You'll have to forgive me folks, but I'm very skeptical of the claims people would be OK trying a 6 yr old as an adult under certain circumstances. Either it's it's a version of hyperbole, or there's some serious lack of knowledge about child development involved in the claim. As for 'severe' punishment, I addressed that false dichotomy. The juvenile justice system in Wisconsin has leeway to incarcerate the girls for at least 13 years.
The same argument being used against trying these girls as adults provides more reason to try them as adults regardless of age to me. In this thread we have seen many people state their opinions similar to most 12 year olds aren't capable of understanding the outcome of their crime, most children that age aren't capable of premeditating murder, most children aren't that mentally developed by that age, etc. These two girls have separated themselves from the majority of children their age. They did calculate a murder plot. They did understand that driving an object into a living person's flesh would end that person's life. Because they have stepped so far outside of the "norm," I believe it gives more credence to treat them as a special case that is not subject to an arbitrary opinion of at what age a person commits murder.
A lot of that, @Garball, is not the argument I've made for why 12 yr olds are not adults. I can't speak for other people.
It's interesting that the reaction to the murderers in the James Bulgar murder was similar to the reaction here. There's something about children committing heinous crimes that brings out the pitchforks.
I didn't tag you because I wasn't talking about you exclusively. However, if not included in my post, what makes you think these two individuals should not be held as accountable for their actions as somebody six years older?
They stole a knife from the purse of one of their mothers. It was recovered from a backpack they had taken with them to slenderman's mansion.
Yeah, the three were friends. In fact, the phrase "best friends" comes out a lot. I live in Milwaukee, which is right next door to Waukesha, so I'm hearing a lot of local news about it.
Ah, I think you might not understand some things about child development. It's not until 5 or 6 that a child is capable of empathetic understanding. That's just scientifically what happens.* A six year old could be intellectually incapable of understanding what murder is, much less that it is wrong. Expecting a child of 6 to understand murderous actions isn't just ignorant it's cruel. *please do not respond with anecdotes of when you were 6. You are actually incapable of remembering your development objectively.
We are talking about 12 year olds. *please don't speak in absolutes. Your personal experiences aren't applicable to the entire population.
That remains to be seen, but just on the technical information, they can get 13 years in the juvenile court system and while one could get life in the adult system, the average sentences for premeditated attempted murder was 10-15 years. (See links above.) Would you consider guilty of premeditated attempted murder then consider being 12 was at least a mitigating factor when determining the sentence?
I'm not claiming any of that, those are your words. I said that they are craftier than people might give them credit for, and underestimating them is not recommended. After all, they successfully used code words to plan this under the noses of everyone. Psychiatrist or no, it's best to tread carefully when psychopaths are involved. I still remember the story about that guy that managed to convince a family that he was their missing son. He got through psychiatrists as well.
I would not at this point. 1.) I disagree with the "attempted murder" being any less severe than an actual murder. The goal of the person was to take another person's life. Just because the victim lives does not detract from the intent of the perpetrator; it just makes them not good at accomplishing their foals. 2.) Without being educated on the success rate of juvenile detention centers to rehabilitate young murderers and producing successful results in dumping sociopaths back into society, I could not make the decision to have them mandatorily released at the age of 25.
I merely posted the averages sentence given adults. I make no judgement about attempted vs successful murder. If they were given 15 years in adult court, they'd likely get out at the same time as until 25 yrs old in juvenile court. Do they deserve a longer sentence than the average adult would receive?
This is the post of yours I replied to: Are you now diagnosing them as psychopaths? And I hardly think "that guy that managed to convince a family" is even close to analogous to this case.
Sorry you got caught up in the question of why a six year old should/n't be tried as an adult. But at 12 a child is just beginning to understand their role in society, they form groups and cliques in order to experiment with social order and individual identity. They are still incapable of grasping key concepts of social development because they are still learning them. Once again, misunderstanding their inability is a cruelty. *none of this is personal experience it's fucking science.
Any fucking scientist will tell you that science studies fucking stereotypes and by no means can be fucking applied to every fucking individual on an individual fucking basis.
Likely, but unless you're psychic, not definitely. It was your post that said why the state would want to try as adults. It would be a mandatory release for juveniles.
? Science studies stereotypes? The studies show 5-6 or 12-18 so there's a spread for every individual. I'm not sure what your saying here. UPDATE: I called my friend Dr. George Fisher PhD who is a senior fellow at Stanford's solar physics department. He had no idea what you were talking about, and he's "any fucking scientist". He also asked me not to call him because he was busy in a DC meeting trying to get that sweet government funding.
It is, and should be, up to a jury to decide whether the accused is of sufficiently sound and mature mind to understand the magnitude and consequences of an act, all of course within the framework of the law. And a jury can only do so for a specific individual and act. The law should treat all equally, not decide based on something as arbitrary as age whether someone can be considered fully culpable. This is why we go through the expense and the burdensome restrictions of a jury trial. The law can only dictate the framework to maximize fairness. It is up to a jury to decide where an accused and a set of alleged actions land within that framework.
Not quite sure which post you are referring to but to clarify, the first link I found said 14 and over to be considered an adult in Wisconsin. Then @Robert_S found a different reference that noted with this crime it was automatic they'd be charged as adults (ages 10 and older) then the lawyers would need to petition to have the trial moved to juvenile court. That process has not been carried out yet but I did see a news report that at least one of the kid's lawyers planned to do just that.
In case anyone wants to know my guess as to why they were charged as adults, here goes. For one, the severity of the crime dictates it; it's clear that there was premeditation and deliberation. Second, jury trials in juvenile courts rarely happen. Judges usually decide the cases. On the other hand, juries are allowed for juveniles tried in adult courts. Third, officials think that working with these two girls like they would other juvenile offenders will take too long and/or won't be effective. Finally, officials think there's a high chance of these girls becoming repeat offenders.
