14
   

8 year old to be tried as "adult"

 
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 01:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I look forward to WHAT you have to say.

PS I'm just kidding with ya. I like your style. It reads like poetry.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 02:09 am
@aperson,
What a nice thing to say . . . thank u.

I gotta get some sleep; see u later.





David
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 10:27 am
This one really does major violence to the notions many of us have had involving justice, crime, punishment and all that sort of thing.

ASSUMING this kid really is a full-blown psychopath and given Robert Hare's description of what is involved in being a psychopath (THAT you don't have to assume, it's real enough), then what you have here is similar to the case of a tiger or other large carnivore which has tasted human blood at an early age, and the kid basically needs to either be put down or put on some island from which there is zero possibility of escape; there is a 100% probability that doing anything else will get other innocent people injured or killed somewhere else down the line.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 11:06 am
@gungasnake,
If the boy confessed - is that the same thing as pleading guilty? If so, that circumvents the whole trial (as an adult or otherwise) doesn't it?

I don't think it matters very much what sort of trial he receives. I agree with David and Gunga that there's something very chilling (and I believe somewhat innate) about an eight year old who could erupt into this type of rage at having his wishes thwarted and visit such violence upon unsuspecting people. Because his dad and this other guy must have been caught completely unaware for him to have been able to have killed them both.
That's what's the most scary to me. Were they asleep when he shot them?

I would not want to live in the same house with this little boy - even if he were my son. I would forever be afraid of him. And if I wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my loved ones (even if I loved him and he belonged to me) why would I think that anyone else would ever be safe in his presence?

I don't know what the answer is - but I wouldn't count on therapy or counseling to change this kid and keep anyone around him safe.
Some people are just really, really damaged. I don't know how or why - and again, I feel there has to be something innate within this boy. All sorts of children are abused and they don't plan and carry out executions.

I'd visit him wherever he was put - but I'd be afraid to go to sleep if he lived in my house. And that fact has some bearing on what I think should happen to him.

I wouldn't even call it punishment. Punishment is adjunct to discipline in that you're trying to teach a child than an action is wrong- I think this kid wasn't worried about being right or wrong - I think he just did what he felt like doing and so I think he should be put in a situation in which he'd never be able to do what he felt like doing to other people - because I definitely think he'd probably feel like doing something like this again (to the next person who told him no).
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 11:20 am
Quote:
Children are highly suggestible and require different handling, said "In Session" anchor Lisa Bloom, who represented sexually abused children as an attorney. Children are eager to please, she said, anxious to give adults the answers the child thinks the adult wants to hear.

"Cases are legion where juveniles have been coerced into making false confessions," she said. "All you have to do with an 8-year-old is make it clear what answer you want."


This is from a really interesting article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/19/boy.confession.tactics/?iref=mpstoryview

I haven't watched all the video clips linked in the article but I'm sure they're interesting.
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 01:07 pm
@boomerang,
Yeah. The latest on this is that the police are coming under fire for the way this eight-year old was interrogated. Kids are suggestible. It could still turn out that he didn't do it.

Apropos of interrogation methods, a lot of innocent adults have gone to prison because investigators put an idea into a child's head that he/she must have been sexually molested.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 03:04 pm
@boomerang,
Yes...they are.

That's why proper forensic interviewing of kids is done so carefully.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 12:15 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

All 15 year olds think they're adults but they're not and neither are you.
I thought I was an adult when I was 15 too.
I respect where you're coming from.

There are physiolocial differences
in the brains of adults and teenagers.

Sadly, the only way to discover the difference is to actually become an adult.

Well, I have been 15 years old, and also been an adult
several multiples thereof. Candor moves me to admit
that I not aware of any difference between now and then
.
I don t FEEL different now than I did then,
tho I had more energy then. Adults whose votes I tried
to influence at election time, openly admitted to greater ignorance
than mine of the subject matter.

