In Prison for life

[King Tyrant Lizard]

Hey, if calling people who disagree names is your best strategy for winning this debate, then go for it. All's fair, and etc.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Hey, if calling people who disagree names is your best strategy for winning this debate, then go for it. All's fair, and etc.

We are more than a little off track here - I'm not trying to win by calling you names, I'm calling you a fool because that is what I believe you to be on this topic. It's not like I just started spouting off random obscenities or calling you strange names that have nothing to do with the way I see your position.

You clearly are just trying to divert attention from your own terrible argument that we should not even Attempt to rehabilitate a 14 year old boy. But if trying to sidetrack the topic is your best strategy blah blah blah...

Anyway, I really wholeheartedly hope this man gets a second chance, and that we continue to work TOWARDS the idea of rehabilitating people who have been abused and miseducated, rather than simply locking them away for life.

Edit: And honestly, I apologize if being called a fool bothered you - but I do feel that your stance on this argument is foolish, and that other people that believe this sort of thing (that people can't be rehabilitated) are responsible for causing these sorts of miscarriages of justice... You may feel my side is naive. C'est la vie.

 

[irmerk]

i've dealt with psychopaths professionally.. They are by definition incurable. Although not entirely conclusive, minor brain damage is involved in developing psychopathy. And i do not have enough insight in this case, my guess is that those involved in this judgement have more material to go by, so yeah...

Sorry if I was wrong, as I may well have been. All the same, you only conclude to the same thing I said:

What deems him a psychopath...?

 

[Whisperelmwood]

From the little I have read of this case, he shouldn't have been tried as an adult in that case and he should not have been locked up for life over it.

At fourteen, actually YES, he was perfectly rehabitable. Speaking as the relative** of someone who worked in Forensic Psychiatric Nursing for a decade, treating criminal children, YES he could easily have been rehabilitated.

Jesus christ, my family member treated some of the worst kids in our area of England, kids who committed far worse crimes than getting a bit heated and stabbing their step-brother. A goodly amount of those kids are now safe enough to be back in society.

A lot of the time, it's just a case of removing them from the fucking horrible situations they are living in, showing them what normal life is like and treating them with a bit of respect.

True psychopaths, obviously, are harder to deal with. But I sincerely doubt this kid is one.




**Identity, need to keep hidden if possible.
Also, yes, simplified a lot. I'm not a psychiatrist/psychologist at all, jsut related to one - we talk about this very subject quite often.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There is a difference between sociopaths/psychopaths who murder, and people who kill based on poor judgment or poor impulse control. This 14 year old killer doesn't appear to be a sociopath or a psychopath. It looks like a case where a child lost his temper, and happened to have a weapon close at hand. That's not the same as someone who is a premeditated murderer because they are crazy, possibly incurably so. It is frankly STUPID to treat children with impulse control issues more harshly than many adult killers who get a chance of parole.

I'm not saying that there should be no punishment... but even Charles Manson has a hypothetical chance at parole.

 

[PuppetXeno]

Ok ofcourse this person's case needs to be reviewed thoroughly, he should have a fair chance just like everyone else in jail. It doesn't take away that he murdered someone, and that murdering someone is not a sign of good mental health. Ofcourse he wasn't mentally healthy, he was an abused, beaten and broken child to begin with, born from a crack addict, probably made to use crack himself from early age on, so it's pretty safe to conclude that his brain was damaged to begin with.

Ergo, the chances of him not being able to function safely in an unmoderated social environment are pretty damn high. Not that he doesn't want to - he might just not be capable of functioning safely. If he is eventually set free, he will get a job somewhere, and in this job environment a coworked will make a remark, some trigger may be set off, he might snap and do something he really doesn't want to. Just because he was born in an unfortunate situation, having been exposed to drugs and abuse on such an early age... Unless you'd put him on drugs for the rest of his life he'll be a hazard to himself and to others around him.

Ok I'm drawing a worst case scenario here: the drugs and abuse from early age on probably fundamentally damaged him...

But I don't know enough about this case to make this judgement. All I can guess is that those who do know enough know what they're doing. It's pretty harsh to discredit the entire justice system because the rough outlines of this case make it seem that he sits innocently behind bars... I think people who work in the justice system will want to help people back into society, where possible. They will do what they can to give everyone a fair chance. I could be wrong but real life isn't hollywood where the good guys drew the short straw and we should all deeply sympathize. Now a heart-breaking report is making you believe that besides his torn youth, he is perfectly normal and some great injustice has befallen him... but I think this is very probably not the case.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

But I don't know enough about this case to make this judgement. All I can guess is that those who do know enough know what they're doing. It's pretty harsh to discredit the entire justice system because the rough outlines of this case make it seem that he sits innocently behind bars... I think people who work in the justice system will want to help people back into society. They will do what they can to give everyone a fair chance. I could be wrong but real life isn't hollywood where the good guys drew the short straw and we should all deeply sympathize. Now a heart-breaking report is making you believe that besides his torn youth, he is perfectly normal and some great injustice has befallen him... but I think this is very probably not the case.

