Should these teens be tried as adults

lizzie said:

We generally reach the age of understanding right from wrong at around 10 years of age. I would agree with you if it were a case of theft, vandalism, drug dealing, or any other crime where they did not kill someone. I draw the line at murder without just cause.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

I've got to say that a lot of people who are promoting leniency for a trio of late teens who essentially executed an innocent young man they didn't even know must not know many 15, 16, 17 year old young people these days. At that age, they are not country bumpkins and rubes and most young people that age are pretty level headed, smart, well adjusted, etc. etc.

To make blanket statements that young people that age don't understand the concepts of right and wrong, don't appreciate the consequences of their actions, aren't mature enough, etc. is to suggest we've done a pretty crappy job collectively of raising children these days and the next generation is doomed.

I don't believe it for a minute.

Click to expand...

TiredOfLife said:

The cleaners called, your pointy white hood is ready.

Click to expand...

Mr X said:

The law says they are minors, so they should be tried as minors. You can't just say minors are adults for convenience. No-one is defending them, and IF they are convicted, they should be severely punished.

Click to expand...

Mr X said:

Well children do know right from wrong, it's understanding different levels of severity and future consequences which they can struggle with.
An 8 year old, for example, will know that murder is wrong, but they also know not tidying their bedroom is wrong. To them, both things are wrong but their experiences will tell them that if you do something wrong, you get told off and maybe grounded.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Perhaps "great deal of success" depends on whether one is the victim of new crimes committed by ex-cons, or wishful thinkers.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Recidivism

During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

Click to expand...

lizzie said:

If they were thieves, or otherwise criminals who did not commit acts which resulted in the death of a human being, I would tend to agree. These aren't kids who just happened to do something stupid and negligent.

Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Yup. And guess what?

America has a terrible track record of even attempting rehabilitation. Probably the worst in the developed world.

Countries that do rehabilitate have a tiny fraction of our recidivism rate. That is why I suggested we start doing it.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

I might tend to agree except we don't really know anything about these kids.

Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Yup. And guess what?

America has a terrible track record of even attempting rehabilitation. Probably the worst in the developed world.

Countries that do rehabilitate have a tiny fraction of our recidivism rate. That is why I suggested we start doing it.

Click to expand...

longview said:

I agree, but I don't think rehabilitation can fix what is broken in this case.
But then again I am not a psychiatrist, in the case of freedom, perhaps
a professional should judge weather they are fit to return to society.
I still don't think I would want someone who places such a low value on
life, living next to me.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

I might tend to agree except we don't really know anything about these kids.

Click to expand...

Edwards has had run-ins with the law previously and had been in court Friday, the day of the killing, to sign documents related to his juvenile probation

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

we know that they thought it would be fun to hunt down and kill a random stranger. that's enough for me

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

A little more "research" would allow one to learn that the United States did focus on rehabilitation for decades, only to discover it was fruitless. Perhaps if the US were to stop coddling prisoners with TV and other luxuries, these convicts would prefer to stay out of jail.

Click to expand...

lizzie said:

from the Washington Post:


They have apparently admitted that they did this out of boredom. What the effing hell is that for an excuse?

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

These are adult recidivism rates. Juvenile statistics are not available because their records are sealed. Also, it is known that rehabilitation is not very effective with adults, but experts have claimed up to an 80% success rate with juveniles, even those who have committed violent crimes.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

According to the prosecutor, yes. In the article I read, it didn't state what the defense is claiming at all, so a lot of details are not yet known.

Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Sure it is. There are a dozen working models to prove it.

It will depend on the type of crime somewhat, but there is always the option of just keeping people who can't be rehabilitated and commit the worst crimes locked up.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

According to the prosecution anyway.

Click to expand...

Jones (Michael Dewayne Jones) told officers they were bored and killed Lane for “the fun of it.”

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

so, no....it is not "according to the prosecution" I just don't get why you are so big on defending these piece of ****.

Click to expand...

lizzie said:

If they were thieves, or otherwise criminals who did not commit acts which resulted in the death of a human being, I would tend to agree. These aren't kids who just happened to do something stupid and negligent.

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

so, no....it is not "according to the prosecution" I just don't get why you are so big on defending these piece of ****.

Click to expand...

lizzie said:

We do know what they said. We do know that Edwards was already a criminal.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Disagreeing with the death penalty and disagreeing with charging them as adults is NOT defending them. It is acknowledging facts.

Click to expand...