|
Post by Baltimore on Feb 8, 2005 13:01:21 GMT -6
I want to know what folks here think of the punishments handed down to kids who kill. Take Nathaniel, who stomped Tiffany Eunick to death--That's right, the defense kept repeating the "oh, he was imitating pro wrestling" story and eventually the jury believed it. [But, that's not what the autopsy report says!] Or, the 10 year old boy who shot his dentist father amidst a rocky divorce. Or, this young girl who chopped up a school rival.
They seem to get higher sentences than adults who murder, although the DP is off the table.
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by salemjones on Feb 8, 2005 13:58:23 GMT -6
What these kids need is probably not punishment but therapy. Lots of therapy.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 8, 2005 14:58:45 GMT -6
What these kids need is probably not punishment but therapy. Lots of therapy. When one is devoid of the ability to empathize, no amount of therapy will work. While they may come to understand their problem, they will never acquire a conscience.
|
|
|
Post by Felix on Feb 23, 2005 15:10:21 GMT -6
Any child who bahaves in that way is not responsible. It seems obvious that the causes must be found in their immediate social environment whether inside or outside the family.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 3, 2005 8:15:49 GMT -6
When one is devoid of the ability to empathize, no amount of therapy will work. While they may come to understand their problem, they will never acquire a conscience. - RickZ.
Rick states the above, my question is this, if you are able to predict so precisely who will and who will not develop consciences, then why cant you stop people killing, or why cant you predict who will. It cant be any harder. The truth is that you cannot predict any more than the next person, the unlikeliest people are always possibly going to become rehabilitatably, the unlikeliest of "monsters" are first of all human beings and as long as they draw breath, there is always the hope and possibility of change.
|
|
|
Post by td1234 on Mar 13, 2005 17:52:14 GMT -6
:)thera;py for a cold blooded killer sure that s gonna fix him
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 4, 2005 15:26:05 GMT -6
They're bad seed.
|
|
|
Post by Baltimore on Apr 19, 2005 16:05:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by gotchawidurpntsdwn on May 6, 2005 14:17:50 GMT -6
When one is devoid of the ability to empathize, no amount of therapy will work. While they may come to understand their problem, they will never acquire a conscience. Are you saying that we should just instate the death penalty in situations with CHILDREN? I'm hoping you're pleading insanity here. It's the environment not the child that murders in cases with children. What they've been taught not the 5 year old.
|
|
|
Post by gotchawidurpntsdwn on May 6, 2005 14:20:15 GMT -6
:)thera;py for a cold blooded killer sure that s gonna fix him A "cold blooded killer" under the age of 13? Their frontal lobes haven't even BEGUN to develop! Look at brain evolutions... even teenagers are just beginning to come into their own in terms of brain matter. The "cold blooded killers" are hardly found in this age group.
|
|
|
Post by mewhoisi on May 7, 2005 11:17:08 GMT -6
:)thera;py for a cold blooded killer sure that s gonna fix him A child is usually not a cold blooded killer. It would be very hard for such an underdevelpoed brain to be a "cold blooded killer". A child who killed someone at that stage of life is probably metally disturbed, not someone dangerous with intent. Although I belive teenagers are capable of murder, I would say that 12 or 13 and under is too young for the maturity to develop to be a cold blooded killer. Although if a child starts doing something that early, chances are she/he will follow the path to becoming a murderer. RickZ is right about the empathizing thing. But, I do not think that most children are "devoid of the ability to empathize". There are children who have disorders that don't allow them to understand or feel certain emotions. That is no reason to instate dp on them though. It would be outrageous to enforce dp in cases with children.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 8, 2005 18:37:01 GMT -6
A "cold blooded killer" under the age of 13? Their frontal lobes haven't even BEGUN to develop! Look at brain evolutions... even teenagers are just beginning to come into their own in terms of brain matter. The "cold blooded killers" are hardly found in this age group. In my home town of San Luis Obispo, a 13 year old is currently on trial for murder. He broke into an old man's mobile home and bashed the man's skull in repeatedly with a skateboard, bragging to his accomplice later how "cool" it was. He isn't eligible for the death penalty, unfortunately. I am hoping new supreme court justices will overturn this unconscionable ruling within my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on May 9, 2005 3:29:04 GMT -6
think age should be a consideration in the penalty given, however age should not be an absolute factor in avoiding the dp
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on May 9, 2005 3:29:57 GMT -6
What these kids need is probably not punishment but therapy. Lots of therapy. judging by some of therapists i have met, yes lots of therapy is lots of punishment
|
|
|
Post by Dea on May 12, 2005 9:11:00 GMT -6
Well, the only good thing with the appeals process is in these cases, is that the state wouldn't be killing a "child". They will be in their late 20's at the earliest by the time it came up. So it's moot point in my mind. It all comes down to the fact someone killed another human being. I would endorse the DP for those that abuse animals personally.
