They should be tried as adults. This was not a random loss of reasoning. This was a cold, calculated, premeditated criminal act. The girls planned this out, found accomplices, set up the scenario and carried out an extremely violent crime that left a girl with permanent physical and most likely psychological damage. This took forethought, planning and execution, none of which showed a lack of understanding. Had it been a case of one girl confronting the other during school and tempers escalating into a fight would be one thing, but this was a "lynch mob" ambushing an unsuspecting girl. They should all be tried, sentenced and punished as adults similiar to the felony accomplice laws. At any time, any of the girls involved could have stopped this by simply telling a parent, a teacher, the police or any other adult. But they chose not to and should accept the consequences. I can't vouch for anyone else here, but I am pretty darn certain that when I was 14 years old, I knew that getting 8 of my friends together to have a "blanket party" on some other kid would have landed me in a juvenile detention facility with pretty stiff consequences. If any of these kids was unaware that this could happen as a result of their actions, perhaps the authorities need to start charging the parents as well. Oh, sorry, I forgot.....being an over indulgent idiot of a parent still isnt against the law.

With all of the violence being reported in the schools these days, something needs to be done.  Make examples of them. Let em earn a living when they get out of jail traveling around the country visiting schools telling other kids how they ruined their lives by being sheep and not doing the right thing.

Man Bites Dog wrote: Question presented from Fark: If any of these girls are found not-guilty and let go, do they now get full voting/driving/anything-else-that-adults-get-to-do privileges?

By no means. Mainly because there is no reason for 14 year olds to drive since they can't work. To be quite honest, I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should have a drivers license unless they can show a true need; as in having to help support their family by having a job or needing to be able to transport a physically dependent family member. Under 21 drivers account for a minute percentage of drivers, but account for a double digit percentage of accidents and fatalities. I also dont think anyone should be allowed to work until they are 18. Again, unless there is a financial need within the family. Maybe if young adults spent more time studying and getting a decent education and less time working at Hollister in order to get their clothing discount, this country wouldnt have China and India taking our jobs away. As for voting, lets be honest, how many people under the age of 21 even vote? As far as I am concerned, they need to restrict those able to vote to people that have a freaking clue. You should have to take a test proving you know and understand the issues and what each candidates stand on these issues is before being allowed to vote. Too many idiots and "bandwagon voters" out there casting votes for unqualified candidates simply because they want to be part of the 'time for change".  

Again, my basis for my position is due to the showing of planning and execution of a plan. This was not a spur of the moment crime of passion. It was a cold, deliberate, well planned multiple count violent felony carried out by uncaring, unrepentent hoodlums.

Man Bites Dog wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: I can't vouch for anyone else here, but I am pretty darn certain that when I was 14 years old, I knew that getting 8 of my friends together to have a "blanket party" on some other kid would have landed me in a juvenile detention facility with pretty stiff consequences. I am not sure anyone is arguing to the contrary. I am saying we actually send them to that juvenile detention facility with the stiff consequences, like we would any other juvenile under the juvenile system, as long as we actually have a juvenile system.

I actually meant too add "including serious jail time" on the end of this statement. Rethinking this part of the argument though, I will have to add this. At no time when I was 14 years old or any other time during my life, did I ever even consider doing what they individuals did to another person. Even if the thought came into my mind, I KNEW IT WAS WRONG. Probably because my mother raised me to be a decent, empathetic human being that knows it wrong to beat another person unconscious because they said something bad about me. Actually, maybe its a good thing this happened and these girls were caught early before they turned in to totally uncontrollable adult Ted Bundy wannabees. If they are capable of doing this at 14-16, what do you think they would have done if they were old enough to drive and or buy a freaking gun? This probably would have been a murder and they all would be sentenced to life sentences.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry dude, you're right out to lunch. Why should people under 18 NOT be allowed to drive, if they can do so responsibly, or work? People under 18 can have expenes. Not all are in a position to be able to leech off their parents. If a juvenile is competent to work, why should they not do so and reap the fruits of their labour? I know plenty of people who, as juveniles, have worked and earned money, either to save up for school or simply for their own spending. China and India aren't 'taking' American jobs, American jobs are being given to them because they can work for small fractions of what American workers will expect. I don't see why you even dragged that point into this. My point was that too many young adults spend too much time working and not studying. Perhaps if we were all better educated and at the forefront of technology, we wouldnt be so reliant on union run manufacturing jobs that cant possibly compete with lower paid developing countries. I agree that if there is a true financial need, sure, get a job, but too many times any money earned is spent on either car payments, insurance and/or gas money getting to and from the jobs. Let's figure it out. Say you work 20 hours per week at 7/hour, we have 140/week. Lets take out 25% for taxes putting us down to say 105/week. Now we take $50/week getting to and from the job and now we are down to $55/week. Insurance is most likely at least $120-$200/month and now we are either down to $100 profit for the month or $10.  Lets take into consideration repairs and upkeep of the car and we are now in the hole. Again, time could be much better spent studying to get better grades and/or taking part into sports and enjoy being a kid. Life is too short and WAY too much of it is going to be spent working.

