20 Kids Stabbed

Thing that makes me scratch my head about what I said is this...

If a kid is saying "I can break this law because I am a kid" then that means that they indeed know it is a law.

They also seem to understand that they would be viewed differently if they break that law because they are a kid.

To me, this is showing enough cognizance of what they are doing, and that what they are doing is wrong, that they should be tried maybe not as an "adult" but that they should be tried as a "person who knows right from wrong and was aware they were breaking a law".

Just think if this *** had been aborted

I don't know when I was 16 I was too busy thinking about women. Wasn't really into stabbing people.

it was already established that he would be tried as an adult

Whoops double post

Jetackuu asked for a discussion. Discussions often include personal thoughts and opinions surrounding the facts, or other thoughts and opinions on the matter at hand.

To completely disregard, or even to discredit someone's contribution to a discussion *because* of their opinion about why *and* how something applies, or what they personally think, is complete and utter ***, because Jetackuu is apparently free to speak his mind, offer his opinions, and then shoot down, insult, and disregard any one else's opinion, that doesn't match his, as "No! Not allowed!"

Getting back to the topic at hand. At a certain age, children, particularly teens, are already aware of what is considered "wrong", and teens more so as to what is illegal. This is a proven fact backed up by decades of study from various sources.

The psych evaluation is a good first step towards determining if the perpetrator was fully aware of his actions in what appeared to be a planned assault. If it is truly found to be a planned assault, that shows pre-meditation, regardless of his psych evaluation, which would legally put him into consideration for being tried as an adult for a heinous crime.

Depending on the severity of a heinous crime, Children under the age of majority, but still over a certain age, which I believe is over 12 years of age in the US, can be tried as an adult. Again, however, this depends on circumstances and the particulars of each case.

Perhaps my expectations of others are too high, as I hold them to my own standards: I do think this person *should* be tried as an adult, within the legal confines of the law, regardless of his psych evaluation, and then sentenced appropriately according to the best possible recommendation around proper punishment.

No, I don't mean some namby-pamby idea of leniency, or privileges being taken away at home, or some paltry community service, or a stint in a juvenile corrections facility, as in the latter, he'd either be a target of aggression, or find someone to beat the hell out of for being caught.

Kid needs counseling for sure. But is that all? How does this bring appeasement or justice to the affected victims or their grieving families? What's happened to the notion of "The punishment must fit the crime"?

Welcome to FFXIAH.com

Also, FFXIAH Linkshell Ni.

I have several problems with trying minors as adults but a major one is this: if they (as you postulate) are aware of what is "wrong" or illegal then they should also understand the inverse. They, therefore, should have the same rights as adults not just the same punishments.

Until we start letting 12 year olds vote, join the military, enter into contracts, etc I'm not interested in doling out the same punishments that adults receive (or worse in some instances).

Then you would have to consider the inverse of that to be true.

If you consider a child to be aware of what is "wrong" or illegal and what is "right" or just, then you would have to do the same for the mentally ill, those who live in the bodies of adults but have the minds of children. Because, by your definition, a child would know the difference between "right" and "wrong," then the mentally ill patient would know the same thing.

So, instead of giving special treatment to certain groups in society, why not just make a blanket punishment structure for everyone? But then we would be the same as Pakistan when convicting a 9 month old baby with attempted murder. Would you like your newborn to be treated the same as that kid?

These threads are awesome. Give me something to read every now and again. Also thanks for the person who posted Zangief kid. It has been awhile since I saw that. I used that to scare my nephew away from bullying before. Told him if he bullied people Zangief kid would come kick his ***. Stupid? Yes. Did he believe it? Also Yes. Here is the Street Fighter version. Not the best quality of course but to me it has the best sound effects.

yes, but his lawyer is fighting that.

(unless there's news since I read last night)

the prosecution is pressing charges as if he were an adult, the judge can decide otherwise.

