Comments on: How many tweens lifers are there?

How many tweens lifers are there?

fixedgear — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:25:18 -0800

Will an 11-year-old get life in prison? Here's what you need to know.

In February 2009, when Jordan was 11, his father's girlfriend, Kenzie Houk, was found murdered -- shot in the head with a shotgun assumedly while she slept. This took place about an hour's drive north of Pittsburgh in a rural farmhouse she shared with her boyfriend, one of her daughters, and Jordan. It took local cops a short time to investigate and conclude that Jordan -- whose father had purchased him a shotgun not long earlier -- had committed the act. Though he denied it -- and continues to deny it -- Jordan was incarcerated and held for trial. A judge last year concluded that the 11-year-old would be tried as an adult for murder. The judge's rationale: Jordan's refusal to admit guilt showed that he was not sorry for what he did.

By: Zozo

Zozo — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:27:37 -0800

Too bad they don't put Kafka on the reading lists until high school.

By: Sticherbeast

Sticherbeast — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:30:18 -0800

Maybe he didn't confess to the crime because he didn't do it, or because he doesn't want to go to prison, or because he wants to exercise his 5th Amendment rights, or because something something something he's eleven.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:30:28 -0800

Talk about your miscarriage of justice! The only way to get a trial as a juvenile is to admit you did it, which means that there won't be a jury trial. Many judges in PA are elected; if this one is he or she needs to be unelected immediately.

By: stormpooper

stormpooper — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:30:45 -0800

Wow. I don't know who is innocent or who is guilty but if he IS innocent and the father knows it (maybe he did it) that's really shitty of a father. If some other guy did it and he's not defending his son, again, that's really shitty of the father. But either way, I think in this case since it is unknown he should be tried as a juvenille. I'm not saying "oh he's 11 feel bad for him" but life in prison waiting for pure evidence to set him free in 20, 30, 40+ years? Not right. Not right at all.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:31:06 -0800

Isn't there something odd about a judge deciding guilt before a trial?

By: Melismata

Melismata — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:31:31 -0800

Yeah, hard to comment here without knowing whyhe says he didn't do it. More background is needed.

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:32:43 -0800

More.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:33:05 -0800

What? He said he didn't do it because he doesn't want to go up the river for murder. Pretty simple.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:33:24 -0800

Clean slate for corrupt judge's young victims in Pennsylvania

By: vibrotronica

vibrotronica — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:33:56 -0800

Contrast this case with Mary Winkler, who shot her minister husband to death while he was sleeping and was then convicted of voluntary manslaughter. She is currently free and has custody of her three children.

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:34:45 -0800

JordanBrownTrust.org

By: oddman

oddman — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:34:51 -0800

I don't need more background. There is no way an 11 year old is competent to stand trial as an adult. We could have video surveillance of him shooting the woman and it would still be an absoluter horror to try him as an adult.

By: vibrotronica

vibrotronica — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:35:02 -0800

Oops, sorry. Here's the Mary Winkler link.

By: Sticherbeast

Sticherbeast — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:35:42 -0800

Where would you put an 11-year-old prisoner, by the way? Not in gen pop, surely? Also, from fixedgear's "More" link: Kenzie's mother, Deborah Houk, told the Associated Press in March 2009 that Jordan is "evil" and that he should be tried as an adult for murder. Yipes.

By: theichibun

theichibun — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:36:14 -0800

I don't care what his reason is. The fact that the judge has said his refusal to admit it means he did it and will be tried as an adult means there's no way in Hell he'll get a fair trial. The whole thing's tainted from the start.

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:38:50 -0800

Sticherbeast: He'd go to SCI Pine Grove.

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:38:51 -0800

This article has so much loaded language in it that it's hard to get the fact straight. For example, the sentence "Though he denied it -- and continues to deny it -- Jordan was incarcerated and held for trial," implies that, as a rule, if a criminal defendant denies guilt that he shouldn't be incarcerated before trial. In addition, I find it hard to believe that any legal system would permit a Catch-22 situation: you will be tried as an adult unless you show remorse for a crime that the state hasn't yet proven you have committed. This is prima facie unconstitutional. That put aside, these types always seem like tough cases to me. Lock him up and throw away the key? Too harsh. Two years in a juvenile detention center? I certainly wouldn't feel justice had been served if I was a family member of the victim. In addition, there are almost certainly mitigating factors at work. Is this a budding sociopath who kills for pleasure or was the criminal also a victim (of abuse, for example).

By: Uther Bentrazor

Uther Bentrazor — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:38:53 -0800

So who really shot her?

By: chavenet

chavenet — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:41:28 -0800

Among other things, a key piece of evidence is apparently the eyewitness testimony of the victim's 7-year-old daughter. So the plan is to try a boy as a man by considering the comments of a girl as those of a woman. This will not end well.

By: TomMelee

TomMelee — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:42:20 -0800

The best argument I've EVER heard against trying people <18 as adults is that you are guaranteed a jury of your peers. As a jury member has to be an adult, no child can ever actually GET a jury of his or her peers. I suppose you could argue that most folks don't actually get a jury of their "peers", but this is kind of especially sickening.

By: incessant

incessant — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:42:46 -0800

Justin Bieber, meanwhile, remains free.

By: tylerkaraszewski

tylerkaraszewski — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:43:22 -0800

If he actually did it, it's hard for me to feel bad for someone who would do that. I don't really care if he's 11. We forgive 11-year-olds their routine transgressions all the time. Shoplifting, trespassing, maybe graffiti. We don't forgive them *shooting people in the head with shotguns* though. This isn't the sort of thing a normal 11-year-old does just as part of growing up. If he didn't do it, I hope he gets acquitted when it goes to trial. On a side note, what does "tried as an adult" actually mean? Does it mean "sentenced as an adult", or is the trial actually conducted in some way that's different from one for a minor?

