Should The Charges Be Dismissed?
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
the hips are HARD to break too.
At the very least, these two attackers need to be out of whatever homes they had and into state care until they are of legal age.
At the very least, these two attackers need to be out of whatever homes they had and into state care until they are of legal age.
Absent compelling testimony regarding mental competence by a psychologist, nope.
The girls are old enough to at least understand that hitting and stomping on people is wrong. They are old enough to answer questions and assist in their own defence. It may take some careful wording and more time or explanation than an ordinary defendant -- but that doesn't mean they can't face the consequences of their actions.
And the dependency vs. delinquincy issue is a red herring. I'm sure that the Erie courts will require a pre-sentencing report, if they are convicted, that can raise concerns such as whether or not some form of treatment is appropriate either in place of or along with any incarceration.
Yes, I agree...
I have to wonder how emotionally mature a person has to be before they can be called a sociopath. Not only should the charges no be dropped, their parents should pay for the medical care and rehabilitation of the victim.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Hrm. I'd have to agree with the girls' lawyers and favor their being put through a dependency hearing. I'm just as shocked by their actions as anyone else, but a 10-year-old is a 10-year-old. I'm not saying just let them off the hoook, and the victim certainly deserves to have every last penny of her medical bills covered by the girls' parents, but the Office of Children and Youth would be much more appropriate then treating the girls like 10-year-old convicts.
Take a look at the DSM-IV.
It would take a lot of repeated accounts and some evidence, a history of certain patterns. Most pyschs will not diagnose children under the age of 13 with such a strong label without severe behavior issues which we can only guess at right now for this girl.
I think calling for any action other than the evaluation of her and her family unit is misguided and emotional.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
Would the lawyers in this case be saying the same thing (drop the charges) if the accused were 30yrs old? I suppose there're many things to take into consideration. But then again, would treatment be suggested for a 30yr old if this was his first offense, or would people be calling for the chair?
Unless these kids in question have some mental disorder and have no idea what they did, I do not think they should be let off. Even then, thats no reason to let someone off. If treatment is an option, thats fine. But whether it works or not, they still need to be watched. Who knows what could happen down the road. Will they, when they're 20yrs old, do this again?
But to drop all charges...absolutely not.
Unless these kids in question have some mental disorder and have no idea what they did, I do not think they should be let off. Even then, thats no reason to let someone off. If treatment is an option, thats fine. But whether it works or not, they still need to be watched. Who knows what could happen down the road. Will they, when they're 20yrs old, do this again?
But to drop all charges...absolutely not.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
The only difference between this and a thousand schoolyard fights that happen every year in America is that the attackers were fairly young for such serious injuries, and were female. Every time a boy (or girl) knocks another kid down or kicks them that is a potential broken rib or cracked skull. I wouldn't be willing to say these kids were sociopaths or deserve jailtime without more info.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
they threw her down and stomped on her. They stomped on her HEAD
That is pretty different than any school yard fight I ever saw or was part of.
That is pretty different than any school yard fight I ever saw or was part of.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Sadly, not for me (saw or heard, not participated). One gal did the whole "slam head into the concrete" routine, and that was in high school.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
oh yeah, totally, High school was when the fights got mean, at 10 years old? it was all wrestling matches
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 110
I just hope something can be done before they grow into grownup psychopaths.
They clearly need some in-depth evaluations to determine if these "children" can be salvaged or if they will simply grow even more dangerous to society.
There is something seriously wrong with many of our youth today. Or maybe we are just more aware of it due to technology shrinking the world.
They clearly need some in-depth evaluations to determine if these "children" can be salvaged or if they will simply grow even more dangerous to society.
There is something seriously wrong with many of our youth today. Or maybe we are just more aware of it due to technology shrinking the world.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
I would imagine at least a certain amount has always been with us, they just couldn't show it on the Donna Reed show.
Then, too, It also cannot be reasonably denied that today's parents are screwing up to a far greater degree than generations past as far as actual parenting.........