No one is saying that he is anything even remotely like "sitting innocently behind bars." What we are saying is that it it ridiculous that there are adults who the law considers worthy of rehabilitation and parole, but someone who commits a crime at 14 is somehow incapable of growing up and growing out of the dysfunction that led to the crime. He has been punished... should he not have been offered a chance at rehabilitation? At fucking 14?

 

[PuppetXeno]

No one is saying that he is anything even remotely like "sitting innocently behind bars." What we are saying is that it it ridiculous that there are adults who the law considers worthy of rehabilitation and parole, but someone who commits a crime at 14 is somehow incapable of growing up and growing out of the dysfunction that led to the crime. He has been punished... should he not have been offered a chance at rehabilitation? At fucking 14?

I agree that seems strange, but the people who passed that judgement may very well know what they are doing. Or do you think all of those involved are evil discriminatory people?

 

[GoodKat]

I agree that seems strange, but the people who passed that judgement may very well know what they are doing. Or do you think all of those involved are evil discriminatory people?

Anyone say false dilemma?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I agree that seems strange, but the people who passed that judgement may very well know what they are doing. Or do you think all of those involved are evil discriminatory people?

I think many of them were frightened and illogical. Life without parole on a 14 year old means that people assume there is no chance for a 14 year old to change... which makes them seem pretty goddamned ignorant from my POV.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Anyone say false dilemma?

Excluded middle?

 

[PuppetXeno]

Anyone say false dilemma?

Ok fair enough.

But this news article is by all means an appeal to emotion. It wants the reader to side with the poor "victims" who so badly deserve another chance. The article does not provide the other side of the story. So before jumping to conclusions and siding up with anyone, you should hear all voices in the matter.

And I just wanted to let people know that hopeless cases do exist. Some people are mentally so completely wrecked, whether it is by unfortunate circumstances or not - at whatever age this happened - that they can never ever return to society. I've actually worked with these people, some do understand their situation and some don't. And some really want to convince you that they're actually normal, and are ready to live a normal life, while this is just not realistic.

And once again I'm not saying that this is the case for the people in the article, but it could be.

 

[GoodKat]

Ok fair enough.

But this news article is by all means an appeal to emotion. It wants the reader to side with the poor "victims" who so badly deserve another chance. The article does not provide the other side of the story. So before jumping to conclusions and siding up with anyone, you should hear all voices in the matter.

And I just wanted to let people know that hopeless cases do exist. Some people are mentally so completely wrecked, whether it is by unfortunate circumstances or not - at whatever age this happened - that they can never ever return to society. I've actually worked with these people, some do understand their situation and some don't. And some really want to convince you that they're actually normal, and are ready to live a normal life, while this is just not realistic.

And once again I'm not saying that this is the case for the people in the article, but it could be.

I agree, like I said in my first post, we aren't given enough information to make a judgement.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

keep him in for life, life is a life (he should be hung drawn and quartered in my personal opinion but still) he has taken anothers life, his human rights should be FORFEIT, he should not get sympathy for he deserves NONE, i agree with the idea that his lack of interlect at FOURTEEN shows that there is really no hope, i mean lets face it, if he is capeable of that at 14, whats he going to do when he is OLDER?

getting older does not simply wash away ones moral wrong doings, he is a murderer and will still be one for the rest of his life.
he shouldnt be let back into the society, i mean, ask yourselves, would you want him in your society? throw away the keys and good riddence i say.

(edit / addition) i vaguely remember that all of you are way older than me (no offence intended)
im 17, 14 is not too young to know what one is doing, dont be so arrogant in your statements, id say its areound 10 years old that you clearly know what you are doing, 14 year olds should know that dealing physical damage to someone is wrong, and that if you stab someone, chances are they will be fighting for thier life, what excuse can he possibly have? none, he shouldnt get or deserve a second chance.

i agree its a bit wierd that some adults are let off when this kid isnt, but i think you can tell by the tone of this post that i dont think adults should get a second chance either. (end of edit/addition)

 

[felixthecoach]

keep him in for life, life is a life (he should be hung drawn and quartered in my personal opinion but still)

I think you're missing the major thing here. The brain of a 14 year old is still way underdeveloped compared to adults. Moreover, 14 year old brains are not fully developed in the frontal region (frontal lobe) which has been associated with planning and the ability to see ahead. Many teenagers who have been in abusive and bad environments develop even slower in that region. Below is an article regarding the use of alcohol by younger people and the long term effects it has on children. I'm posting it because the article from CNN said he was a foster child which means he was more likely to have abused alcohol or illicit drugs at this point. http://www.mentorfoundation.org/brain.php?nav=4-160

Here's a quote from arlington Partnership for Youth

Your 14 year old can have the physical development of a 16 yr. old, the
cognitive development of a 14 year old and the social development of an 11 year old. No wonder
teens are confused! No wonder parents are confused!