I in particular asked "why" not "how" you need to work on your reading comprehension. Yes, when people are asserting overall opinions of "he needs to be tried as an adult because I feel he's an evil person" can be disregarded as they're not productive to the conversation at hand.

When people are stating opinion as fact then yes it needs to be shot down as they are speaking in absolutes with easily dismissible opinions.

Nobody has proven that about teens, you're pulling ***out of your *** now.

You just stated several things wrong with how it's decided on whether or not one should be tried as an adult, proving that it's an emotional and not rational argument.

You're arguing emotion, and that has no place in the law or justice systems.

I don't know if you never spent time in a facility, but they're not a cake walk, and people don't typically *** with crazy people who have a stabbing record in them.


See, Kara gets it.

What is this?

Since you missed it the first time:

Did I say minors know right from wrong? No.

I was responding to this

I responded that if minors know or understand "wrong" they should also understand "right."

I'm answering a hypothetical with another hypothetical. If XXX is considered, then YYY should also be considered.

Plus, please don't think I was attacking you at any way. I was agreeing with you with an additional commentary...

The two aren't comparable though, as the one logically follows based on the reasoning behind it, the other does not.

I just want to point out in as non-judgmental a way as possible that you mean "mentally disabled." Someone who is "mentally ill" would be, for instance, someone with schizophrenia or multiple personalities. Such people are not limited to a child-like intelligence but are regularly judged to be incompetent to stand trial. The disabled are often given similar leniency (referring here to situations like Downs syndrome), but exactly because they have a child's understanding of the world.

The point eludes you, I get it.

But then again, I strongly believe that whatever I say, no matter what, you will argue against it...

I think he's of the understanding that we're advocating for treating children and adults the same, regardless of an evaluation, I at least for one am not.

edit: the point doesn't elude us, it's just a point that has little to nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I never said they shouldn't have the same rights. Far from it. As I also pointed out, they should be done on a case-by-case basis under the circumstance of the severity and knowledge of the heinous crime committed - part of giving a child the same rights (and responsibilities) as well as punishments.

I also never weighed in on whether or not I had a problem with a child being treated as an adult - in some cases I do, but in others, I do not.

As for Jetackuu's comment about disregarding, due to stating opinion, Kara stated an opinion which was nothing close to fact, yet was allowed, simply because it was aligned with your own. My reading comprehension is quite obviously higher than yours will ever be, since I understand the concept and can comprehend the tenets of a discussion, whether someone adds positively, or negatively, to a discussion with relative reaction. It's a discussion - which you started, that didn't specify anything, and was left open to emotional response, and logical response, regardless of the input of facts coming from those who are taking part in the discussion.

And no, I didn't pull anything out of my *** - there is plenty of documentation to be found in various medical journals - most blaringly the American Medical Journal about child development and psychology. But nice try.

Why does the severity of the crime matter?

Their ability to understand it, and the double standard of treating children as adults but not giving them the same rights as one should be the only determining factors.

What she stated wasn't an opinion, it was a logical deduction.

Do you literally not see the difference?

Your reading comprehension has been proven to be seriously lacking, and I have proven that.

You pulled a lot of your ***.

Edit: and I said "discuss" not rant with emotional nonsense.

The severity of the crime matters because of the type of sentencing required to find an appropriate punishment. You said it yourself: Their ability to understand it (ie. the ability to understand the severity of the heinous crime committed) and the double standard of treating a child as adults but not giving them the same rights as one should be the only determining factor.

I'll let you in on the second part: When sentencing is carried out, a judge looks at the situation at hand - case by case. Their rights *as an accused* are no different than an adult offender, and therefore, protected under the law.

Their understanding of the severity of the crime is ultimately what makes them eligible for due process as an adult. They can then, access the same rights an adult accused would have - right to counsel, right to a psychological evaluation (to determine whether he is fit to stand trial, or fit to stand trial as an adult)

Now, if you want to argue about his rights as a general member of the public child vs. adult, that's a different discussion, as far as the general mental and psychological development are different than an adult's *on average*, with a handful of those who develop at a faster rate, at an earlier age. Children have a different set of rights and protections than adults for this, and many other reasons.