|
|
|
Post by Breka on May 24, 2006 14:51:44 GMT -6
It depends - some pretty know with the age of 14 what is right or wrong - others with 14 are still living in their own world . Hard finding the right judgment I do not agree That minors less than 14 are not eligible for trial (like legislation in Germany) as far this gets pretty abused - But I am not that sure how to deal with 12 year old and under committing heavy crime
|
|
|
Post by Sandoval on May 24, 2006 16:43:27 GMT -6
Now, now, joe, you know what his frontal lobe was fully grown. ;D A "cold blooded killer" under the age of 13? Their frontal lobes haven't even BEGUN to develop! Look at brain evolutions... even teenagers are just beginning to come into their own in terms of brain matter. The "cold blooded killers" are hardly found in this age group. In my home town of San Luis Obispo, a 13 year old is currently on trial for murder. He broke into an old man's mobile home and bashed the man's skull in repeatedly with a skateboard, bragging to his accomplice later how "cool" it was. He isn't eligible for the death penalty, unfortunately. I am hoping new supreme court justices will overturn this unconscionable ruling within my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on May 24, 2006 16:51:16 GMT -6
I saw a program on this. They featured a 13 year old that killed a 4 year old neighbor...Plus we have the example of joshua philips, who killed a young girl in his neighborhood. I do not think any therapy will help people like this. I think all we can do is to lock them up until they die...
|
|
|
Post by Sandoval on May 24, 2006 16:55:14 GMT -6
Who is Joshua Phillips? I saw a program on this. They featured a 13 year old that killed a 4 year old neighbor...Plus we have the example of joshua philips, who killed a young girl in his neighborhood. I do not think any therapy will help people like this. I think all we can do is to lock them up until they die...
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 25, 2006 11:48:29 GMT -6
Although you could say that young kids and teenagers are very influenctual and give into what friends or people they think are "cool" want I think it has alot to do with what they have inside. It takes a truly bad seed to do the deed. Even with problems in the enviroment this applys the same as well.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on May 25, 2006 13:49:06 GMT -6
He is a person serving LWOP for killing a little girl. His mom has a webpage for him. He was 13 or 14 when he killed her and hid her body under his bed. His mom found it. The crime happened in Fla...
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on May 27, 2006 0:37:09 GMT -6
We have a case in england where two boys (i think they were nine), took a three year old boy from outside a shop. THey walked through the shopping centre with him, down the street and tortured and abused him and when they had finished they laid him accross a railway line where the train chopped him in half.
They served 10 years each, in which time the papers reported what their cells were like they had their own duvets and pillows a TV a playstation and anything a teenager would want.
10 years on they were let out of prision, had their names changed and noone was allowed to see their faces for their protection.
The sad thing is these boys were so young at the time of their crime could you imagine what they are capable of now.
|
|
|
Post by onetwobomb on May 27, 2006 10:58:25 GMT -6
We have a case in england where two boys (i think they were nine), took a three year old boy from outside a shop. THey walked through the shopping centre with him, down the street and tortured and abused him and when they had finished they laid him accross a railway line where the train chopped him in half. They served 10 years each, in which time the papers reported what their cells were like they had their own duvets and pillows a TV a playstation and anything a teenager would want. 10 years on they were let out of prision, had their names changed and noone was allowed to see their faces for their protection. The sad thing is these boys were so young at the time of their crime could you imagine what they are capable of now. I read about that, they were each 10 years old. They skipped school, kidnapped a 3 year old, took him to an isolated location where they tortured and killed him. It's hard to imagine 10 year olds being such cold blooded killers. They really should have gotten more than 10 years. I would have given them at least 50 or 60 years, first put them in juvie until their 18 then transfer them to an adult prison.
|
|
|
Post by Sandoval on May 27, 2006 13:16:35 GMT -6
They only got 10 years for this? I don't support the dp for people that young, but they should have been locked up forever. We have a case in england where two boys (i think they were nine), took a three year old boy from outside a shop. THey walked through the shopping centre with him, down the street and tortured and abused him and when they had finished they laid him accross a railway line where the train chopped him in half. They served 10 years each, in which time the papers reported what their cells were like they had their own duvets and pillows a TV a playstation and anything a teenager would want. 10 years on they were let out of prision, had their names changed and noone was allowed to see their faces for their protection. The sad thing is these boys were so young at the time of their crime could you imagine what they are capable of now.
|
|
|
Post by Rhonda on May 28, 2006 16:22:20 GMT -6
If they kill another person I wonder how the judge who sentenced them to only 10 years will explain themselves.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on May 29, 2006 1:10:00 GMT -6
THere is speculation in england of where they are. But, with new names and identities no one knows for sure. There was even a young girl who wrote to a sunday paper and said she was pregnant with one of the boy's babies.
To me it's disusting and an insult to little jamie bulgers mother.
|
|
|
Post by Sandoval on May 29, 2006 6:53:23 GMT -6
Have either one of them gotten in trouble since their release? THere is speculation in england of where they are. But, with new names and identities no one knows for sure. There was even a young girl who wrote to a sunday paper and said she was pregnant with one of the boy's babies. To me it's disusting and an insult to little jamie bulgers mother.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on May 29, 2006 10:01:33 GMT -6
No one knows as they have changed their names
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on May 29, 2006 10:51:46 GMT -6
THere is speculation in england of where they are. But, with new names and identities no one knows for sure. There was even a young girl who wrote to a sunday paper and said she was pregnant with one of the boy's babies. To me it's disusting and an insult to little jamie bulgers mother. Sounds like to me this girl has a sick sense of humor or is trying to rub it in Jamie's mother's face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2006 23:21:04 GMT -6
DP for people under 16 would be totally insane. Some people may be fully developed at that age but far from all. Imagine a 7 year old on death row! If anyone would want to seek the DP for a kid at that age, I would say they were damn cruel.
|
|