Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

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

Page 2 of 9 [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

22 Jan 2012, 6:00 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
If you can't prove intention, the sentence would be reduced, but it's still a crime.

Here in the UK, you cannot be charged with any crime until you're 10 years old. Personally, I think that's utterly stupid. Why can kids literally get away with murder? There's no good reason for that.


I will accept your statement as frustration.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

22 Jan 2012, 6:02 pm

I'm not frustrated over anything, I'm just simply not letting emotions overrule my logic.



dr01dguy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 295

22 Jan 2012, 6:36 pm

Quote:
In order for it be a crime, you have to prove intention to commit the crime (at least in the US) A 2 year old or a 5 year old have no concept of death therefore cant concemplate trying to kill someone.


Not quite. The only specific crime I can think of where *intent* factors into innocence or guilt is premeditated first-degree murder. In general, if someone dies because you did something stupid or reckless, you can't be convicted of "murder", only "manslaughter". The monkey wrench is a concept called "felony murder" (or "capital murder", depending on the state), which basically states that you can be convicted of murder if you're involved in a felony where somebody (even a criminal) dies, even if you personally didn't directly cause the death.

I believe Texas has the dubious honor of being the only state in the country where you can be executed for felony murder, and that it's part of the reason why it has roughly twice as many convicts on death row per capita as any other state.

For other crimes, you most certainly CAN be convicted, regardless of whether you intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed. The most extreme example is sex with a minor. In most states, you can be convicted EVEN IF it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that the minor actively misled you into thinking they were 18.

That said, charging a 3 year old with ANYTHING more than simple battery (assuming they had to be charged with anything at all) is insane. The criminal justice system should not even be involved. At worst, it should be grounds for a lawsuit against the parents.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 170 of 200 · Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 34 of 200 · You are very likely an Aspie [ AQ=41, EQ=11, SQ=45, SQ-R=77; FQ=38 ]


jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

22 Jan 2012, 10:26 pm

dr01dguy wrote:
Quote:
In order for it be a crime, you have to prove intention to commit the crime (at least in the US) A 2 year old or a 5 year old have no concept of death therefore cant concemplate trying to kill someone.


Not quite. The only specific crime I can think of where *intent* factors into innocence or guilt is premeditated first-degree murder. In general, if someone dies because you did something stupid or reckless, you can't be convicted of "murder", only "manslaughter". The monkey wrench is a concept called "felony murder" (or "capital murder", depending on the state), which basically states that you can be convicted of murder if you're involved in a felony where somebody (even a criminal) dies, even if you personally didn't directly cause the death.

I believe Texas has the dubious honor of being the only state in the country where you can be executed for felony murder, and that it's part of the reason why it has roughly twice as many convicts on death row per capita as any other state.

For other crimes, you most certainly CAN be convicted, regardless of whether you intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed. The most extreme example is sex with a minor. In most states, you can be convicted EVEN IF it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that the minor actively misled you into thinking they were 18.

That said, charging a 3 year old with ANYTHING more than simple battery (assuming they had to be charged with anything at all) is insane. The criminal justice system should not even be involved. At worst, it should be grounds for a lawsuit against the parents.


thank you for clarifying that. It only seems right that a child 8 or under could not be charged for a crime...if a crime was truly comitted then the parents should be the ones held accountable. I agree, charging a 3 or even a 5 year old with a crime is insanity. I expect that out of nations like North Korea, not the US.

Of course we are becoming more and more like an insane police state every cogressional season.

Jojo


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

23 Jan 2012, 6:07 am

Give him the chair!

The time out chair that is. He's 5. He's obviously got issues that need to be addressed but at five years old? He's not capable of criminal logic I don't believe.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


Nurylon
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 109

19 Feb 2012, 6:40 am

I've known hateful 6-year-olds... very angry short skinny little male runts.


Anyway, as to the prison caf comment... these days schools ARE prisons. All they teach is "Sit down and shut up or else".



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

20 Feb 2012, 1:02 am

I bet he stabbed them with his straw.

OH NO!! !! !



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Feb 2012, 1:58 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
If you can't prove intention, the sentence would be reduced, but it's still a crime.