I must agree that if I had committed a murder at 15,
or at 10 or younger, I 'd have had a full understanding
that murder is the unjustified killing of a fellow man,
thereby resulting in cessation of all human life functions,
followed by rotting and disappearance.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 01:28 pm
@Green Witch,
Green Witch wrote:

aperson, Should an 8 year old be allowed to vote,
join the army,
buy alcohol,
drive a car,
have sex,
enter into a legal contract?
I think not.
They do not have the judgement to do so.
It's not just a matter of knowing right from wrong,
it's the deeper issue of having the mental judgement to know
how these things will effect your life. An 8 year old does not
understand what the final consequences of shooting someone can be.
This part of brain development is fairly well documented
and it's what will probably lead to him being tried as a minor.

Here r my observations qua these questions:
IF kids r prevented from voting,
then thay r not part of the polity,
and have a good moral argument that its laws do not apply
to them and that (as to them) society and its instruments of force
have only the authority of a schoolyard bully: none.

The Founders declared independence because of taxation
without representation, in addition to other harassing laws
passed by the English Parliament, for which thay coud not vote;
thay found that unacceptable. The precedent of principle
was established. Morally, kids and any citizen who is expected
to obay the law has a right to vote.


I doubt that the US Army woud esteem the services of an 8 year old
enuf to accept him onto its payroll, but historically, English fathers
sold or gave 8 year old boys to the Royal Army and Navy.
Thay served; sometimes for a lifetime.


I don 't believe that drinking alcohol is wise,
(I did not begin to drink until over age 37)
but government was not created to interfere
in such personal decisions as to what the citizens
(its owners and its masters) will ingest.
It does so only by USURPATION of power.

In PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 2805)
the US Supreme Court declares that:

"...by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution"
rights were "guaranteed to THE INDIVIDUAL... It is a promise of the Constitution
that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."
[emphasis added by David]

The Court also adopted the Harlan dissent in POE v. ULLMAN 367 US 497 that:
"...'liberty' is not a series of isolated points...in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press and religion; the RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures....
It is a rational continuum which...includes a freedom from all
arbitrary impositions ..."
[all emphasis added by David]

The USSC goes on to say, concerning reproductive autonomy
in particular, but also stating the principles generally:
" Our law affords constitutional protection to PERSONAL DECISIONS....
Our cases recognize 'the right of the individual ...
to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion
into matters ... fundamentally affecting a person'...
These matters involving the most intimate and
PERSONAL CHOICES a person may make in a lifetime, choices
central to PERSONAL DIGNITY and AUTONOMY,
are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment." (P. 2807)
[all emphasis added by David]

I deny that government was ever granted jurisdiction
to interfere with a decision by any of its citizens
qua what he will ingest, including any drugs.
That is a personal decision.


Qua driving a car:
all citizens and any citizen owns the public roads
and has a right to use them, enjoying equal protection of the law.
If competent tests proved that people below or above
a particular age are unable to safely drive cars
(as the blind or paralyzed cannot drive cars) then,
in defense of the other citizens, law can prohibit them from
doing so, but before that is proven, government has no basis
upon which to prohibit and is only arbitrary n capricious in doing so,
and in violation of its duty to render equal protection of the laws.



If an 8 year old decides to have sex,
he is not likely concerned about its legal aspects;
he is not likely to make an appointment to take counsel
of his lawyer on that subject.
He is more likely to make an appointment with his girlfriend.


Qua contracts:
there is no legal interference with his entering into a contract,
but some contracts are voidable on his part. That fact might
drive people with whom he might contract to discriminate
against him, fearing an imbalance, as to an escape clause.


Green Witch wrote:
Quote:

It's not just a matter of knowing right from wrong,
it's the deeper issue of having the mental judgement to know
how these things will effect [sic] your life.

Well, by THIS criterion, WHO among us can be tried as an adult ?
How old was Ted Kennedy when he got thrown out of Harvard
for cheating ? How old was Clinton when he got close to Monica and got impeached ?


Quote:
An 8 year old does not understand what the final consequences
of shooting someone can be.

That allegation is in dispute.




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 02:01 pm
@aperson,
aperson wrote:

Hmmmmmmmm ok I sumbit.
The reason being that you have made the clear distinction
that teenagers don't have the same capacity
to inhibit behaviour
, which is definitely true.
Other people have just said that we're stupider,
or that we don't know right from wrong.

