Export thread

A California 10 year old, allegedly a victim of abuse, is watching his parents divorce and is afraid he'll end up in his neo nazi father's sole custody, so while the father is passed-out-drunk on the couch, the 10 year old shoots him in the head.

3 years later, the child has been sentenced to 40-to-Life. Eligible for parole in 7 years.

Was his motivation truly a form of self defense? Was the sentence too harsh? Too lenient? Just right?

Prison will just continue to push this kid down the wrong path. I don't know where he should be put, but he needs serious therapy and not left to rot in a prison.

That sentence is ridiculous. He needs therapy, not life in prison. And there's no way we can hold a 10-year-old criminally responsible for a crime like that.

Tress said:

That sentence is ridiculous. He needs therapy, not life in prison. And there's no way we can hold a 10-year-old criminally responsible for a crime like that.

Click to expand...

The really whacked-out thing is, he was sentenced to 40 to life in a Juvenile Detention facility. Which means they're going to let him out when he's 23, sentence be damned, cause you can't have no old bastards in kiddie prison. So why not just make the sentence 10 years? Because California.

They can hold you past 18 in CA?

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

They can hold you past 18 in CA?

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Apparently, if what I read is correct.

Well, one human being killed another. The article spends a lot of time justifying that murder. If the father came before a judge and the allegations of abuse were proven, and the nazi tendencies noted, would any of that lead the judge to believe that the father should be put to death! Does California even have the death penalty?

I'm guessing that the father didn't deserve death, but let's say he did. Was it the child's right to pass that judgement and sentence?

The only two things that should mitigate the charges and sentencing are whether the child was in immediate danger, justifying a self defense plea, or if the child was not capable of understanding his actions or the consequences of his actions.

Of course there are many other possible practical problems, such as the possibility of a poor defense, and the reality of bad, or badly applied, laws and case history.

But we don't know enough about the situation, the mental evaluations performed, and so forth to really pass judgement.

Of course it is terrible the child was in this position, and now has to suffer the consequences of their actions, but their youth alone doesn't absolve them of their culpability.

Maybe not. But 10 years old? Come on, man. Maybe thats old enough to know right from wrong, but Impulse control and understanding consequences aren't fully in place yet. "The future" for a child means next week, not the rest of their lives.

You're right, and generally the mental evaluations prior to the case would help the judge determine whether the child was culpable. Perhaps they did a poor job of evaluating his capability and understanding.

Considering the day...

I have my opinions. I can't share particulars, but I think this kid would be protected in whatever (sham of a) juvenile correctional facility California has.

Overall I'll trust that the court made the right decision in this case cause I don't have the information or the expertise to really go on.

I do hope they let him out in 7 years cause at 17 he'll have a chance at a normal life and hopefully can put it all behind him.

Terrible. At 10 he should not have been put into prison. First, I reiterate about impulse control, etc. Second, how the fuck was a 10 year old allowed access to a loaded weapon? Third, this will be much, much worse in the long run for this kid. There's no rehabilitation in our system. All we're going to do in this case is make a kid into a long-term risk for recidivism.

Prison, in this case is a punishment for murder. It's not to prevent him being a danger to society, or to reform him.

Are you saying ten years olds who commit murder should be exempt from prison sentences?

stienman said:

Prison, in this case is a punishment for murder. It's not to prevent him being a danger to society, or to reform him.

Are you saying ten years olds who commit murder should be exempt from prison sentences?

Click to expand...

He's saying that we should really think about what kind of effect sending a 10 year old to prison is going to do. Will it reform him? Or will it break him to a point where we've turned a kid with shitty circumstances into a lifelong criminal?

Which is a perfectly reasonable question because we can't keep a 10 year old in prison for his entire life. We're going to have to let him out eventually.

Dubyamn said:

He's saying that we should really think about what kind of effect sending a 10 year old to prison is going to do. Will it reform him? Or will it break him to a point where we've turned a kid with shitty circumstances into a lifelong criminal?

Which is a perfectly reasonable question because we can't keep a 10 year old in prison for his entire life. We're going to have to let him out eventually.

Click to expand...

Pretty accurate, but I'm taking it one step further.

Here's what this kid's life has been to this point.

Nazi father, mother not in the picture. Police and CPS called numerous times to the house for child abuse. Dad & step-mom talking divorce and the kid is well aware that he would go with the biological parent - the abusive nazi dad. So he killed his dad. He's living wit the scars of abuse, he's dealing with the guilt of killing not just a person but his own father. Now what are we doing? Putting him someplace where assault - both physical and sexual - is rampant. When he gets out he is going to be angry. He is going to be unable to function.