Then, too, It also cannot be reasonably denied that today's parents are screwing up to a far greater degree than generations past as far as actual parenting.........
BrandiJo
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,603
- Reaction score
- 14
I'm not sure what charges should be filed, but these girls need some serious help. THeir home life and emotional state needs to be looked at, and they should pry be taken into some child care facility until they are seen as no longer a threat to another child.
I don't care what their home-life is like.
Ten and eleven is old enough to understand that you do not stomp and kick someone repeatedly. Especially when the reason that person is talking to you is because you were spraying water on someone else.
The kids need to be charged. Upon conviction, the sentencing judge can decide whether they should be referred for counseling or simply locked up.
I'm beyond sick and tired of the way the juvenile justice system, no matter the cries of increasing criminalization of juvenile offenses (they're typically actually handled by a CIVIL court in the US), gives kids chance after chance with little or no consequences. Slap 'em hard enough for the first offense, and you won't see a second. And therapy or counseling isn't a substitute for punishment; it should go along with punishment. It's amazing how many kids are total screw ups and get their act together the first time they get punished as an adult. I doubt it's coincidental...
Ten and eleven is old enough to understand that you do not stomp and kick someone repeatedly. Especially when the reason that person is talking to you is because you were spraying water on someone else.
The kids need to be charged. Upon conviction, the sentencing judge can decide whether they should be referred for counseling or simply locked up.
I'm beyond sick and tired of the way the juvenile justice system, no matter the cries of increasing criminalization of juvenile offenses (they're typically actually handled by a CIVIL court in the US), gives kids chance after chance with little or no consequences. Slap 'em hard enough for the first offense, and you won't see a second. And therapy or counseling isn't a substitute for punishment; it should go along with punishment. It's amazing how many kids are total screw ups and get their act together the first time they get punished as an adult. I doubt it's coincidental...
Bolding by me.
But there's a problem with that. You see, there are LEOs in So. Cal. who have been cracking down on gangs hard for years and years and years now - punishing even first crimes harder than before with the hope that the experience of consequences would motivate at-risk and offending youth to turn around ... but that's not what's happening on a larger scale. While the response has to be appropriate to the crime, it also has to be appropriate to all the circumstances behind it and to the offender for true justice to be served.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
hmmmm,
I really dont care why gang bangers kill people or sell drugs
they break the law, they should be punished. WHY they do it is pretty much un-important to me.
They are adult enough to do it, they are adult enough to pay the price.
Now, with these two little girls, i dont think anyone can argue that they must be "broken" on some fundamental level to have ever done this.
Maybe they can be fixed, maybe they cant. But the effort should be made. The question remains HOW they might be fixed. At the very least, they cant be allowed to return to their homes.
I really dont care why gang bangers kill people or sell drugs
they break the law, they should be punished. WHY they do it is pretty much un-important to me.
They are adult enough to do it, they are adult enough to pay the price.
Now, with these two little girls, i dont think anyone can argue that they must be "broken" on some fundamental level to have ever done this.
Maybe they can be fixed, maybe they cant. But the effort should be made. The question remains HOW they might be fixed. At the very least, they cant be allowed to return to their homes.
There are actually two separate, though intertwined, issues here. Gangs are not the same problem as "simple" recidivism. The gang lifestyle requires a combined approach, balancing enforcement (catching 'em and slapping 'em down), intervention (getting the one's that are on the line and keeping them out of the gang life), and education (both the public and those at risk but not on the line yet). "Regular" delinquency is different. Just as a beginning point -- most kids are not criminals and especially are not violent offenders. We're already dealing with a subset; those that are knuckleheads. Of that subset, most will be deterred once they receive a significant enough sanction. Some of these are the ones that will get the hint from a first encounter and some form of punishment; I use the option of informal handling (a one-time chance to get off without a formal criminal record) with kids who, based on their attitude, their family, and the seriousness of the offense in question. Others won't get a hint from a light punishment; they need something to catch their attention, and they won't reoffend. These are the ones that will re-offend after they receive informal handling -- and then the court again uses something like "suspended imposition of sentence" or "continued for dismissal"... Yep, that's a second "second chance." And yet people are surprised when a significant subset of this group AGAIN offends...