By: BungaDunga

BungaDunga — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:43:37 -0800

Time to ratify The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Oh, right. That would be communist, or something. McCain's response to this question made me see red, but Obama's is not much better. We prefer to associate with Somalia, the only other country that hasn't ratified it. I mean, seriously: mandatory minimum of 20 years to life? That's a pretty big WTF. The fact that children are tried as adults at all (and yes, I'm counting 17yr olds as children. Because they are) is morally suspect; the very idea of trying an 11 year old for a crime with a mandatory 20-to-life sentence is completely and totally morally bankrupt. Who the hell appoints (or, quite probably, elects?) judges like this? A country that can't take care of its children needs to seriously reevaluate its notion of self-importance, let alone "exceptionalism."

By: Sticherbeast

Sticherbeast — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:44:47 -0800

In addition, I find it hard to believe that any legal system would permit a Catch-22 situation AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By: snofoam

snofoam — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:45:35 -0800

I have no idea if the kid did it, but either way, a shotgun is maybe not the best present for an 11 year-old.

By: Malor

Malor — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:46:14 -0800

So, the upshot is, the kid had no option to be tried as a child before a jury. Either he admitted guilt, or because he didn't admit guilt, he's an adult. I don't think any eleven-year-old, anywhere, has the moral capacity to be treated as an adult. He's not allowed to vote, enlist, or even enter into contracts until 18. But as soon as some judge doesn't like him, he gets all the responsibilities of adulthood, with none of the benefits. What the fuck happened to the presumption of innocence?

By: katillathehun

katillathehun — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:47:01 -0800

Ugh.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:48:17 -0800

Well of course you're not required to feel bad for the kid if he actually did it, but whether he did or not, it's nonsense to try him as an adult. HE WAS 11 YEARS OLD at the time.

By: Mister Fabulous

Mister Fabulous — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:48:55 -0800

The linked article is quite weak regarding the case. There hasn't been a trial yet. The case is still in the pre-trial phase, and has gone up to the U.S. Court of Appeals to decided whether or not he (now 13) can be tried as an adult. The court was also asked to consider the previous court's ruling by the judge who stated quite plainly that if he didn't admit it, he has no remorse and can't be rehabilitated while in a juvenile corrections center, which the defense states violates 5th amendment rights. On a side note, what does "tried as an adult" actually mean? Does it mean "sentenced as an adult", or is the trial actually conducted in some way that's different from one for a minor? In Pennsylvania, provided he is found guilty, if he is tried as a minor, it goes through a juvenile court, and the maximum sentence is juvenile corrections until his 21st birthday, when he must be released. If he is tried as an adult and found guilty, the sentence is a mandatory life in prison without parole.

By: pjaust

pjaust — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:49:25 -0800

I have no idea if the kid did it, but either way, a shotgun is maybe not the best present for an 11 year-old. Many 11 year olds in rural areas have shotguns, so how come so few of them use them to shoot their caregivers?

By: Ad hominem

Ad hominem — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:49:45 -0800

I have no idea if the kid did it, but either way, a shotgun is maybe not the best present for an 11 year-old. Even though I agree with you, I got my first shotgun at age 11, in preparation for getting my small game license at 12

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:52:02 -0800

So who really shot her? The defense seems to be playing up the idea that her ex-boyfriend did it, based on previous death threats: Elisco also emphasized the PFA Kenzie filed against her ex-boyfriend, Adam Harvey, a year before her death. That PFA, dated Feb. 4, 2008, indicated that Kenzie had been threatened repeatedly with harm and death by Harvey, the father of one of her children. Harvey resided in Harrisburg, NC, at the time the PFA was filed. Kenzie wrote that Harvey "...has left several messages threatening to hurt me and my family. I am in fear of him hurting me physically or my family. He has a drinking problem that is uncontrollable. He has threatened to hire someone to hurt me several times. I have been talking to Shenango Police and they have listened to the messages on my mother's cell phone and suggested me to get a PFA."

By: fuq

fuq — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:52:06 -0800

We prefer to associate with Somalia, the only other country that hasn't ratified i To be fair, Somalia doesn't really have a functional government that would ratify the treaty, so it's not like they looked over treaty and publicly rejected that children have no right. I guess that makes America exception in at least one way!

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:53:58 -0800

I hate linking to it, because it's the kind of mind-fucking horror that I can never truly wrap my head around. But there's the example precedent of the case of the murder of James Bulger, where his underage murderers were held until they reached adulthood, then provided new identities to live out their lives in obscurity.

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:54:01 -0800

The linked article is quite weak regarding the case. Well, the linked article is full of links. I decided not to pull them all out, but they are slowly getting posted here.

By: fuq

fuq — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:54:15 -0800

Ahem: so it's not like they looked over the treaty and publicly rejected that children have human rights.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:54:25 -0800

The main evidence seems to be the testimony of the victim's 7 year old daughter (which changed), and gunpowder residue on his shirt, which is kind of unsurprising, given that he and his dad hunted together. It would be really, really, really hard to convince me to convict, given the stakes, if that's all they got. Especially considering the ex-boyfriend.

By: Gator

Gator — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:54:52 -0800

Yipes. It's understandable the mom would feel that way; she lost her daughter (who was pregnant, by the way, which generally equals "heinous" as opposed to just regular old murder).

By: katillathehun

katillathehun — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:54:57 -0800

Ugh again. From the Kenzie Houk site "Case Facts": In this same section of SaveJordanBrown web site, there is a picture of Jordan on the Easter Bunny's lap with a caption underneath stating that Jordan had been recently told there is no Easter Bunny & his response was "Well, what about Santa Clause?" Jordan had known before 'recently'. The Christmas prior to the murders, Chris had to speak with Jordan & tell him he was not to tell Kenzie's daughters there was no Santa Clause. I know Kenzie's family is grieving, but seriously? That's one of their case facts against the kid?