10 fucking years old does not mean that he had any clue what he was doing. Yes, he probably knew it was wrong, but where is the compassion for what this kid has been through? He does NOT need prison. He needs to be placed somewhere where he can find a normal fucking life, with people who care about him without beating his ass, and get him some therapy. Anything less will just ruin his life and make him an unnecessary bane to society.

Of course we should take that into account. The child is also a victim. However Dave's statement seemed to suggest that because he was ten prison should not have even been an option. Yes, prison won't do him good in the long run, but he's not sentenced to prison for his own good. It's because he took the life of another human being in cold blood.

stienman said:

Of course we should take that into account. The child is also a victim. However Dave's statement seemed to suggest that because he was ten prison should not have even been an option. Yes, prison won't do him good in the long run, but he's not sentenced to prison for his own good. It's because he took the life of another human being in cold blood.

Click to expand...

I'm amazed at you sometimes.

Ok, so taking all that into account, then you're saying that he shouldn't be in prison. It sounded like you were making a blanket statement saying no ten year old murderer should ever go to prison.

stienman said:

Ok, so taking all that into account, then you're saying that he shouldn't be in prison. It sounded like you were making a blanket statement saying no ten year old murderer should ever go to prison.

Click to expand...

10 years old is too young to understand what the results of crime are. So I guess I am saying yes, 10 years old is too young for prison. There has got to be a better way than just locking them up and turning our eyes back to the latest reality tv show.

Like throwing him into the foster care system? There is no good alternative here.

Well, while I would probably agree with you in the general case, I couldn't approve of a law that would give a minimum age for a prison sentence.

Some ten year old murderers deserve prison as much as a thirty year old might.

I'd say the cases should be judged on their individual merits.[DOUBLEPOST=1383314021,1383313944][/DOUBLEPOST]

Covar said:

Like throwing him into the foster care system? There is no good alternative here.

Click to expand...

The issue is that we don't have a place in society for him. If he doesn't deserve the punishment of prison it doesn't matter - prison is the only place we can currently deal with him.

Covar said:

Like throwing him into the foster care system? There is no good alternative here.

Click to expand...

The fact that you can say that is another problem. Let's take even more money out of social programs and give these tax breaks to the rich guys. The foster care system needs to be looked at as well. But foster care is still better than juvie in most cases. I hope. (I have no stats on this to back up the opinion.)

Dave said:

The fact that you can say that is another problem. Let's take even more money out of social programs and give these tax breaks to the rich guys. The foster care system needs to be looked at as well. But foster care is still better than juvie in most cases. I hope. (I have no stats on this to back up the opinion.)

Click to expand...

I wonder what the statistics are as well, and how much the statistics were weighed in determining sentencing. While I do feel time in juvenile detention is warranted for the crime, there seems to be a effort in the sentencing to not release him until he is an adult.

Poor kid. He's going to have to live with the fact that he shot his dad. He needs love and therapy.

drawn_inward said:

Poor kid. He's going to have to live with the fact that he shot his dad. He needs love and therapy.

Click to expand...

Not sure if sarcastic or not. Were he 18 I'd be all over that sarcasm with you. At 10, not so much.

I've seen a kid pawn > $100k worth of family jewelry to keep pictures of his "leisure time" off the Internet, I know they're perfectly capable of making and executing tough decisions, but when done WITHOUT the benefit of life experience to guide them, the results may not be what other adults would consider "rational."

If he'd had some sort of confidant, he could've gotten some better advice, and perhaps might've made some better choices, but he did not, and here we are.

EDIT: Added link to the story.

--Patrick

Dave said:

Not sure if sarcastic or not. Were he 18 I'd be all over that sarcasm with you. At 10, not so much.

Click to expand...

Not sarcastic at all.

I don't really know what to think. I know murder is wrong, but in this case I think I approve. His father was a bad person.

Shawnacy said:

murder is wrong, but in this case I think I approve. His father was a bad person.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, since the article doesn't state, what sort of abuse did this child suffer that, in your mind, justified his father's murder?

stienman said:

Out of curiosity, since the article doesn't state, what sort of abuse did this child suffer that, in your mind, justified his father's murder?

Click to expand...

Well most definitely mental abuse. There may have been some physical abuse, but you don't become the leader of a neo nazi movement if you're not the type of person to pound your views and opinions into your own kid's head.

This one is less about punishment and more about the crime - pretty much any husband's worst nightmare.