Thay DON 'T ? well, if that is true,
then presumably, a significantly greater proportion
of the teen aged population shoud be in jail, or in mental hospitals
for crimes of passion that thay coud not resist.
Are teenagers disproportionately well represented among
parties defendant in civil or criminal litigation

for theft of attractive bikes or cars, or rapes of attractive girls,
because thay don 't have the same capacity to inhibit behavior ?

During my teenaged years, none of my contemporaries
were cast into jail; (altho there was that Italian on the corner
who got mad n murdered his son; I think he was in his 70s).

Are all juvenile classrooms in chronic states of chaos n tumult,
because of teenage incapacity to inhibit behavior ?
When I was a kid, the classrooms were quiet and well-ordered.





David
0 Replies
 
MagicBlackCat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 02:26 pm
Many many years ago women were tried for murdering abusive husbands. There was a movie on it that I remember seeing "the Burning Bed"

Seems to me a lot of what is missing in all of this is the boy's motivation for killing (if he was not cooerced into his 'confession')

I was the only child of TWO alcholoic/drug addicted parents who fought daily. Stepdad was quite verbally abusive to me and was verbally and physically absuive to my mother and he quite likely had a mental illness but that did not stop me from 1) knowing where the household weapons were and how to use them and 2) thinking that if I killed my stepdad I would not get the same some of punishment as my mother would if she had killed him.

I did not kill him, but I wanted to...many many many times.

This little boy needs help, trying him as an adult just says to me "We've given up on you already...there is no hope of making you into a functioning member of society. "

Trust me when I say, as a child I saw no other way out of my situation. If the boy was abused, he may have seen it simiarly and without any additional support or resources in his household, we as a society have failed him if we treat him like we would an adult.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 04:34 pm
@MagicBlackCat,
MagicBlackCat wrote:

Many many years ago women were tried for murdering abusive husbands.
There was a movie on it that I remember seeing "the Burning Bed"

Seems to me a lot of what is missing in all of this is the boy's
motivation for killing (if he was not cooerced into his 'confession')

I was the only child of TWO alcholoic/drug addicted parents who
fought daily. Stepdad was quite verbally abusive to me and was
verbally and physically absuive to my mother and he quite likely
had a mental illness but that did not stop me from 1) knowing
where the household weapons were and how to use them and 2)
thinking that if I killed my stepdad I would not get the same some
of punishment as my mother would if she had killed him.

I did not kill him, but I wanted to...many many many times.

This little boy needs help, trying him as an adult just says to me
"We've given up on you already...there is no hope of making you
into a functioning member of society. "

Trust me when I say, as a child I saw no other way out of my situation.
If the boy was abused, he may have seen it simiarly and without
any additional support or resources in his household, we as a
society have failed him if we treat him like we would an adult.

Apparently the defendant s name is Christian Romero.
His father was Vincent Romero.
Qua motivation, there was mention of his stepmother having hit him,
at his father 's request, for his failure to bring home some papers
from school. His confession indicated that after he shot his father,
he kicked him to see if he was a little bit alive, then thoughtfully
shot him again, because he did not want him to suffer
,
so I guess that blows Gunga 's theory that he was a psychopath.

His confession might be thrown out for failure to give him
the Miranda warnings, but prosecutors will probably argue
that he was only being interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect,
when he blurted out a confession; it remains to be seen how that
goes over. I predict that the court will throw out the confession.


MagicBlackCat, if I were on a jury involving a defendant who
killed an abusive relative, I 'd be inclined to acquit.
U 'd have been safe in front of me, in those circumstances.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 05:23 pm
@aidan,
Hi, Rebecca !
I m going back for more Beef Wellington on Monite.
I have my SIG in there.


aidan wrote:

If the boy confessed - is that the same thing as pleading guilty?

No.
He can repudiate the confession.
In this case, it will probably be suppressed.




Quote:

If so, that circumvents the whole trial (as an adult or otherwise) doesn't it?