By: schmod

schmod — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:55:55 -0800

Oh, great. Now we're deliberately misapplying justice to kids of all races. Progress! _{I still have a pit in my stomach from automatically assuming from the summary that Jordan Brown was some sort of ethnic minority. Those stories are way too common, and I can't help but think that this one is getting attention because he's white.}

By: adipocere

adipocere — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:57:28 -0800

Will an 11-year-old get life in prison? Here's what you need to know. The article is wrong and could have simply consisted of "Is the eleven year old in the United States? If yes, then yeah, possibly. If the deceased is white, I'll take another ten points on the spread."

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:59:10 -0800

Wait, there's no Santa?

By: quin

quin — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:59:52 -0800

I don't think any eleven-year-old, anywhere, has the moral capacity to be treated as an adult. Which is why, I thought, the point of being tried as a minor existed; an acknowledgement that at 11, this person doesn't have the same mental framework to make fully informed decisions, and might not have a wholly developed understanding of the implications of their actions. I'm not saying the kid's innocent, nor and I saying he's guilty, but there is a reason they make the distinction between minor and adult, and this judge just completely subverted it for no good reason.

By: jedicus

jedicus — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:01:32 -0800

On a side note, what does "tried as an adult" actually mean? Does it mean "sentenced as an adult", or is the trial actually conducted in some way that's different from one for a minor? As Mister Fabulous said, the sentencing is different, and juvenile courts often operate very differently from normal criminal court because their purpose is different. "[J]uvenile courts do not exist to punish children for their transgressions against society. The juvenile court stands in the position of a protecting parent rather than a prosecutor." In re Gault, 99 Ariz 181, 188 (1965) (en banc)." I have no idea if the kid did it, but either way, a shotgun is maybe not the best present for an 11 year-old. Reminds me of the classic and tragic Dragnet radio show episode "A Rifle for Christmas."

By: BungaDunga

BungaDunga — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:02:50 -0800

Two more things: - We only outlawed executing juveniles in 2005: Roper v. Simmons. - And life without parole has been limited to homicide offences, as of 2010: Graham v. Florida. Again: what the hell, America? We need the Supreme Court to decide that executing juveniles is wrong?

By: hippybear

hippybear — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:03:24 -0800

Ugh again. From the Kenzie Houk site "Case Facts" Ugh is right. Claus is the man's last name. Why can't people spell correctly? On a lighter note, it did bring this to mind.

By: Gator

Gator — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:05:03 -0800

testimony of the victim's 7 year old daughter (which changed) I'm not seeing where the little girl's story changed. It was Jordan whose story about the truck was inconsistent, according to these articles.

By: zamboni

zamboni — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:05:37 -0800

The court was also asked to consider the previous court's ruling by the judge who stated quite plainly that if he didn't admit it, he has no remorse and can't be rehabilitated while in a juvenile corrections center, which the defense states violates 5th amendment rights. If this article, Jordan's defense only goes so far as to claim that it

was their view that [the judge] was effectively declaring that Jordan had to acknowledge his responsibility and show remorse in order for the court to determine that juvenile rehabilitation was appropriate in his case.

If he stated it plainly, I'd imagine that the defense would bring that up in the appeal. Also:

[The prosecution] referred to federal court rulings that hold "the trial court may assume that the juvenile committed the alleged offense for purposes of the proceeding" of whether or not the defendant should be treated as a juvenile.

By: Philosopher's Beard

Philosopher's Beard — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:06:27 -0800

I'm so glad I don't live in that country

By: LMGM

LMGM — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:07:35 -0800

Did anyone see the network premiere of the "Onion News Network"? There was a (satirical) segment on a pretty white teenaged girl in Detroit being tried as a black adult male. This was followed with a list of ways in which her trial would go differently, which was actually pretty spot-on.

By: TomMelee

TomMelee — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:11:59 -0800

I was watching something the other dat, WRT how prosecutors are mandated to go for the maximum penalty allowed by law---whether life in prison, death penalty, what have you. Anyway, it got me thinking, how many people are acquitted because, when looking someone in the face, a few jurors can't find it in themselves to be so sure of guilt that they'll send someone to his death? It's also bunk that you're ineligible for a capital crimes jury in a state with capital punishment if you don't believe in capital punishment. I say if we're mostly a 50/50 country, then a "jury of my peers" would have to comprise people who don't believe in the death penalty. I may be perfectly able to convict you without being perfectly willing to issue your death warrant. And as for 11 year olds and shotguns, yea, 11's a bad age. I got my .410 at 9, and was outscoring 25 year olds with Benelli 12g's at the skeet range by the time I was 13. (see, skeet with a .410 is difficult, especially when it's single-shot break-action smoothbore with no choke.)

By: Naberius

Naberius — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:12:09 -0800

FWIW, add me to the list of kids who had a shotgun around that age and managed to not kill anybody with it. I did, however, turn a paperback copy of Frank Bonham's rather silly YA street gang novel Durango Street into a cloud of confetti in a misguided effort to blow a nice round hole straight through it. But fortunately the consequences of that are both less severe and less permanent.

By: BungaDunga

BungaDunga — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:13:47 -0800

He also referred to federal court rulings that hold "the trial court may assume that the juvenile committed the alleged offense for purposes of the proceeding" of whether or not the defendant should be treated as a juvenile. Oh, that sounds like a sane and sound legal precedent to me. Oh wait, it's actually batshit insane. I understand there's a difference between a trial and pretrial, but I would have thought that presumption of innocence an important enough right that it would apply there, too. Anyway, what I thought was most interesting in that article is this:

Under Pennsylvania law, Jordan had to be charged as an adult, despite the fact he was just 11.

So he has to appeal to move it to juvenile court. By default, he's an "adult", and barring a sane judge, he'll be tried as an adult.