Imagine being deployed overseas, and during one of your Facetime video chats with your 9-month-pregnant wife, you can do little but watch as someone who owes you money ambushes her in your home and stabs her repeatedly. She is currently in critical condition, her due date is in 1 week, and the attacker was caught and booked with a $60,000 bond.

Shawnacy said:

Well most definitely mental abuse. There may have been some physical abuse, but you don't become the leader of a neo nazi movement if you're not the type of person to pound your views and opinions into your own kid's head.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd have to disagree that mental abuse justifies murder. I feel that if we, as a society, make laws the put mental abusers to death we'd be going down the wrong path.

He needs to be in a mental health institution or psych ward where there are child psychologists and counselors who can work on him.

Zero Esc said:

He needs to be in a mental health institution or psych ward where there are child psychologists and counselors who can work on him.

Click to expand...

The issue we have is that we have a revenge based idea of justice, not a rehabilitation based idea of justice.

Bowielee said:

The issue we have is that we have a revenge based idea of justice, not a rehabilitation based idea of justice.

Click to expand...

Dave said:

I'm amazed at you sometimes.

Click to expand...

What amazes me is that steinman can't see the benefits of not having one more career criminal a few years down the line.

Bowielee said:

The issue we have is that we have a revenge based idea of justice, not a rehabilitation based idea of justice.

Click to expand...

There are three parts to sentences typically handed out in our justice system.

1. Punishment
2. Rehabilitation
3. Protect society/themselves

Rehabilitation, education, training, and therapy are all part of our system. They aren't ideal, but they are available for those prisoners who wish to use them.

The reality is that we cannot force prisoners to take part in rehabilitative activities due to our unusual legal structure that also prevents hard labor and so forth. We can encourage participation, but rehabilitation is not a big part of our system because we can't force them to participate.

Sometimes encouragement comes in the form of "If you attend 'boot camp' for troubled youth for two years you can avoid 5 years of prison." Other times encouragement comes while in prison, where attendees of classes receive special privileges.

Our legal system prevents us from forcibly rehabilitating someone against their will. That pesky 8th Amendment in our Constitution.[DOUBLEPOST=1383351693,1383351214][/DOUBLEPOST]

Zero Esc said:

steinman can't see the benefits of not having one more career criminal a few years down the line.

Click to expand...

It's pretty amazing, that conclusion you were able to jump to from so far away.

https://www.google.com/search?q="10+year+old"+murderer

Take a look at a few other cases, and tell me that there has never been, nor will ever be a case where a 10 year old who kills another human in cold blood shouldn't receive any punishment.

stienman said:

It's pretty amazing, that conclusion you were able to jump to from so far away.

https://www.google.com/search?q="10 year old" murderer

Take a look at a few other cases, and tell me that there has never been, nor will ever be a case where a 10 year old who kills another human in cold blood shouldn't receive any punishment.

Click to expand...

Take a look at my posts and tell me where I said that.

It's strange how in a thread about racism you can detail the most specific hypotheticals to try to justify the practice, but here you're willing to take a broad brush to the situation without a second thought to specific differentiating circumstances between cases.

I get it guys. You read an article that is clearly biased to make the father look like a bad father, and the child look like a victim, and your heart reaches out to the child. You honestly believe in the innocence of children, and that they cannot, in and of themselves, become corrupt, and therefore are unable to comprehend their actions. You don't think they have the capacity to kill in cold blood, and thus should be exempt from justice when they kill someone.

Sometimes that's the case.

I don't think it's always the case, though, and in the absence of sufficient evidence in this case I have a hard time justifying this man's death.

You may not agree with the man's choices in life, but if you had the gun and the opportunity to kill him, would you do it for this child? Do you believe strongly enough that the man deserved a death sentence to pull the trigger yourself? Could you seriously say he deserves death from what little you know about him?

Now that he's dead, does he truly deserve no justice on his killer? The only thing you can see is this damaged child, and there's no point in punishing that child?

It's sickening that you think so little of human life that you want a killer, albeit a 10 year old killer, to get away with cold blooded murder just because of a few lines in an article suggesting that maybe there was some abuse, and that the father held viewpoints abhorrent to your white picket fence viewpoint of life.

"Huh. Little timmy killed his pa. Poor fella. He probably feels really bad. Let's go cheer him up. Just toss the dead body aside, the boy is far more important."

Yes, the child is damaged. He is also a victim. The sentence should be balanced, taking into account his ability to understand his actions, whether he can be rehabilitated, as well as the punishment for the crime of murder.