How do you restrict the sovereign franchise - the most critical, inalienable part of any liberal democracy - based on such arbitrary distinctions? Is a stupid citizen any less a citizen? No, but you dont have to be smart to be informed. Granted, an age must be imposed at some point, but if you try to restrict voting based on (a very humanly fallible) notion of intelligence or competence, you cross into an imposed tyranny of the elite. So if we have to take a written test to drive, why can't we ask the same in order to be able to get a "license to vote"? I have to take a test to be able to prove that I know that a red light means stop and a green light means go, but I dont have to prove that I know a single thing about our candidates, one of which will be put in control of the the largest nuclear arsenal and/or army in the world?  That's not the kind of state I volunteered to serve. I appreciate and highly respect those individuals that choose to serve. Too few people choose to do so.
[/QUOTE]

I think we are a bit off the subject now.

brihard wrote: We are off subject, but the conversation is interesting anyway. You assume that adolescents who work are doing so to pay for cars, and seem to sue that to support your argument that they shouldn't be working. Your logic doesn't follow. First off, many (most) teens don't have cars. Not sure where you live, but I can say when I was 16, nearly everyone that I knew had a car by the time they were 17. Maybe times have changed, but I look around locally and at the local high school parking lot and would venture to guess that they majority of driving ages teens have vehicles. Second, even if they do, so what? Why should we try to tell them that their spare time shouldn't be spent working (and possibly saving money, building up a resume, and maybe earning a credit rating) instead of doing whatever else teens do? How about playing sports? Joining school clubs (4H, Band, etc.) church youth groups or volunteering. All of which look better on a college application and/or resume than working at the fry station at the BK Lounge. I'd rather a kid be working retail than stirring up crap because he's bored. Plus that time working crappy jobs will serve them well later when they look for mroe serious employment. You are right on this point. That job washing dishes at a seafood restaurant motivated me to realize that I needed to study more and get into college so I never had to come home at midnight on a school night smelling like a tuna boat. Oh yeah, I lost that job because I called into work one day because I needed to study for a test and my boss fired me.Great work experience. Taught me early that most of my life I would be working for unreasonable individuals that thought my life should revolve around my job.   As for a 'license to vote'- I will invoke here one of my favourite arguments, the 'slipper slope'. Sure, maybe slome slack-jawed numbnuts who can't spell their own name shouldn't be voting, but where do you draw the line? Like it or not, democracy as a process offers more advantages in terms of liberty and liberal ideals than any other system out there - the worst system, as it were, except for all the other that have been tried, if you'll permit me to mangle my favourite Churchill quote. How can you design a system that picks out those who should not vote without inadvertently excluding some of those who are perfectly able to? The systems of checks and balances exist to make sure that no serious harm can be done through the application of democracy, and as such I'd prefer that everyone get to vote, knowing that nothing truly horrible can be wrought, instead of subscribing to a system in which only an elite portion get to vote- a system which could almost inevitably slip into abuse. I would agree if it weren't for our current short list of candidates for presidency. Obviously, most of the voters that went to the primaries would have failed the test that I propose. Maybe if they would have spent more time studying for civics class instead of selling socks at the GAP, they wouldnt have booted the only reasonably qualified candidates leaving us with the sorry bunch or shouldnt have beens that are left.

Guess I shouldnt mention my views on mandatory castration or we'll never get to sleep.

Benjichang wrote: Yeesh. Some ugly youths there.

With a moustache like that, who wouldn't charge him as an adult?

ha.

Mack wrote: oldpbnoob, Your thoughts on this subject, as you expressed them, come across as "people who don't like the same candidates I do shouldn't be allowed to vote."

I can live with that.

