This isn't exactly how it works, and no, being twelve and giving and excuse of believing in a fictional character, is not at all similar to having psychotic illness and hallucinating. Far from it. In the US, when you are trying to determine whether the criminal was responsible for their actions, you have something reasonably similar to McNaughton's rules, which demand three criteria to be satisfied: 1. Is there a disease of the mind present? Being twelve isn't a disease of the mind. However, even if we say ok, they had folie à deux of some sort, or whatever else that qualifies, still this isn't enough to absolve them of responsibility for killing their friend in a premeditated fashion, because the following two are just as important. 2. Did they understand the nature of their actions? (ie. did they know that by stabbing the girl, she will die, or did they think, for example, that by stabbing they'll release the demon trapped inside their friend and liberate her from evil?). 3. Did they understand that their actions were wrong? This one is usually clear cut when the plans to evade capture are discovered, and clean up considerations point clearly to them wanting to cover up the evidence of the crime, presumably in order to not get caught. If these rules were unimportant, anyone with a diagnosed mental illness could go around killing people and not be held responsible due to their mental illness. Mental illness in and of itself, doesn't make people mentally incompetent, this is society's prejudice towards mental illness. Many judges, entertainers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, people from all walks of life live with some of the most serious mental illnesses such as bipolar, major depression, OCD, etc, and they are perfectly responsible people and understand right from wrong as well as nature of their actions, and despite mental illness. I would advise that these things are best left to professionals, and that guessing without understanding the issues involved is more to do with resolving our own anxiety about another horrific and violent act, than the reality of this crime. Maybe you are right? Maybe they qualify. But we here, have no way of knowing without a lot more information becoming available, and even then, only after talking to them, seeing their affect, demeanour, speech, reasoning, whether they are consistent or not, we can glimpse the truth.
I'm saying they were aware they were killing their friend in cold blood. That is enough for me to say that they deserve to be on this side of this criteria that GingerCoffee keeps bringing up.
Oh that's right, your experience with adolescents was being one. There's no bias there. On the other hand I've been working with tweens at a computer camp for 2 years, and have watched these children get so involved with video games they completely loose sight of reality. You're gonna have to back that statement up chief.
Hate to break it to you, but some people just aren't able to differ between reality and fiction. Hell, I once had to be told that dragon balls don't exist in the real world when I was a young child and obsessed with Dragonball Z. Thankfully I never did anything dangerous, but still, that was a dumb belief I had. Kids are smart, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they're all dumb molasses. I'm saying don't make the mistake of thinking they're fully grown adults in little bodies. They're smart, but they're not fully mature, and some just don't grow out of that phase. Kids are...um...kinda unpredictable. If they're so caught up in something, adhere their entire identity onto something, they'll forget. How many news stories have we had where kids hurt themselves or others mimicking what they saw on the screen? I once looked at a news article where a kid punched another kid unconscious because the latter apparently liked Edward Cullen more than Jacob. Yes. The puncher was so invested in a fictional character that the correct course of action to someone who didn't like that character was to, of course, punch the other kid out.
I think the tennis match here of "yes they are" and "no they're not" regarding 12 year olds is a clear indication that no definitive line can be drawn as to where you become mentally responsible for your crimes. Where is @Duchess-Yukine-Suoh ? She was just 13. Maybe she can chime in about being held accountable as a tween...
@Link the Writer : I think 123456789 was responding to the claim that 'anyone with actual experience knows that 12 year olds are not developed enough to distinguish fantasy from reality'. This is an untrue statement because it claims so for all 12 year olds and the truth is, while there are 12 year olds that don't know the difference (as you pointed out), vast majority do, and this is an opinion of someone with lots of experience. There are plenty of seven year olds who know that difference, let alone twelve. Twelve year olds aren't adults, cognitively or physically, but they don't need to be to know the difference between fantasy and reality, right and wrong and many other things. In this case, whoever psychiatrically assesses the killers, will give a definite opinion on this. @Garball : Good point. That girl is more mature and intelligent then some 30 year olds I know and love. We should not underestimate kids.