It does.
If a defendant pleads guilty (presumably, with aid of counsel)
then there is no need for a trial to find out if he is guilty.





Quote:

I don't think it matters very much what sort of trial he receives.
I agree with David and Gunga that there's something very chilling
(and I believe somewhat innate) about an eight year old who
could erupt into this type of rage at having his wishes thwarted
and visit such violence upon unsuspecting people.

Current thought appears to be that the defendant avenged himself
upon his father for having conspired with his wife to hit him.






Quote:

Because his dad and this other guy must have been caught
completely unaware for him to have been able to have killed them both.

I imagine that thay were surprized.





Quote:

That's what's the most scary to me.
Were they asleep when he shot them?

Thay were returning home from work.
He gave them a one gun salute.





Quote:

I would not want to live in the same house with this little boy -
even if he were my son. I would forever be afraid of him.

There r safer places to live.




Quote:

And if I wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my loved ones
(even if I loved him and he belonged to me) why would I think
that anyone else would ever be safe in his presence?

I don't know what the answer is - but I wouldn't count on therapy
or counseling to change this kid and keep anyone around him safe.
Some people are just really, really damaged. I don't know how
or why - and again, I feel there has to be something innate within
this boy. All sorts of children are abused and they don't plan and
carry out executions.

I'd visit him wherever he was put - but I'd be afraid to go to sleep
if he lived in my house. And that fact has some bearing on what
I think should happen to him.

I wouldn't even call it punishment. Punishment is adjunct to
discipline in that you're trying to teach a child than an action is wrong-
I think this kid wasn't worried about being right or wrong -
I think he just did what he felt like doing and so I think he should
be put in a situation in which he'd never be able to do what he
felt like doing to other people - because I definitely think he'd
probably feel like doing something like this again (to the next person who told him no).

It coud be risky.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 02:12 am
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:

Yeah. The latest on this is that the police are coming under fire
for the way this eight-year old was interrogated.
Kids are suggestible. It could still turn out that he didn't do it.

Apropos of interrogation methods, a lot of innocent adults
have gone to prison because investigators put an idea into a
child's head that he/she must have been sexually molested.

This is very true.
Thay showed twins, now adults,
who said that in their childhood,
police & social workers browbeat them into false testimony
against their parents, who languish in prison.

Those police belong in prison.





David
0 Replies
 
MagicBlackCat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 01:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Apparently the defendant s name is Christian Romero.
His father was Vincent Romero.
Qua motivation, there was mention of his stepmother having hit him,
at his father 's request, for his failure to bring home some papers
from school. His confession indicated that after he shot his father,
he kicked him to see if he was a little bit alive, then thoughtfully
shot him again, because he did not want him to suffer
,
so I guess that blows Gunga 's theory that he was a psychopath.

His confession might be thrown out for failure to give him
the Miranda warnings, but prosecutors will probably argue
that he was only being interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect,
when he blurted out a confession; it remains to be seen how that
goes over. I predict that the court will throw out the confession.


MagicBlackCat, if I were on a jury involving a defendant who
killed an abusive relative, I 'd be inclined to acquit.
U 'd have been safe in front of me, in those circumstances.

David


Ok, so the only difference I see is the fact that he followed through with his actions. Children often have different ways of processing emotion and if he had a casual manner it may simply have been his natural reaction. Verbal absuse leaves no physical scars but long lasting 'disturbing' thoughts which can lead to mental illness and I suppose what could appear to be physocpathic behavior.

As some posters argue, they would not trust to have a child of his type in their home. I tend to disagree that because the child did this once, he would do it again unless he was being treated similarly in a new environment. Again, it's more like society has given up on him, which is very very sad. What has our country come to?

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 02:57 pm
@MagicBlackCat,
MagicBlackCat wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Apparently the defendant s name is Christian Romero.
His father was Vincent Romero.
Qua motivation, there was mention of his stepmother having hit him,
at his father 's request, for his failure to bring home some papers
from school. His confession indicated that after he shot his father,
he kicked him to see if he was a little bit alive, then thoughtfully
shot him again, because he did not want him to suffer
,
so I guess that blows Gunga 's theory that he was a psychopath.