By: rh

rh — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:15:16 -0800

Here's what our 11-year old adult looks like: Jordan Anthony Brown [source: MSNBC]

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:17:21 -0800

testimony of the victim's 7 year old daughter (which changed) I'm not seeing where the little girl's story changed. It was Jordan whose story about the truck was inconsistent, according to these articles. The defense claims that she initially did not find anything unusual about that morning: In interviews with police the day of Kenzie's murder – and for two days afterward – Elisco said Janessa told police she had not seen anything unusual the morning of the murder. Elisco said Janessa went to stay with her mother's family in the days following Kenzie's murder, and it was only then that Janessa gave a third statement indicating she heard a shotgun blast before she and Jordan left for school on Feb. 20, 2009. According to a Jan. 7, 2010, report in the New Castle News, Jordan's attorneys stated in a Lawrence county courtroom that while Janessa Houk did not testify during a March 2009 hearing for Jordan, she was interviewed that day by "members of the district attorney's office and possibly members of the Pennsylvania state police." Jordan's attorneys requested transcripts of any conversations between prosecutors and Janessa, but the district attorney's office denied the request noting that the interviews with Janessa were not recorded or transcribed.

By: Gator

Gator — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:17:34 -0800

I was just thinking of this Arizona case from a couple of years ago; the boy was eight (8) years old when he shot his father and his father's friend, apparently deliberately. He admitted it and was initially charged with two counts of murder, but they worked out a plea agreement in which he's receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment, possibly until he turns 18.

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:18:26 -0800

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I really, really (do not) appreciate you quoting half of my sentence for absurdity and then proceeding to mock it without responding to any substantive points that I raised, or would that be "below" you or something? Here's another nugget for you. I believe the United States legal system is entirely fair in a very limited number of areas. Your turn.... Actually, I'll save you some time. I believe the United States legal system is entirely fair AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: BungaDunga

BungaDunga — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:18:32 -0800

There was a (satirical) segment on a pretty white teenaged girl in Detroit being tried as a black adult male. This was followed with a list of ways in which her trial would go differently, which was actually pretty spot-on. This is America! Nobody deserves to be treated like a black man.

By: Sticherbeast

Sticherbeast — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:24:16 -0800

I really, really (do not) appreciate you quoting half of my sentence for absurdity and then proceeding to mock it without responding to any substantive points that I raised, or would that be "below" you or something? You're right, that was cheap. I apologize. That said, facially unconstitutional things happen all the time (hence the need for courts of appeals), Catch-22s exist all over the place (despite the assertion of your pre-colon independent clause), and as the articles have presented the case, it does appear as if the judge really did use the child's lack of a confession as evidence that the child was a remorseless individual who should therefore be tried as an adult and, if found guilty, be sent to prison for life without parole. If we disagree on some or all of these points, then that's life, but I mean no personal disrespect, despite earlier flippant cheap shots.

By: 2bucksplus

2bucksplus — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:34:37 -0800

I'm for it if only to serve as a warning to other 11 year olds who might be considering a life of crime.

By: Xoebe

Xoebe — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:36:53 -0800

Sometimes I wonder if judges legally taint a case deliberately, in order to facilitate a future appeal.

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:37:10 -0800

Stitcherbeast, If the judge followed that logic then, I agree, inability to make a confession should not be used as a factor in determining whether a child should be tried as an adult. Thinking about things a little deeper, I really don't understand why, for serious crimes like murder, we separate young people into "adult/not-adult." It seems silly that a matter of a few months difference in age could affect whether your sentence is 2 or 20 years. Wouldn't it be preferable to make a predetermination of guilt or innocence and then take age into consideration in sentencing?

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:40:44 -0800

a shotgun is maybe not the best present for an 11 year-old No, it's all cool, this one was youth sized. Lawn Darts? Still banned though.

By: schmod

schmod — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:43:09 -0800

My gut reaction was that this should be blatantly unconstitutional. My secondary reaction was that it is blatantly unconstitutional. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. On closer examination, I'm not so sure. Are juvenile hearings considered to be criminal cases? What is the constitutionality for operating a secondary legal system just for minors? Also, why is it so bad that this gets escalated to the "normal" legal system? At least there, he'd have proper constiutional rights, and seems more likely to get a fair and comprehensive trial. (But, Jesus Christ, I would not want to be on that jury.)

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:46:21 -0800

Thinking about things a little deeper, I really don't understand why, for serious crimes like murder, we separate young people into "adult/not-adult." It's especially important to do this in the case of serious charges, because mens rea is an element - some might say the central element - to a murder charge, and children are not seen as capable of having the necessary state of mind. I'm more curious about why the ex-boyfriend isn't the one on trial here. I'm not saying he did it, but he'd be my prime suspect, and I don't think the kid's a flight risk.

By: Malor

Malor — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:52:37 -0800

In case anyone's interested, this is the Onion video being referred to. Warning: stupid Dead Space ad at the beginning.

By: Malor

Malor — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:54:20 -0800

Oops, BungaDunga already linked to it. Sorry!

By: *s

*s — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:55:38 -0800

Two more things: - We only outlawed executing juveniles in 2005: Roper v. Simmons. - And life without parole has been limited to homicide offences, as of 2010: Graham v. Florida. Again: what the hell, America? We need the Supreme Court to decide that executing juveniles is wrong? We apparently need even more than the Supreme Court to decide Graham. Relief for juveniles sentenced to life without parole in non-homicide cases has been mostly denied in Florida. Meanwhile, Govenor Crist set about pardoning Jim Morrison, for whom his "heart bleeds."