Benjichang wrote: *doesn't *then *shouldn't

I spend 90% of my work day typing emails back and forth with my customers and have gotten to where I rely heavily on Spell Check. Apparently I need to get Ispell for the forums so that we are all happy campers.

I'm going to have to go with Whale here.  For various reasons, we have a separate juvenile justice system.  We should use it or scrap it.

If we do decide to allow judges some leeway, particularly as kids get close to "adult" status, that decision should be made based on age/maturity, and not based on the severity of the crime.  Doing so goes directly against the central reasoning behind the juvenile system.

And brihard:  While most 14-year-olds may know that committing a crime gets you sent to jail, most 14-year-olds also have no concept that what they are doing is a "crime".  They don't make that connection.

When they throw rocks through the neighbor's window, they know it is "wrong", but they are thinking "prank-wrong", not "crime-wrong".  When they are beating each other up, they are thinking "hope the teachers don't find out" - they aren't worried about the police or prison. 

It's illogical - but hey, they are kids.

Please god learn to quote...

But to respond:

1.  Most 13-year-olds are "sociopaths" by adult standards.  Their morality is not fully developed.  That's why we have a JV system. 

2.  Whether letting them out at 18 is the right response is a different question.  The idea of treating children and adults differently is a separate concern from HOW to treat those two groups.

3.  They either are or are not "moral adults".  The severity of their crime does not make them more or less morally adult.  By that theory a complete schizo would be eligible for an insanity defense for shoplifting but not for murder.  The severity of the crime and the fundamental nature of the defendant are two different questions and need to be addressed separately.

4.  The JV system was not created to keep kids out of jail for petty crimes, nor was it created as a get-out-of-jail free card.  It was created on the theory that kids and adults are fundamentally different beings and should be treated differently.  It is not an outcome-based system.

5.  I will stand by my claim that most 14-year-olds do not make the connection that throwing rocks or getting in schoolyard fights are actual crimes.  If you ask them in an abstract hypothetical they will agree that those are criminal activities, but when placed in those situations themselves they completely place themselves outside of the system. You are welcome to disagree, but you will be wrong.

6.  As to whether these particular kids realized they were committing a crime, that is a matter for the judge to decide (as apparently was done), and I cannot speak to the specifics.  But as a general matter, most kids well into their teens are perfectly capable of behavior that most adults would deem completely inappopriate.

Rambino wrote: Please god learn to quote... But to respond: 1.  Most 13-year-olds are "sociopaths" by adult standards.  Their morality is not fully developed.  That's why we have a JV system.  2.  Whether letting them out at 18 is the right response is a different question.  The idea of treating children and adults differently is a separate concern from HOW to treat those two groups. 3.  They either are or are not "moral adults".  The severity of their crime does not make them more or less morally adult.  By that theory a complete schizo would be eligible for an insanity defense for shoplifting but not for murder.  The severity of the crime and the fundamental nature of the defendant are two different questions and need to be addressed separately. 4.  The JV system was not created to keep kids out of jail for petty crimes, nor was it created as a get-out-of-jail free card.  It was created on the theory that kids and adults are fundamentally different beings and should be treated differently.  It is not an outcome-based system. 5.  I will stand by my claim that most 14-year-olds do not make the connection that throwing rocks or getting in schoolyard fights are actual crimes.  If you ask them in an abstract hypothetical they will agree that those are criminal activities, but when placed in those situations themselves they completely place themselves outside of the system. You are welcome to disagree, but you will be wrong. 6.  As to whether these particular kids realized they were committing a crime, that is a matter for the judge to decide (as apparently was done), and I cannot speak to the specifics.  But as a general matter, most kids well into their teens are perfectly capable of behavior that most adults would deem completely inappopriate.

1. I am an adult and do not consider any 13 year old, except for maybe the one kid that lives down the road and kills birds for fun, sociopaths

2. No its not. Minors age out of the juvenile system, thus the term "juvenile system".

3. No, because the insanity plea is not a legal defense that I am aware of for misdemeanors. But typically, if it can be proven that someone is schizophrenic off of their meds, a judge isn't likely to rule very harshly on them for crimes committed.  Also, the severity of the crime determines the nature of the defendent.

4. It was created to keep minors out of general population with adults and to give juvenile judges more freedom in sentencing in an attempt to keep minors from repeat offending and ending up in adult jails and prisons. The focus is supposed to be on rehabilitation.

