12 year old murderer sentenced to 60 years

technik

to get a decent sentence handed down.

Damn lucky he didn't get the chair IMO.

Reply 125

yawn

OP

17

Howard

Damn lucky he didn't get the chair IMO.

Hello dearie - apart from the sarcasm, can you think of a rational explanation why a child would be tried in an adult court?

Are there any legal precedents for this in the USA?

I am thinking of the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger - I presume you know about it. His murderers were aged 10 when the crime was committed and I seem to recollect that their court case was held in a special court that was appropriate to their age.

Reply 126

yawn

Hello dearie - apart from the sarcasm, can you think of a rational explanation why a child would be tried in an adult court?

Are there any legal precedents for this in the USA?

I am thinking of the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger - I presume you know about it. His murderers were aged 10 when the crime was committed and I seem to recollect that their court case was held in a special court that was appropriate to their age.

I don't know actually. I guess that for the purpose of the judicial system in that particular state 12 is the age of responsibility at and beyond which one is treated as an adult. That's just my guess though.

I remember the Bulger case very well. They went to Preston court (I was a student there at the time) and special arrangements were made in consideration of their age.

Still, America isn't the UK. More's the point "America isn't America" as different states often have their own laws on this sort of thing.

Reply 127

yawn

OP

17

Howard

I don't know actually. I guess that for the purpose of the judicial system in that particular state 12 is the age of responsibility at and beyond which one is treated as an adult. That's just my guess though.

I remember the Bulger case very well. They went to Preston court (I was a student there at the time) and special arrangements were made in consideration of their age.

Still, America isn't the UK. More's the point "America isn't America" as different states often have their own laws on this sort of thing.

I know this is probably off the point - but how does it feel when different states have their own laws for different things?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, does it feel as though the USA is 'one nation' or is there a feeling of isolation from state to state?

Reply 128

yawn

I know this is probably off the point - but how does it feel when different states have their own laws for different things?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, does it feel as though the USA is 'one nation' or is there a feeling of isolation from state to state?

Well State power derives from the Constitution which basically says that anything not within the power of Federal government to decide falls to the individual States. Many folks, particularly those on the right, see Federal government/law as an interference and staunchly defend State power, presumably on the basis that State governors/legislatures etc are more accountable/more efficient than DC.

I don't think a feeling of isolation comes into it. It's just a matter of a good deal of "localized" power as regards national/federal power which makes sense if you think about it. In a country as large and of such diverse population as the US (Lets be honest, folks from Seattle don't have a great deal in common with folks from Jackson, Mississippi) it wouldn't make sense to have one set of laws dictated from Washington.

Reply 129

yawn

I know this is probably off the point - but how does it feel when different states have their own laws for different things?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, does it feel as though the USA is 'one nation' or is there a feeling of isolation from state to state?

Just to amplify a bit on Howard's statement, anything not specifically covered by the constitution, falls to the states (states rights), this includes abortion laws, criminal penalties, speed limits, drinking age and hundreds of other things.

But though the federal gov't cannot pass a law that's unconstitutional and require the states to obey that law, they have their sneaky tricks. AN EXAMPLE..... In the '70's the feds passed a universal (all states) speed limit law of 55 mph, many of the states ignored it, however, the bastards in congress pulled the old extortion/blackmail trick. They threatened to cut off federal highway funds if the states didn't fall in line..........and so it goes.

Reply 130

Douglas

Just to amplify a bit on Howard's statement, anything not specifically covered by the constitution, falls to the states (states rights), this includes abortion laws, criminal penalties, speed limits, drinking age and hundreds of other things.

But though the federal gov't cannot pass a law that's unconstitutional and require the states to obey that law, they have their sneaky tricks. AN EXAMPLE..... In the '70's the feds passed a universal (all states) speed limit law of 55 mph, many of the states ignored it, however, the bastards in congress pulled the old extortion/blackmail trick. They threatened to cut off federal highway funds if the states didn't fall in line..........and so it goes.

That's right. Lot's of States (I know Missouri is going through this right now) are having to tighten up (no pun intended) on seatbelt laws to ensure they get Federal road building/repair money.

Reply 131

Howard

That's right. Lot's of States (I know Missouri is going through this right now) are having to tighten up (no pun intended) on seatbelt laws to ensure they get Federal road building/repair money.

That's funny, Missouri...."the show me" state.

Reply 132

Douglas

That's funny, Missouri...."the show me" state.

Yeh......show me the road back to Illinois.

Reply 133

psychic_satori

1

yawn

Hello dearie - apart from the sarcasm, can you think of a rational explanation why a child would be tried in an adult court?

Are there any legal precedents for this in the USA?

I am thinking of the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger - I presume you know about it. His murderers were aged 10 when the crime was committed and I seem to recollect that their court case was held in a special court that was appropriate to their age.

The whole idea behind trying a child in adult court is that the crime committed was so malicious that the person who committed it does not possess the innocent mind of a child. The intent behind the act is the focal point, not the physical age of the person.

Think of it this way, if a child possesses the IQ of an adult, why shouldn't he be held responsible for his actions just because of his physical age? The idea of basing adulthood/childhood strictly on physical age sets a dangerous precedent. Suddenly, intelligent children are not responsible for their actions, but mentally deficient adults are...

Reply 134

yawn

Are there any legal precedents for this in the USA?

Yes, plenty of them. Juvenile courts are usually for the kids that commit felonies other than premeditated murder.

In 1993 Christopher Simmons was 17 when he and a 15-year-old friend broke into the home of Shirley Crook near Fenton, Mo. Simmons believed the woman had recognized him, and the two tied Crook up with duct tape and threw her, still alive, into the Meramec River. Some reports quote Simmons as telling his young accomplice they could not be executed because they were juveniles. However, Missouri, along with 19 of the 39 states that have the death penalty, does allow the execution of those who killed before they were 18, and Simmons was sentenced to death. His execution was stayed by the Missouri Supreme Court, which eventually ruled that there was a “national consensus” against using the death penalty on those who killed before they were 18. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Missouri court, the justices will have to reverse one of their own precedents, a 1989 ruling that executing someone who committed murder at 16 or 17 is constitutional

Reply 135

Kondar

1

psychic_satori

The whole idea behind trying a child in adult court is that the crime committed was so malicious that the person who committed it does not possess the innocent mind of a child. The intent behind the act is the focal point, not the physical age of the person.

Think of it this way, if a child possesses the IQ of an adult, why shouldn't he be held responsible for his actions just because of his physical age? The idea of basing adulthood/childhood strictly on physical age sets a dangerous precedent. Suddenly, intelligent children are not responsible for their actions, but mentally deficient adults are...

A very very good friend of mine's younger sister was recently kidnapped and held captive for over a month. She was raped and beaten. She is 19 years old and mentally retarded with an IQ of a nine year old. Because she was over 18 she was treated differently and basically it looks like the guy might get off because they cannot prove that he 'forced' her into anything. Its a tough process and the parents are trying everything they can, including trying to change legislation that deals with this type of thing.

Reply 136