But a fair number of them WILL get the hint with the first adult sanction... Why? Because NOW it's finally serious to them. Why should we wait 3 or 4 times before making it real? I recognize "youthful stupidity" exists; there are measures in place to allow for that. Let me compare it to something in the adult justice system that makes me nuts; dismissing traffic charges based on a good record. Um... if the charges only appear on the record AFTER conviction, and the judge dismisses the charges every time -- they'll never have a bad record, even if they're ticketed daily! Find 'em guilty, suspend the sentence in recognition of the good record, and let 'em take their lumps. Similarly, with kids or adults, take factors like mental disorders into account at SENTENCING, not at the time of arrest or indictment. If they weren't so disordered as to be legally incompetent, the charges should stand.
grydth
Senior Master
Folks, keep in mind that the motions to dismiss the charges being discussed here were made by the defense attorneys for the accused. These are professionals who are doing their jobs, the jobs our country mandates be done. Aggressively.
I've done defense work. I can best liken it to being the single gladiator that society provides to someone whom the rest of us would like to see torn apart by lions. Out you go with sword and armor to fight for this person. And it is not a show defense. You fight to kill. You raise and pursue everything you legitimately can - irrespective of whether the crowd is yet further ouraged.
That is all that these lawyers are doing.... and if this fails, expect more tactics that will make you want to scream," WHAT???"
Personally, I don't know enpugh about this case yet. I do know that we simply have to remove extremely violent predators, and that can include children, from contact with ordinary humans.... whether that takes the form of years in a supervised therapy and treatment setting, or years in a concrete motel doing hard time.
If we do not incapacitate those who engage in this savagery in some meaningful way - and really, this act is way far removed from the "she pushed me down" incidents of yesteryear, then how long before we can't walk the streets?
I have addressed this as a defense lawyer - but I am also a parent of young girls. So we should consider always - we've heard the criminal "got rights". How about the victim? Does she get any rights? Who will aggressively defend those? Where's her gladiator? Why is the emperor sudeenly lacking the guts and fortitude to give the criminals the thumbs down?
Candidly, how long before some enraged parent thinks the psychopath who brutally savaged his kid 'got off with a slick lawyer and a BS excuse"....... and goes out with a shotgun to settle matters himself? How long before that becomes widespread - and then what do we have?
I've done defense work. I can best liken it to being the single gladiator that society provides to someone whom the rest of us would like to see torn apart by lions. Out you go with sword and armor to fight for this person. And it is not a show defense. You fight to kill. You raise and pursue everything you legitimately can - irrespective of whether the crowd is yet further ouraged.
That is all that these lawyers are doing.... and if this fails, expect more tactics that will make you want to scream," WHAT???"
Personally, I don't know enpugh about this case yet. I do know that we simply have to remove extremely violent predators, and that can include children, from contact with ordinary humans.... whether that takes the form of years in a supervised therapy and treatment setting, or years in a concrete motel doing hard time.
If we do not incapacitate those who engage in this savagery in some meaningful way - and really, this act is way far removed from the "she pushed me down" incidents of yesteryear, then how long before we can't walk the streets?
I have addressed this as a defense lawyer - but I am also a parent of young girls. So we should consider always - we've heard the criminal "got rights". How about the victim? Does she get any rights? Who will aggressively defend those? Where's her gladiator? Why is the emperor sudeenly lacking the guts and fortitude to give the criminals the thumbs down?
Candidly, how long before some enraged parent thinks the psychopath who brutally savaged his kid 'got off with a slick lawyer and a BS excuse"....... and goes out with a shotgun to settle matters himself? How long before that becomes widespread - and then what do we have?