His confession might be thrown out for failure to give him
the Miranda warnings, but prosecutors will probably argue
that he was only being interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect,
when he blurted out a confession; it remains to be seen how that
goes over. I predict that the court will throw out the confession.


MagicBlackCat, if I were on a jury involving a defendant who
killed an abusive relative, I 'd be inclined to acquit.
U 'd have been safe in front of me, in those circumstances.

David



Quote:

Ok, so the only difference I see
is the fact that he followed through with his actions.

He DID; he was not one to just leave a job half done.



Quote:

Children often have different ways of processing emotion
and if he had a casual manner
it may simply have been his natural reaction.

Yeah; I think that was Gunga 's thought.


Quote:

Verbal absuse leaves no physical scars but long lasting 'disturbing' thoughts
which can lead to mental illness and
I suppose what could appear to be physocpathic behavior.

Yeah; well, Gunga thinks its innate.



Quote:

As some posters argue, they would not trust to have a child of his type in their home.
I tend to disagree that because the child did this once,
he would do it again unless he was being treated similarly in a new environment.

Yeah, well u coud try it n see what happens.



Quote:

Again, it's more like society has given up on him, which is very very sad.

Well, I gotta say: when I was growing up,
it never occurred to me to consider whether society had given up on me or not.
I probably woud have preferred that society not be thinking about me.



Quote:
What has our country come to?

Well, u know, self-defense counts for a lot.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 01:35 am

It seems to me: that kid is an INGRATE !





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 05:56 am
Has anyone heard any updates on this case ?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 02:25 pm
Boy 'killed father after 1,000 smacks'
An eight-year-old US boy accused of murdering his father and a family friend kept a tally of his parents' smackings, vowing that the 1,000th time would be the last, police believe.


Quote:
According to the police records, the boy told a Child Protective Services official that "when he reached one thousand spankings . . . that would be his limit. [The boy] kept a tally of his spankings on a piece of paper."

Despite his age, relatives suspected the boy immediately in the shootings. His grandfather told investigators: "If any 8-year-old was capable of doing this, [the boy] was", and the child's grandmother added: "I knew this was going to happen, they were too hard on [him]."

The boy told police he was smacked the day before the shootings for failing to finish schoolwork.

Police say he gave conflicting accounts about the shootings, initially saying he discovered the bodies when he returned home from school.

He later changed his story, admitting he shot each man twice to end their suffering after they had been shot by an unknown assailant.

In an interview whose contents was later released by police, the boy admitted he been angry with his father after the latter asked his stepmother to smack him for not bringing some schoolwork home.

At the end of the interview, he buried his head in his jacket. Asked by an officer what he was thinking, he replied: "I'm going to go to juvie."
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 02:33 pm
PHOENIX (AP) " Prosecutors have offered a plea deal to an 8-year-old boy charged with murder in the shooting deaths of his father and another man in their eastern Arizona home, court records show.

Complete details of the offer weren't spelled out in a court filing posted Saturday on the Apache County Superior Court's Web site.

But County Attorney Criss Candelaria wrote that he has "tendered a plea offer to the juvenile's attorneys that would resolve all the charges in the juvenile court contingent on the results of the mental health evaluations."

Candelaria was responding to a defense motion seeking to block him from dropping one of two first-degree murder charges the boy faces in the deaths of his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, earlier this month.

Defense attorney Benjamin Brewer argued in a filing Tuesday that prosecutors wanted the charge dismissed so they could refile it when the boy was older and pursue case in adult court.

Brewer said Saturday that the deal would resolve the case without it being transferred to adult court, but he declined to provide additional details. Although he is considering the offer, Brewer said he is unsure of his client's ability to understand the proceedings. At least two mental health evaluations are yet to be completed.

The prosecutor explained in his response to Brewer's opposition filing that he wasn't trying to obtain an unfair advantage, but he pressed for the dismissal because the judicial system isn't equipped to deal with an 8-year-old charged with murder.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 11:01:37