Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 http://krqe.com/2015/03/17/minors-in-homeless-beating-deaths-seek-amenability-hearing/ Should the two minors in this case be tried as juveniles or adults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 How can anyone argue at those ages they didn't know what they were doing? Don't most people have right and wrong taught to them from an early age? And if what the 15 year old claimed was true about beating up other homeless people, clearly they knew what they were doing was wrong. What went so wrong with this kids? Although I feel putting them in prison might make things worse for them when they get older, they clearly can't be put with Juveniles because they could be a bad influence on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Yeah there's some things that just are way too severe to let it just be tried as juveniles, and 15 isn't THAT far from the line of adulthood anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cierfrost Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Reading the PDF of the Defense located here: https://lintvkrqe.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/scanned-from-a-xerox-multifunction-device.pdf You can avoid reading it if you're not interested in the science behind the reasoning of people traditionally "child" from a social standpoint in America. There is virtually nothing about the case itself within the defense, but rather the argument that people between a certain age range are moot in ability to reason thus the laws for amenability should be increased from 14 to whatever age deemed agreeable. While I agree with the science behind the argument as well as the request to reconsider the laws regarding children's amenability, none of this matters to me if the persons involved admitted that they committed it willingly and with intent. A first degree murder basically. Which is a crucial thing the defense fails to state. Except under references to the use of First-Degree Murder and amenability as well as page 9 where the following is said: The distinction between first- and second degree murder is meaningless when children are involved. Hence, the denial of the protections of the Children's Code based on this supposed "distinction" violates due process and equal protection. The argument is sound and reconsideration of the law is necessary with given evidence. However as stated I do not believe it applies to all cases of First Degree murder. Or rather to change what happens to the deemed children in these situations, which may be intense therapy until the age of 18 and then an evaluation of psyche to determine if the child is now fit for society, or some other agreed upon method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Does any murderer know what they're doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Does any murderer know what they're doing? Simple answer is yes, yes there are murderers who know exactly what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cierfrost Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Does any murderer know what they're doing? ... thats exactly what First-Degree Murder is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 By the book as always, Icy! Don't mistake that for a compliment. Simple answer is yes, yes there are murderers who know exactly what they're doing. Your answer is indeed simple, but your simple answer doesn't do the question justice. If it did, murder and the ineffable "criminal mind" wouldn't have the intrigue that it does. It's a question of epistemology. There are some things that one person cannot possibly know in murdering another, as a person can only know another person so well. A murderer therefore cannot know "exactly what they're doing". Perhaps it's what they don't know that we convict them for, perhaps this is more true to the nature of what "first-degree murder" actually is. I pity murderers for their ignorance as I pity the murdered and the people dear to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cierfrost Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 By the book as always, Icy! Don't mistake that for a compliment. [CowCow's Post] Your answer is indeed simple, but your simple answer doesn't do the question justice. If it did, murder and the ineffable "criminal mind" wouldn't have the intrigue that it does. It's a question of epistemology. There are some things that one person cannot possibly know in murdering another, as a person can only know another person so well. A murderer therefore cannot know "exactly what they're doing". Perhaps it's what they don't know that we convict them for, perhaps this is more true to the nature of what "first-degree murder" actually is. I pity murderers for their ignorance as I pity the murdered and the people dear to them. I'll take it as a compliment regardless. I personally value how well I can uphold the laws and rules set forth by those before me. I strongly disagree that the criminal mind has any degree of intrigue. A person can wholeheartedly believe that their act of murder or other crime was the right course of action. Just as well as your decision to save a life or a lesser action to open the refrigerator door instead of punching a hole in it. That same person may just as well believe that they are doing the wrong action but feel compelled to do it. Or really any other action that results in a choice. That includes impulse control. For them and the world they see that is exactly the right option and on us, they were right to take that action. But society as a whole doesn't work that way. Even if they did what they see as right and we can agree with it all we want, they still committed an act that results in punishment. A punishment decided upon by the society that they are residents of. All of them punishable for the same crimes dictated and the extent agreed upon. Maybe I'm too much of a Paladin for Law or whatever, but that's how I see it. The subjects are correct in their actions if they believe it so, but are still punishable according to the law of the land of which they reside and that's exactly how it should be dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Of course people know what they're doing when they kill someone. They're fucking killing someone. It's not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Not necessarily, because you have intentional (murder) and accidental (manslaughter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 I strongly disagree that the criminal mind has any degree of intrigue. Do you know what something is when it hasn't any degree of intrigue? Normal and relatable! If society and its laws are based on norms and the criminal mind is normal, we're all criminals, but if we were all criminals, the word "criminal" would lose its meaning. One who goes against the laws goes against what is established as normal, criminals are punished by the law because they are not normal, and that which is not normal is intriguing because it's unfamiliar and involves questions that can't be answered by a normal person. In lieu of answers, there are questions, and questions indicate intrigue. Not necessarily, because you have intentional (murder) and accidental (manslaughter). That's not the question, the question is whether a murderer knows the implications of what they're doing in murdering someone. Of course people know what they're doing when they kill someone. They're fucking killing someone. It's not rocket science. That's not the question, the question is whether a murderer knows the implications of what they're doing in murdering someone. Planning to kill someone and doing it are very different from knowing what you're doing. To say that first-degree murder equates to "knowing what you're doing" is to say that it's okay to murder people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted April 7, 2015 Report Share Posted April 7, 2015 ALL HAIL FLAME DRAGON!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simping For Hina Posted April 7, 2015 Report Share Posted April 7, 2015 I AM A ROBOT!!! BEEP BOOP!Are you saying that since Juveniles are tried as adults, they should use medication meant for adults?I mean, I can't agree with that by any means. It is nothing but detrimental to their health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.