You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. If there is no mens rea then there is no crime, unless the offence is defined as an absolute liability or a strict liability offence (and there are precious few of these). Assault and battery (the offences most likely involved here) most assuredly require mens rea, and the issue at hand is, does a child of tender years have the mental capacity to form the mens rea required to make out the offence.

Quote:
Here in the UK, you cannot be charged with any crime until you're 10 years old. Personally, I think that's utterly stupid. Why can kids literally get away with murder? There's no good reason for that.


Here the limit is 12 years. But which would you prefer: a fixed limit established by Parliament, or a flexible limit established on a case by case basis by judges?

Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions--but it's important that policy be made on a basis of general application. When specific cases start weilding undue influence over public policy, you being to wade into situations of unintended consequences (or worse, intended consequences that are repugnant).


_________________
--James


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

20 Feb 2012, 2:02 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions--


So, hang about a minute, if a 9-year-old were to go on a mass murder spree, killing adults and other kids, he would go unpunished?



Venger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,519

20 Feb 2012, 3:34 pm

Tequila wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions--


So, hang about a minute, if a 9-year-old were to go on a mass murder spree, killing adults and other kids, he would go unpunished?


That would prove it's a loophole in the law like with this case involving mass murderers that were 11 and 13 at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_M ... l_massacre



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

22 Feb 2012, 7:11 am

Hmm, so a 5-year old boy has an anger problem.

My question is where did this anger problem come from in the first place? He was seen hitting his mom, but where did he learn this behavior in the first place? Five year-olds don't stab people for no reason.

Once a person reaches 18, I don't care what they have been influenced by, they are are responsible. If a person is around 10 years or older it may be a gray area. But five years old??? This is clearly learned behavior. I'm sorry, but people aren't born this way. It is learned.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

22 Feb 2012, 12:44 pm

Tequila wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions--


So, hang about a minute, if a 9-year-old were to go on a mass murder spree, killing adults and other kids, he would go unpunished?


Yes. He would.

That does not mean, however, that there would not be consequences to his actions. Clearly a nine year old child engaging in behaviour of this type presents a prima facie need for intervention since leaving him in the circumstances of the status quo ante will create a danger to himself and to others.

But he would have no criminal record and he would not be jailed, detained or imprisoned by reason of his actions alone.


_________________
--James


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

22 Feb 2012, 5:29 pm

visagrunt wrote:
You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. If there is no mens rea then there is no crime, unless the offence is defined as an absolute liability or a strict liability offence (and there are precious few of these). Assault and battery (the offences most likely involved here) most assuredly require mens rea, and the issue at hand is, does a child of tender years have the mental capacity to form the mens rea required to make out the offence.


Funnily enough I've done a bunch of research on the law since posting that and of course you are indeed correct. For most crimes, you need to prove mens rea.

However, I would argue that a kid should still know right from wrong and probably knows full well that stabbing someone isn't right.

Quote:
Here the limit is 12 years. But which would you prefer: a fixed limit established by Parliament, or a flexible limit established on a case by case basis by judges?


The latter.

Quote:
Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions--but it's important that policy be made on a basis of general application. When specific cases start weilding undue influence over public policy, you being to wade into situations of unintended consequences (or worse, intended consequences that are repugnant).


Surely the whole basis of our legal system is that past cases do influence future cases? Or am I mistaken?



Venger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,519

22 Feb 2012, 5:46 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Surely the whole basis of our legal system is that past cases do influence future cases? Or am I mistaken?


In the case I mentioned a few posts up, the two very young murderers were released when they were just barely adults because of a loophole in the law which was closed after that.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

22 Feb 2012, 5:58 pm

Venger wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:

Surely the whole basis of our legal system is that past cases do influence future cases? Or am I mistaken?


In the case I mentioned a few posts up, the two very young murderers were released when they were just barely adults because of a loophole in the law which was closed after that.


Exactly, so it's good that these things have an effect.

I don't care how old you are, if you go around stabbing people then you should deal with the consequences IMHO.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

22 Feb 2012, 8:25 pm

Just thought of something... The mens rea is not always needed. For example, if you don't intend to kill someone but do so accidentally, you'd still likely get charged with manslaughter.