By: misha

misha — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:00:50 -0800

I went around to several sites to try to get a clearer picture of this. I personally feel that both the linked site in this FPP and the site by the victim's family are really biased, obviously one for trying Jordan as a child and the other against. So, here's what I found out: Apparently, if he is tried as a juvenile, and found guilty, Jordan would be let go at the age of 21 (so, nine years incarcerated). If he is tried as an adult and found guilty, the sentence is life in prison with no possibility of parole. That's a huge difference. Seems like there needs to be some way to sentence someone in-between the two extremes, to me. But anyway...apparently, the rationale for trying Jordan as an adult comes in part from cases like that of Edmund Emil Kemper III, who also shot a family member, with a shotgun he was given for hunting purposes at the age of 15. He also "didn't show any remorse", was tried as a child, served his time, and then when he was let out at 21 went on to kill more family members and others. Obviously, no one wants a murderer to go free and kill others. Of course, that really has no bearing on this case at all--we have no way of knowing if this kid, even if he is guilty, has the potential to become a serial killer, which even in the world of homicide is a rare beast (no matter what television would have us believe, less than 1 percent of killers are serial killers). The other justification used for trying Jordan as an adult lies in the premeditation prosecutors (and apparently the judge) believe went into the killing: "It is also relevant that the nature and the commission of the offense shows a significant degree of forethought, planning, and an effort on the defendant's part to make sure that it would be impossible or difficult to determine that he was the person responsible for the incidents," Judge Motto wrote. "The offense was necessarily premeditated." (via). I find that problematic, as, to me, it seems to pre-judge the defendant's guilt. If our legal system says we are innocent until proven guilty, I have to wonder why the whole child vs. adult issue comes up before sentencing at all. Oh, and the case against him: Jordan's shotgun recently fired, shotgun casing where the daughter said she saw him throw something away the day the Kenzie was shot (the casing is from Jordan's gun), his blanket with a shotgun hole in it, and his shirt with gunshot residue on it. Quite a bit of physical evidence. Not-so-strong evidence: the daughter's account (eye-witness accounts are unreliable AND she's a child who could have been easily led into incriminating Jordan if the police were already looking at him as the primary suspect). I do find it interesting that BOTH the defense and prosecution's psychiatrists are disturbed by Jordan's lack of emotion. But of course no one saw Jordan to evaluate him until after the crime, so Jordan's 'lack of emotion' could be shock, or not understanding what the consequences really are if he is found guilty, or his normal, non-demonstrative demeanor. Prosecutors latched onto Jordan as the perpetrator when he first said he saw a black truck, then a white truck, with the lights on/off, someone in the truck, hiding vs. no one in the truck...basically, inconsistencies in his account. The ex-boyfriend, who the murdered woman had a restraining order against, has a verified alibi. Jordan's father was not around when Kenzie was killed, also verified. I would think an abusive ex-boyfriend would want rant at her rather than shoot her while she slept, but then I can't picture an 11 year-old cold-bloodedly planning to murder a sleeping woman, either, and then going to school like nothing happened.

By: Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:08:01 -0800

My former babysitter was shotgunned to death by her 12-year-old son. She was a close friend of our family and a valued member of our small town, contributing her time and efforts to a number of organizations. By all accounts she was a good, caring mother, and he murdered her not because she had abused him in any way but because he was blinded by anger over some petty disagreement. There was great sorrow over her death, and anger with the boy, but also sorrow for him as well -- because he was a child and not capable of adult understanding for what he did, although he would likely be haunted by his actions for the rest of his life. But there was no talk that he should be tried as an adult. He spent several years in juvenile detention and was released when he became an adult. I've never spoken with him since the incident, but I understand that he returned to our town and is now a good man -- gainfully employed, a father, a volunteer fire-fighter, and, like his mother, a scout leader. I don't know if that's redemption or what, but it seems like the best possible result from a terrible situation.

By: explosion

explosion — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:20:40 -0800

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese, that was then, this is now. Back then, boys were boys, and men were men. Now, if I'm to believe Hollywood, the NY Times style section, and various bitter women on the internet, men are boys. Thus it follows that boys are men* and should be tried as such.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:22:21 -0800

The ex-boyfriend, who the murdered woman had a restraining order against, has a verified alibi. Jordan's father was not around when Kenzie was killed, also verified. I would think an abusive ex-boyfriend would want rant at her rather than shoot her while she slept, but then I can't picture an 11 year-old cold-bloodedly planning to murder a sleeping woman, either, and then going to school like nothing happened. There's also the claim that the ex-boyfriend "threatened to hire someone to hurt [her] several times," which could be used to suggest that a hit man was involved.

By: jedicus

jedicus — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:23:49 -0800

What is the constitutionality for operating a secondary legal system just for minors? Perfectly constitutional so long as constitutional standards of due process and the like are followed. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Also, why is it so bad that this gets escalated to the "normal" legal system? At least there, he'd have proper constitutional rights Defendants in juvenile court have most of the usual constitutional protections. See In re Gault for some details, though that's just a starting point.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:33:15 -0800

Firstly, an 11 year old is not an adult. There is no argument as to his adulthood as it relates to voting, driving, joining the military, drinking, smoking, getting a credit card, etc. It is wildly hypocritical and plainly the product of a society addicted to revenge that he can be considered an adult only for establishing mens rea for murder. That aside, I find it extremely curious that the police mention a shotgun hole in his blanket, and residue on his shirt, but no mention of the victim's blood on either. I would imagine such an act would cover the shooter in blood. At the very least, the blanket or the shirt should have detectable traces of it, no?

By: kaibutsu

kaibutsu — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:47:36 -0800

Two years in a juvenile detention center? I certainly wouldn't feel justice had been served if I was a family member of the victim. Luckily, satisfying bereaved families isn't really the purpose of the justice system, contrary to what the teleo-visions might say. Also, this: "In that ruling, Judge Dominick A. Motto, president judge in Lawrence County, cited Jordan's refusal to admit guilt as a primary reason for not decertifying the boy's case to juvenile court. Both a defense psychologist and a psychiatrist speaking on behalf of the prosecution stated that Jordan's refusal to take responsibility would hinder his capacity for rehabilitation." ...Really does sound like a massive infringement of the fifth amendment.