To say that justice is best served by only considering the child's needs is to completely dismiss empathy and justice for the victim of the murder.[DOUBLEPOST=1383352400,1383352270][/DOUBLEPOST]

Zero Esc said:

specific differentiating circumstances between cases.

Click to expand...

Ok. Tell me the specific differentiating circumstances in this case. The article is quick to point to allegations, but they aren't useful unless proven.

So. Tell me what makes you personally believe that this child did not deserve the sentence he received.

I'm all ears.[DOUBLEPOST=1383352614][/DOUBLEPOST]And, just to be clear, I'm playing counterpoint to all the bias going on in here, inflamed, no doubt, by the exceptionally biased article.

I have no proof this child should have received the sentence he received. I'm merely responding to all the generalizations people are making about how children shouldn't be sentenced to prison for crimes.

I honestly expect we'll just go around and around in circles like in the trayvon martin thread due to too little information and too much bias based on emotional assumptions.

stienman said:

I get it guys. You read an article that is clearly biased to make the father look like a bad father, and the child look like a victim, and your heart reaches out to the child. You honestly believe in the innocence of children, and that they cannot, in and of themselves, become corrupt, and therefore are unable to comprehend their actions. You don't think they have the capacity to kill in cold blood, and thus should be exempt from justice when they kill someone.

Sometimes that's the case.

I don't think it's always the case, though, and in the absence of sufficient evidence in this case I have a hard time justifying this man's death.

You may not agree with the man's choices in life, but if you had the gun and the opportunity to kill him, would you do it for this child? Do you believe strongly enough that the man deserved a death sentence to pull the trigger yourself? Could you seriously say he deserves death from what little you know about him?

Now that he's dead, does he truly deserve no justice on his killer? The only thing you can see is this damaged child, and there's no point in punishing that child?

It's sickening that you think so little of human life that you want a killer, albeit a 10 year old killer, to get away with cold blooded murder just because of a few lines in an article suggesting that maybe there was some abuse, and that the father held viewpoints abhorrent to your white picket fence viewpoint of life.

"Huh. Little timmy killed his pa. Poor fella. He probably feels really bad. Let's go cheer him up. Just toss the dead body aside, the boy is far more important."

Yes, the child is damaged. He is also a victim. The sentence should be balanced, taking into account his ability to understand his actions, whether he can be rehabilitated, as well as the punishment for the crime of murder.

To say that justice is best served by only considering the child's needs is to completely dismiss empathy and justice for the victim of the murder.[DOUBLEPOST=1383352400,1383352270][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ok. Tell me the specific differentiating circumstances in this case. The article is quick to point to allegations, but they aren't useful unless proven.

So. Tell me what makes you personally believe that this child did not deserve the sentence he received.

I'm all ears.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't believe that when a person gets fucked up, and acts in a fucked up way toward the person who fucked him up, that the fact that the person was fucked up should be ignored. You're saying that the sentence should be balanced, but then defending the sentence as-is, which doesn't appear balanced.

A person of sound mental health typically doesn't go up to a sleeping person and shoot them. So he should be in a mental health facility where they can work on adjusting him to appropriate mental health standards. At that point, a sentence should be carried out, its length taking into account the mitigating circumstances of abuse. I do not think 40 years is an appropriate length of sentence for an abused person against their abuser, especially at 10 years old.

Now I pose a question--how far would the father have had to go where you would think the child's actions were justified? You've already said threat of immediate harm, but when services had been called, done nothing (as they typically do), how far should the abuse go? Or is it never, that the kid would never be justified in doing this?[DOUBLEPOST=1383353375][/DOUBLEPOST]To append that, a woman was recently granted parole after 20 years in a California prison. She was a human trafficking victim. Her trafficker raped her and brought other men in to rape her. One day, she got the chance to kill him and did so. She was put in prison for it until today. I don't think she should've been put in prison at all considering the situation she was in. Obviously we would've heard if the abuse in this case had been anywhere near that bad, but my point is that there are times where it's justified.

I've said what I think should go on with this kid and it's not just letting him out into the world right away, make him feel better, etc. other hyperbole bullshit.

Damn it all, you guys KNOW I can't jump into this conversation, and it's absolutely KILLING me (pardon the pun) because I'm the one who knows first hand about what's going on in situations like this.

Zero Esc said:

how far would the father have had to go where you would think the child's actions were justified?

Click to expand...

Murder is such a horrific "solution" to a problem, that I think that individuals should only carry it out when their own life is in danger, or the life of another.