Of course there are 12 yr olds that know the difference between reality and fantasy, but they aren't typically out there stabbing other kids for bizarre reasons. When I was 12 I climbed out my bedroom window at night and was going to walk down the LA River riverbed then head south on the beach to Mexico. My girlfriend brought the Hostess Ding Dongs we were going to eat on the way. A cop found us and drove us home. People need to be clear what definitions they are using in these discussions. Determining if one should be tried as an adult is not based on knowing right from wrong, just as one who is mentally ill can still be held criminally responsible. Criminally insane generally means unable to distinguish between right and wrong because one's thoughts aren't quite grounded in reality. Mentally ill as far as a psychiatric diagnosis is concerned is a completely different thing. Knowing right from wrong when determining whether to try a child as a child or an adult is not about being psychotic or mentally ill. (These kids need a thorough psych eval regardless.) Discretionary Waiver There's a detailed discussion of the issues on the link. The crime in question occurred in Wisconsin. Anyone interested can look here: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/im/im2013_12.pdf Since the paper mentions 14 as the cutoff, I'm curious how these 12 yr olds were excepted.
I think this part might be significant: ORIGINAL ADULT COURT JURISDICTION [s. 938.183, Stats.] JUVENILES OVER WHOM THE ADULT COURT HAS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION An adult court has original jurisdiction over all of the following: A juvenile who is alleged to have attempted or committed first-degree intentional homicide or to have committed first- or second-degree reckless homicide on or after the juvenile’s 10th birthday.
That makes a lot of sense, @Robert_S. Because there is a long discussion of a hearing being needed and there wasn't really time for that to have occurred. So the press makes it sound like the prosecutors want the girls charged as adults when really it's a procedural matter. And probably not one resolved until the attorneys for the girls have a change to challenge it in court.
Yes, I think they should be held accountable as adults. They murdered someone, they should be tried as adults.
See how you didn't murder anyone? Trip to Mexico without adult supervision + Hostess ding dongs=/= murdering someone.
Even if they had been under 10, a part of me feels like they should have been charged as adults. Hell, I don't care if they were 2 years old. Planning a murder for 6 months is insane. I don't even think anyone takes that long when planning a war.
This seems like an interesting report related to the topic at hand from the Juvenile Law Center... According to the report, approximately 2,500 individuals are serving life without parole sentences for crimes they had committed as juveniles. I believe some humans are simply broken and I don't know if all of them can be fixed.
What if they tried to kill the poor girl for some other reason and are now cooking up stories to feign mental illness?
This has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness. This has to do with the development of a 12 year old's brain. Whatever might be wrong with them they are too young to separate it from their normal personality. Personality disorders are almost impossible to identify until early adulthood.
Nope, she crawled through a park and got an adult. She was only stabbed 19 times, you'd be amazed how many times you can get stabbed and not die.
Maybe I didn't word it correctly but yeah, whatever it is, I'd wait for experts to have a look at these girls before concluding that it was indeed what they are saying and not some elaborate tick to get off lightly.
She was kind of bleeding out. Also the doctors said that one of the stabs was like less than a centimeter away from killing her.
Gwinnett Woman Stabbed 50 Times, Tells Survival Story New York City woman survives despite being stabbed 40 times, report says Next to those 19 is a crawl through the park. NOTE: The amazing thing about the number of times you can get stabbed and not die is sometimes the answer is less then one.
I used to believe or pretend to believe a whole lot of stupid things I made up myself when I was twelve. Maybe at some level I knew they weren't true but if someone or a source I regarded as reliable (say an adult or something on the internet) confirmed my reasoning (or I was under the impression it did) it would have been quite easy for me to slip across that line. At that age with some of my friends I remember making something up, knowing it was false but over months of pretending it was real not being so sure anymore. If you had of asked me at twelve I would have said I had the mental capacity of an adult but then I also half believed I could talk to trees. So based on my own experiences they shouldn't be treated as adults.