By: angrycat

angrycat — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:59:52 -0800

By: steambadger

steambadger — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:09:17 -0800

I'm not sure there's any way of preventing this; but it's disturbing and deeply weird that the two sides are conducting a trial via competing websites.

By: ambient2

ambient2 — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:14:11 -0800

In Pennsylvania, provided he is found guilty, if he is tried as a minor, it goes through a juvenile court, and the maximum sentence is juvenile corrections until his 21st birthday, when he must be released. If he is tried as an adult and found guilty, the sentence is a mandatory life in prison without parole. Assuming the above is correct, it seems ludicrous that there's no middle ground, no alternative. I can live with the thought that juvenile murderers may not be fit to be released when they turn 21, but that or life in prison without parole?!

By: Paragon

Paragon — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:27:06 -0800

Amnesty International is one of the organizations protesting this.

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:27:41 -0800

Luckily, satisfying bereaved families isn't really the purpose of the justice system, contrary to what the teleo-visions might say. I'm sorry, I actually learned everything I know from the teleo-visions, so I may need some enlightening. What exactly is the "purpose" of the justice system; I didn't realize it's purpose was so apparent. Also, if retribution is no part of the United States criminal justice system, then why is the death penalty legal in so many states?

By: fuq

fuq — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:28:06 -0800

TOUGH ON CRIME GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

By: zamboni

zamboni — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:35:51 -0800

Luckily, satisfying bereaved families isn't really the purpose of the justice system, contrary to what the teleo-visions might say. I'm sorry, I actually learned everything I know from the teleo-visions, so I may need some enlightening. What exactly is the "purpose" of the justice system; I didn't realize it's purpose was so apparent. Also, if retribution is no part of the United States criminal justice system, then why is the death penalty legal in so many states? Welcome to theories of justice, folks. Have a look around, hang out with Rawls and friends for a bit, then come back and join in.

By: quin

quin — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:44:17 -0800

What exactly is the "purpose" of the justice system; I've often heard that the effect of satisfying the victim through the punishment of the guilty is a useful-byproduct of the justice system, not the end goal. The point of the justice system is to take a threat to society and neutralize it, be that through incarceration, rehabilitation, isolation, etc. The end result is (in theory at least) an environment free from the corrosive influence of those who have been brought to justice. But I suspect that many, many of the problems with the legal/ law enforcement apparatus in this country come from differing opinions on what exactly "justice" actually looks like.

By: Lutoslawski

Lutoslawski — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:49:14 -0800

I have no idea if the kid did it, but either way, a shotgun is maybe not the best present for an 11 year-old. This.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:49:44 -0800

Also, if retribution is no part of the United States criminal justice system, then why is the death penalty legal in so many states? Because some people are seen as irredeemable? I have never thought the death penalty is for retribution. If it were it would be much quicker to happen (and slower at the end). The death penalty isn't so much for retribution as it is an admittance that the world is a better place without some people in it. I'm not even a death penalty advocate and I can come up with arguments for it that have nothing to do with retribution. Deterrence, the idea that even in prison some people are at risk from such a monster, the escape risk, etc. If retribution were the goal they would let the victim throw the switch.

By: bearwife

bearwife — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:00:27 -0800

On the other hand, by age 14 it is surprising how calculating, premeditated, revenge oriented and frightening a tween can be.

By: snofoam

snofoam — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:07:11 -0800

What exactly is the "purpose" of the justice system I think it is to discourage bad behavior by punishing it, and, as mentioned above, to keep criminals out of society until they have been rehabilitated. Of course, that's not to say that in practice it always works that way.

By: jeather

jeather — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:12:00 -0800

I don't blame the victim's family for any of the stuff they say. They're grieving, they're angry, and they're not expected to be scrupulously fair to the person they think killed their loved on. This is why there is a justice system. Jordan doesn't need to be incarcerated for 9 years, he -- assuming he is guilty -- needs to be *rehabilitated*. He was (and still is) a child. I have some problems with the way rehabilitation for adults goes, some of which are reasonable and some of which are childish "not fair!", but for children? They don't need to be locked up for 10 years, they need to be helped to become adults and productive members of society. And they can be, but not without a good juvenile program, which I am guessing Pennsylvania does not have. This law was about juveniles in "urban street gangs", so I am curious if it being used against a white kid will change things in general, or just for him, or not at all.

By: dixiecupdrinking

dixiecupdrinking — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:25:09 -0800

I think that it's fairly clear retribution plays some role in our justice system. How else to justify the use of victim impact statements in sentencing? If your goals are to rehabilitate the offender, or isolate him/her from society, or deter future crimes – why does it matter how emotionally harmful the crime was to the victims? It only matters if you want the punishment to be morally proportionate to the crime. You may disagree with this element of the criminal justice system, but I think it's silly to say it isn't present.

By: zoogleplex

zoogleplex — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:34:55 -0800

A small shotgun is not necessarily an inappropriate present for a child. A shotgun that the child has free and easy access to at any time, on the other hand... They make gun cabinets that locks with keys that the adults are supposed to keep, y'know? Just because the shotgun belongs to litle Bobby doesn't mean he gets to play with it like a toy, unsupervised by adults. There's clearly several metric tons of parenting fail going on here.