Later it describes the underdevelopment of the frontal cortex and higher development of the amygdala, the region responsible for many emotional and gut reactions. This creates an environment ready for impulsivity and unplanned actions leading to anything from drug use to unsafe sex. http://www.arlingtonpartnershipforyouth.org/rep_pubs/teenbraindev.pdf

Remember also, I have not seen one post, nor do I intend to give the impression, that the child should go unpunished or unhelped. I'm saying that you can't punish him the same way that you might punish someone with a fully developed, healthy, brain.

I would love to bring up some more information on hindered brain development and how that would also contribute to a bad environment for children (and a 14 year old is still a child). However, I'm about to go see my niece hunt for Easter Eggs.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

I'm posting it because the article from CNN said he was a foster child which means he was more likely to have abused alcohol or illicit drugs at this point.

i really hate people that say things like, poor background etc etc means bad person, drug user, alcoholic.... wrong wrong and wrong. its called a moral compass, i know quite a few friends who really are not brought up in the best way and in poor conditions, yet are are awsome people, are very nice and have a good sense of morality and right/wrong... im sorry but people from priveleged backgrounds can still be arseholes if thier moral compass is bad.

using your background as an excuse is also wrong......

its your choice weather you drink/take drugs/smoke/ KILL someone......

if you have a good moral compass.... you wouldnt kill somone...... regardless of your background.....
people who make those exuses are just pathetic and should grow up and start making the right choices for themselves, not deliberatly make the wrong choice and then blaming it on parents or thier background -_-

 

[felixthecoach]

i know quite a few friends who really are not brought up in the best way and in poor conditions, yet are are awsome people, are very nice and have a good sense of morality and right/wrong

Yes. My wife was molested when she was a baby, beaten in youth, cursed at, given a poor education, and overall had to fight tooth and nail for everything in her life.

Now, she has graduated from an ivy league university, is successfully working in a job that will move her toward a graduate program, and is more successful at this moment in her life than many cohorts in her high school graduating class.

If your background or history determined the way she turned out, she would not be the way she is today. She was also born with a personality that resisted the problems she was presented with. Because of this, she has risen above the circumstance.

I'm sure your friends from the similar background have similar stories. I'm sure also, that they have similar personalities. Additionally, some of the personal history may help cause people to work harder. For example, they don't want to fit the stereotype that people from the projects are garbage, so they fight to become better people.

im sorry but people from priveleged backgrounds can still be arseholes if thier moral compass is bad.

of course they are. I didnt say otherwise.

using your background as an excuse is also wrong

Not as an excuse. We're saying that personal experience influences behavior, that the brain is still in development, that illicit drug activity changes brain development, and that we cannot determine if these factors were necessarily understood when the child was sentenced.

Finally,

A 5% likelihood does not mean a 100% likelihood. A 50% likelihood does not mean a 100% likelihood.

If John Doe is told by a doctor, "you have a 40% chance to die from this surgery," John, needs to realize that he has a 60% chance to live. Conversely, John needs to realize he has a very high chance of dying.

On the same token, if we analyze statistics and see that someone from a "shitty" background has a, say for argument's sake, 40% higher likelihood to commit a crime than someone from a "good" background, we can recognize that the person has a 60% chance to NOT commit that crime. Conversely, we need to realize that people from shitty backgrounds have a high chance of committing a crime.

Now the way to fix this problem might be for another thread, but what I have to maintain is that a statistic is descriptive. It means nothing about a person's personal character. In other words, your friend is not some percentage evil or bad because that friend is from a "bad" background. Statistics just describe what happens a certain percentage of the time.

I'd love to grab you the actual research about higher crime rates in lower income areas, or the increased likelyhood that someone developes a psychotic disorder due to illicit drug use, etc, but I've gone on for way too long. If you want I can send that to you in a message or post it later.

 

[Xiam]

Personally, I think each child should be sentenced according to the circumstances and severity of THEIR crime. The court should also take into consideration, not only the age of the accused, but whether the child shows or is capable of feeling remorse or not, if there was willful intent at the time of his/her actions...etc. Nowadays, there are far too many prosecutors that only want the 'win' on their resumes, too many judges wanting to 'make an example' out of this ONE, district attorneys that want to brag, during election time, at how tough on crime they are...that kids are getting caught up in the politics, rather then getting the proper punishment/sentencing/rehab. Granted, there are some kids that are flat-out too dangerous and will never respond to corrective measures. But, not all, should be judged so unfairly and handed life sentences.

In this case, it sounds like, from the information given, that they were horsing around and it got out of hand, quickly. While this boy does deserve to be punished. I don't think he deserves any harsher treatment than the average adult does. The sentence range for adults, averages from 10-25 years and most are granted the chance for parole. Being that this kid doesn't have a prior history of violence, why doesn't he deserve a second chance to prove himself, as well?

How many of us are glad that someone gave us a second chance?

 

[felixthecoach]

I'll also point out that the child got 1st degree murder. Doesnt that mean that he planned before hand to commit the murder?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'll also point out that the child got 1st degree murder. Doesnt that mean that he planned before hand to commit the murder?

We don't let 14 year olds plan much, because we know that they are irresponsible and mostly incapable of making good decisions... so why would anyone assert that a 14 year old is capable of premeditated murder? The entire idea is just fucking stupid.