Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By pecos bill Well, in a court of law you weigh the evidence and pass judgement. The fact that a young kid would commit murder on another child is horrible, and shows a sick and demented mindset. That kid should be locked up until it is proven beyond doubt that he or she can live among civilised people. Murder is unacceptable at any age.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Lionel Tate is proof that young killers need to be treated same as grown ups. He violated parole doing armed robbery and is now serving 30 years in prison...Murderer at 8, and now living most of his life behind bars.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I misspoke he was 12 at the time, and he is currently serving a 30 year jail sentence for violation of his probation.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Lionel Tate is proof that young killers need to be treated same as grown ups.*** No one example can be considered "proof". But anyway, we're not talking about murder here. Perhaps that "pushing into the street" part WAS intentional, attempted murder. Or perhaps they were just fighting and one girl pushed the other. We really don't know. But the facts speak to an eleven year old having a temper tantrum. And getting tasered. Tried as an adult? Why have any juvenile laws at ALL William, if you're just going to claim every situation is "a special case". And as far as this little girl being out of control and stupid, sure she was. But I've actually seen stuff like that go down MANY TIMES in my youth (not the punching the cop part, though I've seen a couple of adults try to get physical with cops). Far as I know, all those kids didn't grow up to be raging mad killers.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley When it comes to murder, the law isn't going to prosecute anyone below the age of seven, ever. There's a presumption that they cannot fully appreciated the difference between right and wrong and the consequences that would go with a bad action. Kids from the ages of 8-13 are usually going to get tried as juveniles and spend up to about age 25 in a youth authority camp. 14 and up they begin to risk being tried as an adult.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm sorry, but I can't imagine any situation where it would be appropriate to place an eight year old in an adult facility. That's simply insane. If the kid is that deranged that they would do something so bad, even so they can NOT be put into a regular prison. They'd need to be placed in a high security mental facility, at least. This whole "tried as an adult" thing is really getting silly when you get down to these ages. 15, 16 or so and a cold blooded murderer? Sure. Of course. But it gets very grey when you go younger (and I'm not saying younger criminals should get off scott free either, I certainly don't think they should).
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley 8 year olds will never be in an adult facility. Barring something incredibly heinous, 8 year olds won't ever be in a facility.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well then, what's the difference between age 7 and age 8 that you alluded to?
Originally Posted By barboy I propose that all 10 year olds who are tried as adults get to drink alcohol, vote, get to have sex with 35 year olds and drive cars. Hey maybe they can carry an M-16 in Iraq too.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "Well then, what's the difference between age 7 and age 8 that you alluded to?" I don't see how you could misunderstand what I wrote. When it comes to murder, age 7 and below, no way. Once to age 8, through 13, they get tried as juveniles, if they get tried at all. If they're guilty, they spend time up to age 25 in a youth camp. 14 and above, they risk getting tried as an adult.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I don't see how you could misunderstand what I wrote.*** Perhaps you should try to write more clearly next time then. You wrote "Kids from the ages of 8-13 are usually going to get tried as juveniles", and I took that to mean in UNusual cases they are tried as adults. Considering that the original comment from William was "I hope they try her (referring to an eleven year old girl) as an adult", that seemed the logical way to read your comment. The fact that you meant to say "if at all", meaning in some unusual cases they aren't tried at all, was unclear. I'm not a mind reader. But anyway, I do believe I've heard of a case or two where a 13 year old or younger was or will be "tried as an adult", so you're wrong anyway IIRC.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "But anyway, I do believe I've heard of a case or two where a 13 year old or younger was or will be "tried as an adult", so you're wrong anyway IIRC." If you want to fight because you're pissed at me because of your little buddy, it ain't gonna happen. As to your statement, produce some proof. As it is, I made no absolute statement, so I'm not wrong, no recall needed.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm not pissed at you. I think it was lame what you did though, but whatever. You gotta live with it. Good job making sure things would get very boring around here though. I'm sure you'll enjoy having your conversations with all the people who will agree with everything you say. I find that boring. I really don't care about what kind of statement you made or anything anyway. Just try to be a little clearer next time. Your the one who came running back with the attitute..."I don't see how you could misunderstand what I wrote". I didn't misunderstand anything. You misspoke. Here's your proof, by the way. **Twelve-year-old Nathaniel Abraham is awaiting trial in Pontiac, Michigan, soon to become the youngest child in the state and possibly the country to be tried as an adult for murder.** <a href="http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/may1998/kids-m16.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/ may1998/kids-m16.shtml</a> So yes, you were wrong anyway. Deal with it.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "I'm not pissed at you. I think it was lame what you did though, but whatever. You gotta live with it." You're lying. Of course you're upset. I can live with myself great over this, frankly. As Doobie said, one incident does not a banning make. There's a definite pattern and history. The guy did it to himself. He knew better. He chose his fate. You know it, I know it. "So yes, you were wrong anyway. Deal with it." So what? There are always exceptions. Most kids that age aren't tried as adults. Michigan must figure he deserves it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You're lying. Of course you're upset.*** I didn't say I wasn't upset, although annoyed and disappointed would probably fit better. I said I wasn't pissed at you. I'm not. I think you're laughable.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Just because they are tried as an adult, doesn't mean they will be housed with adults in prison. Lionel Tate was kept seperate from the other prisoners while he served his time before it was overturned.
Originally Posted By Mr X Why was it overturned? And anyway, isn't that even MORE cruel and unusual, putting a kid into protective solitary confinement? If they weren't messed up enough going in, they sure will be coming out!
