenagers maturity wise, then most of them will adapt and grow up faster.  With that should come more adult privileges as well.

For example, binge drinking is less of a problem in societies where children grow up being taught how to drink by their parents.  Teen pregnancy is less of a problem among cultures where both schools and parents take more of an active role in explaining contraceptives.  The same goes for drug awareness.

In short, the general trend is to both inform teens and expect more out of them while giving them some of the advantages of more responsibility.

Sure, some teens are idiots, but a lot of these same teens are the ones that remain idiots as adults.  Plenty of smarter and more mature teens get treated with the same bullshit coddling that their dumber and less mature peers get but without any reason other than the laziness of the system and the ignorance of many more conservative/protective parents.

You see where I'm coming from, right?

Turquoise wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

At the same time, however, 15 year olds should be allowed to drive unsupervised as well -- assuming that they've gotten in enough practice and passed the driver's test before then.

I hope that was sarcastic..

When I was growing up, they had permits for 15 year olds.  Now, in my area, they don't even let you have a permit until you're 16 (or possibly 17 now).

People always complain about the pussification of America and other societies in general.  The reason why that happens is because we seem to be elongating the period known as adolescence.  Aside from the biological side of this, adolescence is a societal construct that seems to have grown out of limiting competition among unskilled workers.  We outlawed child labor partially because many adults didn't want to compete with teens for jobs.  Nowadays, things have changed so much in America that this mindset is outdated.

What we really need to do is go back to the idea of adulthood starting in the mid-teens.  If we start expecting more out of teenagers maturity wise, then most of them will adapt and grow up faster.  With that should come more adult privileges as well.

For example, binge drinking is less of a problem in societies where children grow up being taught how to drink by their parents.  Teen pregnancy is less of a problem among cultures where both schools and parents take more of an active role in explaining contraceptives.  The same goes for drug awareness.

In short, the general trend is to both inform teens and expect more out of them while giving them some of the advantages of more responsibility.

Sure, some teens are idiots, but a lot of these same teens are the ones that remain idiots as adults.  Plenty of smarter and more mature teens get treated with the same bullshit coddling that their dumber and less mature peers get but without any reason other than the laziness of the system and the ignorance of many more conservative/protective parents.

You see where I'm coming from, right?

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Especially the drinking thing, I was going to mention it before but decided not to - I completely agree on that point, and also the one about sex education.

But a 15 year old doesn't have the maturity to drive on their own. Over here, you can get your learners permit at 16. You aren't allowed to drive on your own until 17, but then I still think that's too young. There are way too many teenagers killing both themselves, friends and random innocent people because they can't handle the responsibility of being in control of a vehicle. But I'm a bit jaded on this topic.. I think most people on the roads are fucking morons who shouldn't be driving.

burnzz wrote:

if a child kills, not knowing the consequences of his action - wouldn't his death, at firing squad, also be beyond him?

why this sanctity towards life to those that do not have it? it's an easy standard really, take a life and forfeit your own.

i hope those that have posted in this thread never lose a loved one in the manner of the girl in the OP.

If a three-year-old is playing with daddy's gun and accidentally blows someone's head off, that's one thing. 12/13? Murder.

"Why this sanctity towards the lives of those who do not have it?" You have got to be kidding me. Did you once think about any of the other innocent lives that he may decide to take in the future, now that he's taken one? And what about his victim's family, or the families of his potential victims once he gets out?

What makes these killers so precious that they deserve special consideration when they were clearly incapable of showing the same to those whose lives they destroyed?

You could call those two cases involuntary (criminally-negligent, if you want to subcategorize) manslaughter, but I would be tempted to place the charge on the three-year-old's parents. After all, the kid's only three, so wtf. Without knowing more about your hypothetical 13-year-old and his hunting rifle, I couldn't guess what the outcome would be.

The real killer referred to by the OP is a different animal. He shot someone in a parked car during a robbery. Without some seriously mitigating circumstances, you can't even really call it voluntary manslaughter.

Quoted from the OP article: "Babcock said he wanted the judge to set an example. "Just because you're 12, 13, 14 doesn't mean you can murder somebody and be set free when you are 21," he said."

mikkel wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

What kind of argument are you trying to make? This doesn't make much sense.

I'm making the argument that it seems rather silly to be so concerned about giving obvious scum like this second chances when they so thoroughly deprived their victims of one, and will probably squander their own on depriving even more people of one. Murder is above and beyond juvenile delinquency.

When dealing with something as significant as human lives, it seems entirely too cynical and disconnected to decide fate based on gross assumption. Some murderers certainly will kill again, they're most certainly bad people. Other murderers won't. Every day a truly reformed criminal spends behind bars is a loss to everyone involved, and to dismiss the very idea of evaluating the suitability for release of underage offenders once they reach suffrage would serve to do little other than set this loss in stone.

The problem with assuming a criminal is reformed is that you don't know until you let him go...and even then, you can't be sure. Taking people like this out of jail puts everyone in the community you deposit them at risk. People I value far more than some 13-year-old thug-in-training getting a second chance to 'ruin someone's day.'

mcminty wrote:

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Especially the drinking thing, I was going to mention it before but decided not to - I completely agree on that point, and also the one about sex education.

But a 15 year old doesn't have the maturity to drive on their own. Over here, you can get your learners permit at 16. You aren't allowed to drive on your own until 17, but then I still think that's too young. There are way too many teenagers killing both themselves, friends and random innocent people because they can't handle the responsibility of being in control of a vehicle. But I'm a bit jaded on this topic.. I think most people on the roads are fucking morons who shouldn't be driving.

Well, I can't disagree with that last sentence...  lol...   Maybe they could implement an IQ test along with the driver's test.

LOL.... 



I'm Batman!

mcminty wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I can't disagree with that last sentence...  lol...   Maybe they could implement an IQ test along with the driver's test.

But then the entire economy would collapse..

For a start, maybe make them take the same "Driver Knowledge Test" (on the road rules) that prospective learner drivers have to take before they get their learner license. It wouldn't only be every 5 years, when they get their license renewed.

I've been road raged by some guy in their 50's because "You are a fucking P-plater (provisional license) who doesn't know the fucking road rules".. yet in fact, that would just mean I'm more up to date with the rules. In the scenario in question, I was actually in the right. (hence why I'm jaded about the whole thing..)

I see what you mean, and I agree.

mcminty wrote:

But yeah, on the OP: What is so wrong with society that to some people the value of a human life is nothing; that a life can be taken by some drug dealing THIRTEEN year old without a second thought?

It's kind of like the child soldier concept.  If a child is exposed to the wrong crowd and lifestyle at a young enough age, he/she becomes a monster.   Children that grow up in wartorn societies and are forced into killing people never really recover later in life.  They usually become sociopathic and pose a threat to society from that point onward.

By the same token, a drug dealing 13 year old who kills a cop is probably never going to be more than a problem for society.

This is why the death penalty is appropriate for certain perpetrators of murder.