By: chimaera

chimaera — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:55:58 -0800

On the other hand, by age 14 it is surprising how calculating, premeditated, revenge oriented and frightening a tween can be. No, it's not surprising. An 11 year old may be unable to fully picture the future results of their actions, but they know shooting someone is wrong. As a matter of fact, I think that the problem here is that there's no middle ground where the trial can be neutral with regard to the age, and the sentencing phase is what determines at what level of accountability should be applied.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:04:04 -0800

I'm not sure there's any way of preventing this; but it's disturbing and deeply weird that the two sides are conducting a trial via competing websites. The victim's family is not one of the sides in this case. Not legally, anyway. Maybe in the "court of public opinion," but it's hardly novel for people to try to find sympathy there; I don't see that much difference between doing that via website and doing it via television, newspaper, etc., which has been going on for ages. The only bit which is somewhat unusual in that respect is that both "sides" seem to feel they can win in the "court of public opinion." Usually only one will try to go that route and the other, knowing the public is against them, will try to keep as low a public profile as possible.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:04:38 -0800

They make gun cabinets that locks with keys that the adults are supposed to keep, y'know? Just because the shotgun belongs to litle Bobby doesn't mean he gets to play with it like a toy, unsupervised by adults. There's clearly several metric tons of parenting fail going on here. Yeah--what's up with that? I got my first shotgun when I was around nine. And even though it was only a four-ten, my grandparents still kept it locked up in the gun cabinet out of reach. What did this kid just have a gun rack on the back of his bike or something? How did he get his unsupervised hands on the gun?

By: yeloson

yeloson — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:09:08 -0800

A shotgun that the child has free and easy access to at any time, on the other hand... Yes, but if you don't allow children to have guns, only OUTLAW CHILDREN will have guns and how will the children protect themselves? Why doesn't anyone ever think of the children?!?

By: Gator

Gator — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:29:15 -0800

Here is the brief filed by Jordan's attorney, appealing the decision to keep him in grownup court. Included towards the end is a copy of the original decision by the judge, spelling out at great length all the reasons for not sending the kid to juvenile court, of which the "amenable to rehabilitation" aspect was only one out of several considerations set down in the law. It's a pretty interesting read.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:38:26 -0800

I don't see that much difference between doing that via website and doing it via television, newspaper, etc., which has been going on for ages. It is somewhat interesting to see how different the sites are. In the old days, if you read an article like this you would get the few pull quotes from both sides that more or less summed up their points of view. But with this you get a link to a slick website summing up the case for the defense and asking for money, along with one to an obviously self-made site from the victim's family (which seems to be a direct reaction against the defense site). With previous media for these sorts of things, there would be more of an even level of quality and less direct unfiltered content from both sides.

By: kafziel

kafziel — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:01:22 -0800

11 year old kids can't have sufficient mens rea. In, out, done. What the fuck man. What the flying fuck. My ma works as a head of therapy services for a juvenile lockup. She is constantly fighting with the COs who want to put the kids in leg manacles and shut them up in solitary. Fuckers. You don't become a CO without a deep-seated need to hurt people so you feel bigger. Them being kids is, like, double the inches.

By: ericb

ericb — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:25:30 -0800

Clean slate for corrupt judge's young victims in Pennsylvania. Previous related FPP:

"On January 26th. two Pennsylvania judges were charged with taking $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care. The judges are scheduled to plead guilty to fraud tomorrow in federal court."

By: Twang

Twang — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:35:35 -0800

Looks like PA hasn't rooted out all the guilty yet: Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit

By: obiwanwasabi

obiwanwasabi — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:30:12 -0800

*buys gun for child of person I don't like* *bides time*

By: desuetude

desuetude — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:40:20 -0800

Luckily, satisfying bereaved families isn't really the purpose of the justice system, contrary to what the teleo-visions might say. I'm sorry, I actually learned everything I know from the teleo-visions, so I may need some enlightening. What exactly is the "purpose" of the justice system; I didn't realize it's purpose was so apparent. Also, if retribution is no part of the United States criminal justice system, then why is the death penalty legal in so many states? The punishment of criminals isn't retribution for the family. It's retribution for the community, which has been damaged by the crime. Hence the term "paying your debt to society." And it's supposed to serve as a deterrent, of course. I mean, that's the idea. In practice, justice seems too often to be an blunt instrument of ugly power used to pummel the disenfranchised back into line, properly fearful of authority.

By: IvoShandor

IvoShandor — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:35:49 -0800

You don't become a CO without a deep-seated need to hurt people so you feel bigger. This is a patently untrue generalization that isn't really useful at all.

By: yaxu

yaxu — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:40:41 -0800

I'm fairly sure that in the UK, if a father gave a gun to their 11 year old child, who then shot someone, the child would be treated as a victim by the media, and their Dad would be put away for a long time.

By: schmod

schmod — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:04:56 -0800

"In that ruling, Judge Dominick A. Motto, president judge in Lawrence County, cited Jordan's refusal to admit guilt as a primary reason for not decertifying the boy's case to juvenile court. Both a defense psychologist and a psychiatrist speaking on behalf of the prosecution stated that Jordan's refusal to take responsibility would hinder his capacity for rehabilitation." ...Really does sound like a massive infringement of the fifth amendment. Now, although my gut instinct is to agree with you, I think there may be some rationale here -- from what I understand it, the juvenile "justice" system is intended as a tool for rehabilitation, and getting kids back on the right track. However, if guilt has not been established, and the judge does not think that the juvenile court is adequately prepared to hear such a high-profile case to properly establish guilt, it seems fairly logical for the buck to be passed onto the regular court system. Of course, as I alluded to in my previous comment, it's going to be incredibly difficult to find a jury that's going to be able to be objective about the facts in this case.

By: Gator

Gator — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:15:00 -0800

I really do suggest that people read the actual opinion by the judge that I linked above; the whole "refusal to confess" issue has, I think, been pretty widely mischaracterized by the media and the defense team. The opinion is written in fairly plain language and goes to a certain amount of trouble to explain the reasoning in detail. It starts on page 50 of the linked scribd file, after all the legalese from the defense appealing the decision.