Abuse is a difficult call, though, and in some cases I would say murder is reasonable, particularly in cases of imprisonment and abuse that takes place over extended periods of time. Torture is, in my eyes, having one's life put in danger, so it's a relatively easy call there.

The fact that the jury determined that his action was not the result of self defense means it doesn't meet my admittedly high standards, assuming they and the defense did their job properly.

GasBandit said:

any husband's worst nightmare.

Click to expand...

That sounds terrifying.

stienman said:

To say that justice is best served by only considering the child's needs is to completely dismiss empathy and justice for the victim of the murder.

Click to expand...

I think that your PROBLEM is that you're using your BRAAAIN when you ought to be using these...TORCHES!

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

That sounds terrifying.

I think that your PROBLEM is that you're using your BRAAAIN when you ought to be using these...TORCHES!

--Patrick

Click to expand...

I don't know about other people in this thread, but I'm certainly not condoning what the child did. Far from it. It was a horrible, horrible thing, as is all murder. The point is, is a ten year old child of full enough facilities to be fully culpable for his actions? There's a reason that children have different rules for those over 18. They generally lack the tools to understand the consequences of their actions, particularly when their sense of right and wrong has already been compromised by a background of abuse (which may or may not have happened in this case). My point is that this child obviously has serious developmental issues that will only exasperated by his incarceration. So, basically, we'll end up with a worse problem down the line.

Bowielee said:

is a ten year old child of full enough facilities to be fully culpable for his actions? There's a reason that children have different rules for those over 18.

Click to expand...

Which is why it's important to decide on a case to case basis.
However the article suggests and many people here think that in this case the jury, judge, or lawyers failed in some way, though they don't provide evidence as to which part, exactly, failed, nevermind suggesting a fix.

Bowielee said:

this child... has serious developmental issues that will only exasperated by his incarceration. So, basically, we'll end up with a worse problem down the line.

Click to expand...

Juvenile recidivism ranges from 12% to 55% depending on the state and how you measure it(p234).

But in the worst case, there's really only a 55% chance that he'll get out of jail and immediately turn to a life of crime.

I know everyone likes to paint prison as a place where people who made poor choices become bad guys, and bad guys become hardened criminals, and hardened criminals become kingpins, but I suspect that is exaggerated. Certainly the recidivism rate doesn't support that assumption.

So your assertion that his serious problems will only be made worse in prison and he'll be a worse problem down the line isn't backed by evidence. There's a chance he will, certainly, but evenadults have a recidivism rate of below 50%. Yes, that's intolerably high, but it doesn't support the theory that prison makes things worse any more than it supports the theory that prisons make things better.

stienman said:

Which is why it's important to decide on a case to case basis.
However the article suggests and many people here think that in this case the jury, judge, or lawyers failed in some way, though they don't provide evidence as to which part, exactly, failed, nevermind suggesting a fix.



Juvenile recidivism ranges from 12% to 55% depending on the state and how you measure it(p234).

But in the worst case, there's really only a 55% chance that he'll get out of jail and immediately turn to a life of crime.

I know everyone likes to paint prison as a place where people who made poor choices become bad guys, and bad guys become hardened criminals, and hardened criminals become kingpins, but I suspect that is exaggerated. Certainly the recidivism rate doesn't support that assumption.

So your assertion that his serious problems will only be made worse in prison and he'll be a worse problem down the line isn't backed by evidence. There's a chance he will, certainly, but evenadults have a recidivism rate of below 50%. Yes, that's intolerably high, but it doesn't support the theory that prison makes things worse any more than it supports the theory that prisons make things better.

Click to expand...

But again, going on a case by case basis, this child obviously is not average. The vast majority of kids aren't in Juvie for murdering someone. I think this deserves a very close look at what is actually going on. Of course, that's always hard to do when everything is sensatinalized to hell and back.

Well, one thing we know: he will never kill his father again, so right there his chance of recidivism is already way down.

I want to mark that as funny, but I'm conflicted.

I can at least say this - had this happened in Wisconsin, he would not have ended up by me. The state of Wisconsin does not adjudicate juveniles under the age of 12.

I vaguely have a memory of a similar case happening in Milwaukee - I believe it was involving the group of kids who beat an old man to death on the north side - but I don't recall what was done with the particular youth involved.

On a more generic level - crap like this happens frequently enough that I'm employed. Even here in Wisconsin.

An addendum: I did look it up, and AFAIK, the youngest offender we've ever had was a kid who was a few days shy of his 12th birthday.