5. So when the police come driving by, do the kids laugh and wave, saying, oh its just a prank? No, they run, because the know what they did was a crime. Again, there is a BIG difference between a school yard fight and what they did. There is also a BIG difference in a bar fight and group of men abducting another person and beating them repeatedly and filming it. Bar fight = misdeanor, Kidnapping, battery etc. = felony.

6. Not sure if he did, but IF he did, he made the right decision. Most adults are capable of behavior that most teens would find inappropriate. Just ask my daughter when I fart around her friends.

oldpbnoob wrote: 1. I am an adult and do not consider any 13 year old, except for maybe the one kid that lives down the road and kills birds for fun, sociopaths

Nor did I say you would.  My point was that teenagers of that age generally have not developed the morality that we expect from adults.  They are generally still in a selfish/narcissistic morality, where "right" and "wrong" are less relevant to their decision-making than the approval or disapproval of their family and/or peers.  As such they are "sociopaths" in the colloquial sense of the word (although not too far off the DSM diagnostic criteria for a variety of personality disorders).

Applying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development - Kohlberg's stages of moral development , for instance (arguably the leading theory of moral development), we can see that 13/14-year-olds are usually in stage 3 of moral development, while truly adult morality does not commence until stage 4 or 5, depending on your definitions.

And this view is the foundation of juvenile (and insanity) law - that it is not justice to "punish" somebody for an immoral act when they have no sense of morality.

2. No its not. Minors age out of the juvenile system, thus the term "juvenile system".

You missed my point.  Under the US juvenile system people are let loose at 18 - this does not have to be true, and is in fact not true in many other countries.  France, for instance, has an elaborate juvenile system that does not automatically release delinquents when they turn 18.

Issue 1:  Should we have a separate system for juveniles?

Issue 2:  If yes, how should this system be different than the regular system?

Assuming we determine that "yes" is the correct response to Issue 1, there remain a wide range of options for Issue 2.  The "release upon 18" approach just happens to be the current rule in most of this country.  It could certainly be changed without abandoning the juvenile system altogether.

3. No, because the insanity plea is not a legal defense that I am aware of for misdemeanors. But typically, if it can be proven that someone is schizophrenic off of their meds, a judge isn't likely to rule very harshly on them for crimes committed.  Also, the severity of the crime determines the nature of the defendent.

You are wrong on all counts.  The specifics of the insanity defense varies a bit between jurisdictions, but it is generally available regardless of the nature of the crime.  You also appear to be confusing it with a defense of "diminished capacity", which is a separate (but similar) matter.  A true insanity defense rests in the assertion that the defendant was "insane".  The legal definition thereof has changed over the years, but the current rule in most US states is basically that "the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts."

Notice the parallel to juvenile rules - an insane person is not responsible because they are incapable of the requisite moral judgement, and a juvenile is not responsible because they have not yet developed the capability for the requisite moral judgement.

And as to the insanity defense, the severity of the crime is most certainly not a factor.  If anything, doing something particularly heinous may increase your chances of a successful insanity defense.  Most notably, of course, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity for trying to kill President Reagan.  The law was changed after that, but not with regard to this particular issue.

4. It was created to keep minors out of general population with adults and to give juvenile judges more freedom in sentencing in an attempt to keep minors from repeat offending and ending up in adult jails and prisons. The focus is supposed to be on rehabilitation.

You are thinking of the The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, which did reference many of those points as central guiding principles.  That law, however, was only enacted in 1974 (obviously), and the US juvenile system goes back several decades prior to that. 

If you look to earlier laws and rulings, particularly prior to WWII, you will quickly see that the goal of the juvenile system was basically to "parent" the delinquent, who was obviously suffering from inferior parenting.  The origins of the US juvenile system come out of the progressive movement in the early 20th century, and that whole philosophy was about helping people along their journey of personal development.  This movement gained steam with the early developmental psychologists like Freud, Jung, and Ericksson, and Kohlberg (mentioned above) as well, as their theories and findings corroborated the progressive movement's view of the world.  The point was never "rehabilitation" but "development".  The juvenile system was supposed to help children become moral adults.  Not repair a broken morality, but grow an adult morality.

The zeitgeist shifted, as it does, and by the mid-80s we were all about being tough on crime.  A bunch of these laws were changed, including the The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, which was amended sometime in the mid-80s to allow courts to selectively try juveniles as adults.  The original act did not allow for this, nor earlier laws, generally speaking.

5. So when the police come driving by, do the kids laugh and wave, saying, oh its just a prank? No, they run, because the know what they did was a crime.

