5-year-old stabs 3 people over a juice box

Post Reply New Topic

SW, read the article. I think you have a lot to learn about juvenile justice. It's NOT the same as for adults.

I'm gonna make it clear for legal reasons that I don't know anything about the parents of the kid in the original article so I am not referring to them, but generally speaking, in a wider context, do you, Sweetleaf, genuinely believe that a kid who commits violent crimes has parents who are sensible enough to deal with such situations? If a kid has gotten to a stage where they've committed such a crime, it's likely because the parents have at least some role to play in the matter - perhaps not directly, but maybe they've simply been too negligent. Unless, of course, the kid has some sort of psychotic issue, in which case the parents can't exactly fix that either, whereas therapy from a young age might - and that may very well be what the court decides is the best action.

last I checked 5 year old's don't typically go to court for things, it seemed some posters here where suggesting that would be a good idea and I disagree with that idea......as far as I know that's not how it works though, if it does then I still disagree.

I think treating the child like a criminal would be the wrong approach, how is a 5 year old as responsible for their actions as an adult? The parents should probably be charged if its found they where neglecting or abusing the child but the child should not be treated like a criminal for reacting to the environment they are in before they have even developed the cognitive abilities, impulse control and reasoning abilities as an adult typically has.

You're repeating yourself an awful lot. First off, the child is a criminal. Fact. Now, as has been stated, children learn what's right and wrong from society. If a child's parents aren't doing that job well enough, someone else needs to. And, yes, maybe the parents need to be looked into as well. But the kid will need to be punished to ensure they grow up healthily and don't repeat this again.

They don't go to court for "things." They go to court for committing crimes. A crime is a crime, regardless of who commits it or how old they are. A person who commits a crime is a criminal, regardless of who they are or how old they are. Those are dictionary definitions, and the definitions have nothing to do with age.

Assault with a deadly weapon is a crime.

From there, it's a matter of whether or not to treat the five year old child differently from an adult. Of COURSE they are treated differently, even by the justice system.

He may NOT end up in front of a jury, but sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, you can bet a DA has at least been involved. They're the ones that will decide whether or not to bring charges. In many cases, they won't as long as there are guarantees in place that the kid will get the psychiatric help he needs. If he doesn't get it after the agreement is made, you can rest assured, a judge will then be involved, and force the parent(s) to do it under threat of taking the child away from them.

That is ALL part of the legal justice system. It's their job.

He MAY never actually be charged with anything, but he will get some kind of help, whether he or the parents and family want it or not.

And yes, I do agree that he needs some form of punishment. Jail or prison? No. Treatment? Yes, but it's not enough in itself.

If it were my kid, even at five years old, you can bet he'd be grounded for a very long time, and required to perform some kind of serious long term reparation duties for the victims. At the very least.

There IS a reason this kind of thing is so rare. It's rare because most five year olds DO know that this kind of thing is very wrong, and thus never do it. If a five year old doesn't know it's wrong, there is something else very wrong. Babies hit each other all the time. That IS very common. Think about it.

If most babies hit (often with harmful objects ~ they WOULD use knives if they could get hold of them), but most five year olds never think of stabbing, that should tell you something. It should tell you that MOST children DO learn by that age that this is very, very wrong.

No... he did not make it clear. You have clarified.... he has agreed... Tried... what is the result of a conviction... seriously... what is the logical and expected result of a conviction. Without clarification of expectations... EVERYONE who has argued with him, had the same expectation... trial, if found guilty, equals jail time.

You are advocating that the system provide a different outcome... once it has gone to trial, it is past the point of something else. The prosecutor has decided to push for jail time or worse. That is "common knowledge" in the sense that when you say trial, that is what people expect.

Speaking as someone that has some knowledge of the criminal justice system... If it is sent to the courts, the defense attourney will attempt a plea-bargain (we plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the results of this). Then it goes to trial. If it is in trial there are nominally two results... guilty or not guilty... there are exceptions, but these are VERY rare. Once found guilty it is on to sentencing... EXCEPT IN VERY RARE CASES... this means incarceration.

Even if this were not the reality of the situation, it is the common perception. If something else is meant, it needs to be spelled out. Especially with a group of autistic spectrum individuals. It sounds pedantic, but we kind of thrive on it.

So, when I asked, point blank: tried? and received a "Yes" in response... Everyone who has been up in arms about it reacted to the common perception about trial. While, reading back, I can see the difference in what was meant, it was not clarified to the point where everyone understood.

Tone sounded combative, in several cases was downright insulting, and wording was not sufficiently clear to change the apparent stance being taken. As a result, the entire thread has been furthering a muddled communication.

As an autistic spectrum individual, I can only say that I feel the burden of communication falls upon the communicator. Yes, communication is a two way street, but as we have all experienced in our lives - since we all base our communication on our own frae of reference and perception, we cannot assume that others understood what was said.

I am not putting blame... Hell, I accept a good chunk of it personally... but when it is clear that your stance is misunderstood, it is sometimes best to back up and say... NO NO NO... please read this complete statement and move foreward in this conversation as if the previous statements were inaccurate, as this is what they are. Instead, we were thrown very small snippets, that seemed completely at odds and contradictory to each other...

SO... please read the following Aspie-Z and MrXxx and tell me if this is what was intended.



we are all agreed that punishment (negative reinforcement) is necessary - no matter what the rest of it is.

Well I am done here, treating 5 year olds like criminals is bs....and I am not changing my mind. there is no point in trying to debate about this any further its a ridiculous notion anyways.

Bye bye!

Feralucce, It appears to me that you've made a great many assumptions.

Clear communication IS a two-way street, requiring equal burdon on both the sender and the listener. I don't have time to adress your last post right now. Suffice to say that there are some things there I agree with, and others I don't. Much of the remainder though, I neither agree or disagree with, because some of your points just don't make any sense to me. No fault, they just don't compute in my own head.

You do still seem to have a fixation on "incarceration" of some sort. A point I have never seen anyone in the thread advocating. The terms keep changing, but they're all your terms. Prison, to jail, and now juvenile facility. As far as I can tell so far no one advocating use of the justice system advocated any of them.

Clearly, as far as I can tell right now, it's coming from conclusions you are drawing based on other things said. I'll have to get back to you later on those.

Mr Xxx: I was trying to clarify...

Evidently, my "assumptions" (which are based on knowledge of the criminal justice system), are too much for the conversation...

HOWEVER, i point out that the assumption that it would result in jail, prison, etc... was made before I jumped in...

I am done... since there can be no agreement, even when I took great pains to establish a common frame of reference for communication, It seems that this is a waste of time.

I wish you well

Wow Sweetleaf, that's an amazing amount of information you can apparently glean from a handful of words

same could be said about you claiming my explanation of 5 year olds not having the same cognitive abilities as adults is the same as implying they are all idiots...no matter to me really as I said I'm done with this debate.

Actually all I said was you make it sound like they're all idiots when you say they have no idea what a crime is, nothing you have said to me has anything to do with my contribution.

I said they don't have the cognitive and reasoning abilities to understand how the legal system works at the age of 5, not that they are idiots if you took it that way it's you're issue.