By: Leta

Leta — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:40:20 -0800

Add me to the chorus of someone calling for middle ground. Let me say that I think no one under 18 should ever be tried as an adult. I think there has to be a line, that's the one we've drawn, and we should stick to it. If you have none of the rights of an adult, the criminal justice system can't stick you with the responsibilities when they just feel like it. I am very glad and relieved that Amnesty International has gotten involved. Abused children are very much ignored and overlooked by this same criminal justice system. In the cases where a child lashes out and harms or kills their abuser, the idea of rehabilitation is very applicable. But there are other cases, of crimes perpetrated by children, where there is no case for self defense in any form, where the victim is truly blameless and innocent. (For example, the horrific UK case that Cool Papa Bell linked to upthread.) When premeditation is apparent, and the perpetrator is a child, these cases make everyone's blood run cold because it seems to indicate innate evil, or, to use trendier language, supports the theory that some violent and homicidal sociopaths are born. Disregarding rehabilitation, disregarding punishment or vengeance, our criminal justice system's primary obligation to protect society from predators. (Which is why I am in favor of decriminalizing vice, but that's another thread.) And that's the fear. That a stone cold killer will be let loose at the peak of adulthood, to kill again. I certainly don't think that an 11 year old child should be sentenced to life, or, God forbid, put in gen pop behind the big walls. But shouldn't there be some ongoing probation, after the age of 18 or 21? Good Lord, I went to school with underage kids who got LIFETIME probation sentences for drug offenses. There has to something between "group home until age 21" and "life no parole".

By: mek

mek — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:07:33 -0800

But there are other cases, of crimes perpetrated by children, where there is no case for self defense in any form, where the victim is truly blameless and innocent. (For example, the horrific UK case that Cool Papa Bell linked to upthread.) When premeditation is apparent, and the perpetrator is a child, these cases make everyone's blood run cold because it seems to indicate innate evil, or, to use trendier language, supports the theory that some violent and homicidal sociopaths are born. For some reason you drift over the more obvious explanation: that terrible parenting and a pathological home life is responsible for the behaviour, where precisely the type of intervention that the juvenile justice system provides would offer an opportunity for rehabilitation of the child. 9 years in custody is a long long time for an 11 year old. Did you know that "rehabilitation" is a thing? Yep, it is.

By: reynir

reynir — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:23:10 -0800

But there's the example precedent of the case of the murder of James Bulger, where his underage murderers were held until they reached adulthood, then provided new identities to live out their lives in obscurity. It's an aside to this thread, but for one of the two a life in obscurity hasn't exactly worked out, as he is now back inside - to the accompaniment of huge tabloid fanfares, and races to discover his new identity - having been found guilty of downloading and distributing child pornography.

By: Gator

Gator — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:33:37 -0800

That reminds me of the Lionel Tate case, which I had completely forgotten about until just now. Things haven't worked out for him either, though it's not clear from the Wikipedia article whether he received any mental health care as a kid or ever.

By: Gator

Gator — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:37:46 -0800

Crap, borked the link. Lionel Tate.

By: reynir

reynir — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:58:20 -0800

Hmm. That first para of mine a couple of posts up ('But there's...') should have been in italics, as it's Cool Papa Bell's words, not mine.

By: mek

mek — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:15:09 -0800

reynir, I have no idea what your "example precedent" is of or for. It's gone totally over my head. Explain?

By: reynir

reynir — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:30:56 -0800

Mek, that's maybe because I messed up the quoting. CPB gave the Bulger case as an example of a horrific murder carried out by young children, where the children weren't tried as adults, were detained for a number of years and then released back into society under very-closely guarded false identities. My response was about how one of the two killers of Jamie Bulger didn't disappear into a rehabilitated new life, but has ended up back in prison following drug and violence arrests, and then possession/distribution of violent child porn. It's not an argument that rehabilitation can't happen, but any discussion of that has to take into account the things that made the child commit such an act in the first place, and whether those things still have a bearing, the trauma on the child of knowing what he or she has done, and then the ongoing trauma of spending your formative adolescence in prison or equivalent, knowing that you are a killer, and labeled and treated as such, even if that is in the most gentle, restorative way, and then being released into a world where you have to take on a new identity, and live knowing that if discovered, a mob might be round to firebomb your flat. In other words, whatever happens after the murder, even with the best intentions, may be such a burden to bear that it breaks the already damaged. May be, not will be. But it's important all the same.

By: mek

mek — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:15:57 -0800

Well, sure. And these kids are definitely not getting the best of all possible systems. But the Bulger case isn't even a bad example - 1 of 2 rearrested many years later (but not for murder), and the system did its job and locked him back up. The other one, presumably doing alright, precisely because he wasn't tried as an adult and given up on at a young age.

By: Leta

Leta — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:21:41 -0800

Mek, I don't think I'm drifting past the probable fact that "terrible parenting and pathological home life" are at play when a child commits a terrible crime. I'm sure that often, that's the case, though I can't say if it's always true. I don't even know if such info is googleable, to be honest. I'm just saying that I, and most people, make a distinction between a child who shoots an abusive adult in a non-confrontational moment, and an abused child who acts abuse out on a more vulnerable, innocent victim. Look at it this way: most people, both children and adults, who sexually abuse children were/are victims themselves. But most people who were sexually abused do not go on to become perps themselves. The number of people who are sexually abused as children is just staggeringly high. I have seen U.S. numbers as high as one in three. Of people who are/were sexually abused, a very small percentage, somewhere in the single digits, go on to become abusers themselves. I feel bad, terrible, actually, for people who were so fucked up by being molested that they do it to someone else. But that doesn't do anything to protect the rest of the world. I absolutely agree with rehabilitation being the focus of the juvenile justice system, and I don't think people under 18 should be charged as adults, ever. But I don't think it's too much to ask that we look at the victim of the crime, we look at the motive, and use that to determine if this person should be carefully watched and monitored once they have aged out of the juvenile justice system.