Oh, the kids know that they will be in trouble.  Certainly.  They know they aren't supposed to be doing that.  But that is not the same as an internalized belief that what they are doing is "wrong" the way you think of that word - at that time in their lives, "wrong" simply means "not peer-approved".  Moreover, most kids that age do not have the life experiences to tell them that it is actually a crime.  All their inputs - TV, movies, etc - tell tham that these things are things that get you in trouble with the teachers and parents, not things that land you in prison. 

You line up a thousand juvenile delinquents under the age of 15, and ask them whether they were more concerned (at the time of their illicit act) about getting grounded/spanked or getting thrown in prison, I can promise you what the results of that survey will be.

Again, there is a BIG difference between a school yard fight and what they did. There is also a BIG difference in a bar fight and group of men abducting another person and beating them repeatedly and filming it. Bar fight = misdeanor, Kidnapping, battery etc. = felony.

I agree that there is a big difference - but if these kids are not morally mature, then they are not morally mature regardless of the specific acts committed.  To draw a parallel - if you accidentally drop and break a vase, it is just as much of an accident whether that vase was from Wal-Mart or the Ming Dynasty.  The extent of the damage does not affect your intent, any more than it affects the moral maturity of a delinquent.

On a side note, you are mistaken if you believe that a bar fight cannot be a felony.  Specifics vary between jurisdictions, but I can promise you that there have been many, many felony convictions of various kinds arising from simple bar fights.

Obviously, your Abnormal Psych books are a little closer at hand than mine are. Not even sure where any of my college books are anymore come to think of it. I leave it with IMO, these kids are guilty of a horrendous crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Obviously the judge ruling on the case as well as the prosecutors agree and have begun doing so. I commend them.

Enos Shenk wrote: You know Rambs, I would have to argue after reading your debate on this, that teenagers should be punished MORE for criminal activity. maybe not 'sent to jail' punished, but some active punishment like community service for a year, or something appropriate to the crime. It would be better to pound it into their heads that misbehavior == harsh reprisal. I know when I was 10 or 11 or so, I 'stole' something from my grandparents. And when I was caught, I got the living hell punished out of me, and I learned my lesson.

I don't disagree.  There is one camp in the juvenile delinquency discussion that thinks that we should be quicker to bring the po-lice into delinquency matters involving minor crimes that currently go unattended.  Kind of like Giuliani's campaign against petty crime, the theory is that you take the first opportunity to "punish" a kid, and punish hard, to emphasize the point that there will be consequences, and unpleasant ones at that.

As it stands today, kids are mostly turned over to their parents with a stern lecture if it is "only" minor shoplifting or vandalism.

Rambino wrote: I don't disagree.  There is one camp in the juvenile delinquency discussion that thinks that we should be quicker to bring the po-lice into delinquency matters involving minor crimes that currently go unattended.  Kind of like Giuliani's campaign against petty crime, the theory is that you take the first opportunity to "punish" a kid, and punish hard, to emphasize the point that there will be consequences, and unpleasant ones at that. As it stands today, kids are mostly turned over to their parents with a stern lecture if it is "only" minor shoplifting or vandalism.

Not trying to poke a shark with stick, but going by your argument, wouldn't this be in vain? If the adolescents aren't aware that they are committing a crime, how will punishment make any difference?

Mack wrote: Think of it as Pavlovian-style training.  They may not understand right and wrong, but they probably understand unpleasant consequences and how to avoid them in the future.

Or they learn to get better at not getting caught. Practice makes perfect. Which leads us back around the circle.

What Mack said.  Punishment can be an effective behavior-modifier.  Most developmental psychology theories with which I am familiar indicate that the best way to foster a "mature" morality is to set firm-but-rational boundaries and rules, and have predictable and meaningful consequences for actions (both positive and negative).

Eventually those rules get internalized, and the reinforcement/punishment is no longer required.

"Punishment" has several similar but different meanings.  In a Pavlovian/child-rearing context it simply means "negative consequence", with the intent to modify behavior specifically for that individual.  In a political/personal/justice context, however, it usually just means any negative consequence regardless of intent.

The death penalty, for instance, is not meaningful "punishment" from a Pavlovian perspective - obviously that would be counter-productive.  The same goes for super-long prison terms.  Those punishments are meant to remove a harmful individual from the population, and not meant to get the delinquent back in line.

So, two different things.