In this case, if this person went to court with a conviction of a juvenile, his record would be erased at 18, when he became a legal adult, dismissing his crime legally, but leaving the impact of it fresh, and life-altering for his victims and their families.

Again, I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, or that I'm even ok with it. "That's just how things are", as people often say.

Oh, and a "Logical Deduction" is an opinion formed of a situation, based on personal findings of a particular situation and presented conditions or facts.

Still an opinion. Kara did a better job, nor insulted anyone with her opinion.

You missed every point Kara and I both made and blatantly twisted what we said around to fit your agenda, kudos.

The severity of the crime is irrelevant.


No a logical deduction is still that, a deduction based on the facts at hand, devoid of personal opinion.

I didn't insult anyone, intentionally, if you feel yourself insulted then maybe you need to get thicker skin.

Also: again, she didn't state an opinion.

You finally got to the heart of the matter, so something is at least getting through, maybe if I go get this stack of books and start pounding it you may get it.

Directly attacking someone's comprehension, simply because they have a different opinion than yours, or follow a different logical viewpoint, is an intentional insult. I've explained why and how the severity of the crime matters. If it didn't matter, why not give every convicted criminal a life sentence? Why not death row?

Kara gave an opinion counter to mine, which, was logically founded, but not an entirely logical deduction in that sense. Starting off with "I have several problems with" is an opinion, no matter how you spin it. Because it's personal conjecture about a topic.

I also never disagreed with her opinion on the matter. When forming a discussion, it's best to weigh in on every participant's input, be it an opinion, logical deduction, or otherwise, to come to your own conclusion. Or do you not understand the tenets of discussing something?

You can hit anything as hard as you want, it's not going to change anything. Present your opinions, findings, or facts in a way that appeals to others, instead of insulting them, and maybe people would be more inclined to understand your point of view.

One cannot have a "different logical viewpoint" there's no such thing, there's logical and illogical. Logic isn't dependent upon the person.

You have not, you explained why you think it matters, but it still does not.

You seem to confuse the fact that she has issues with it because of logical deductions and pure opinionated garbage.

I'm sorry, I just don't hold opinions on the same weight as logical deductions and facts, I am sorry that you do.

I haven't insulted anyone, you apparently don't know what the word "insult" means...

Jetachkuu just let it go man.

stop protecting dumb people; cause its not worth it.

weather he's tried as child or tried as an adult; the fact remains he cannot be trusted to live in society. If that means trying him as an adult to make that happen then so be it.

You look really bad trying point out whatever it is your trying to say... All I see is you trying to protect a stupid person; which makes you look _> LOL

People have very different thinking processes, which leads to different logical view points all the time.

It's not why I think it matters, but why the courts and legal precedent think it matters.

It was an opinion formed from a logical deduction.

I never said, or implied that opinions hold the same weight as facts. You also form an opinion from what you deduct from any given situation - from fact, conjecture, or other opinion.

Need I break down the word insult for you too?

From Wikipedia:

From Dictionary.com:

I could go on.

That's your opinion.

So your solution is to lock them up, their rights be damned?

That's not very civilized.

My two points are this:

you don't know him, you can't say for sure whether or not he knew what he was doing and understood to the extent a supposed "adult" would, while at 16 I would have, I know some grown adults that don't have the level of understanding of the world I did even at 13.

He needs a pysch evaluation, and from the sound of it, admitted to a mental hospital, not a prison.

You can most certainly follow a different logical progression on a given situation. If you seriously think you can't then I suggest going back to school or reading a book on the topic.

I could go on.[/quote]
Different thinking processes still doesn't make all of them logical ones.

Courts and legal precedent surely aren't going to be your argument for the better good of society is it?

You most certainly implied that opinions hold the same weight as facts...


Again: didn't insult anyone, intentionally.

I have no malice with my words, I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend that.