goldberry Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 It just came out in the news that the two 13 y/o girls in the Slenderman stabbing are going to be tried as adults. This is confusing to me. What is the point of having an age of "responsibility" so to speak, if it can be waived any time the crime is unsavory enough? Am I wrong in understanding that we charge adults differently because we hold them to a higher level of responsibility? (Just to clarify, the whole thing horrified me when it happened. But either we consider juveniles less responsible or we don't. I don't think it should be subject to someone's choice, or maybe only at certain ages.. but 13?) 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 Found another source that said the judge did this so he could keep them in the system longer. If tried as juveniles, they could only be kept for 5 years? Maybe that part needs to be revamped. :( 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 What is the functional difference between being tried as an adult and as a juvenile, other than "keeping them in the system longer"? If that is the point of doing so, then the real question is your second post. I'm too ignorant to comment on whether they should or should not be tried as adults because I don't know what the difference is, functionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Sometimes trying a teen as an adult makes sense, but I don't think it ever does for anyone who was under 15 at the time of the crime. I think some states have procedures to make the sentence longer for kids who commit very serious crimes. I'm not an expert in that, though. Maybe someone here could expand. Though, there are adult murderers who don't serve more than 5 years. So is it really that shocking when a teen doesn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 This whole aspect of our criminal justice system is weird to me. :( I think that more than anything, those girls need psychological help...maybe the judge wanted to ensure they were in the system in that regard for long enough to go back into society? (To do what they did over a fictional character is pretty damn scary to me!) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I believe that between certain ages and intensity of the crime, whether or not the child is tried as an adult is left to the judge's decision. Things such as maturity, intent, conscious planning, etc play in when deciding how to judge a teenager. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 The idea that being in the system longer will make the teens more suited to rejoining society is another very very questionable concept. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 It seems like the juvenile system should be better set up for rehabilitation than the adult system. I guess that's not true though? That would make too much sense probably. Doesn't that mean though if they were convicted they would be in an adult facility? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 It probably varies by state, but I've heard that kids who are tried as adults and convicted will go live in a juvenile facility until a certain age (18 or 21?), and then transfer to an adult facility. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 I guess this story was really disturbing to me when it happened, the girls were only 12. The idea of a little girl doing something like that was horrifying. But the idea of them being tried just like an adult does not seem right, it just seems to bypass the bigger issues there. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 In some ways, being tried as adults will give them more protections. But you're right - that is hardly the point here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara in Colo Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I think the whole system needs to be revamped since "knowledgeable" offenders know that they will be out by the time they are 18 so they see the crime as more doable. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 It seems like the juvenile system should be better set up for rehabilitation than the adult system. I guess that's not true though? That would make too much sense probably. Doesn't that mean though if they were convicted they would be in an adult facility? No. They would be sent to a juvenile facility until they were 18. Though truthfully, how putting an 18 year old in with fully grown adult men isn't cruel and unusual, I do not know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I think the whole system needs to be revamped since "knowledgeable" offenders know that they will be out by the time they are 18 so they see the crime as more doable. What is common is for criminal organizations (and I use the term organizations loosely) to use juveniles for some of their dirty work. That's the predicted unintentional consequence of any preferential system. A lot of juvenile offenders truly only get caught up in the criminal justice system because they aren't given much other choice. Navigating childhood in gang territory isn't easy. Sometimes parents use their minor children to commit crimes for them. There's was a family in my brother's old neighborhood that did that. Dad quietly fenced what he had his kids out stealing. He usually had 1 kid or the other in juvie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 In terms of horrific crimes like murders, the idea is that the child is a predator and we don't want to let them loose on society again or not for a very long time. THe change came about because teen murderers were getting out by 21 and going and murdering again. I don't know about this case but with psychopaths, there is no therapy to change them. They will always be dangerous if they have already shown a propensity for violence. Then the thinking is about justice for the victims and more importantly, safety for the rest of the population. And some states have special units or prisons for young offenders like under 25 which are housed separately from the very hardened older criminals. That doesn't mean all young offenders will end up there but normally the procession is a juvenile type facility until 18 and then a youthful offender facility and then regular prison if the sentence is long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Our whole system needs revamping. We are entirely too focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. In some cases, imprisonment is to protect society rather than to punish. I do believe that is necessary at times. I think we need to actually look more carefully at our laws and what to do with people in their early 20s as well ---before frontal lobes are fully developed. Way back in the day when I worked with violent juveniles, we knew that if we could get them to age 25 , that they were statistically unlikely to be a threat after that. We were focused on preventing future criminal activity. Unfortunately, our services could only extend to age 18. It would be forward thinking to have some kind of system that extended to the mid-20s that was treatment focused. I do not agree with trying 13 year olds as adults. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Here's an interesting article from "The Atlantic" about how additional restrictions/conditions hurt juvenile offenders (those lucky enough to even be tried as juveniles.) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-crimes-of-children/398543/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerileanne99 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 There was a series of articles that came out in July about the sibling pair that were the youngest to be tried (and convicted) as adults being released from prison. If all of the information that has now come to light are factual, it was an even more egregious miscarriage of justice. Don't get me wrong, they murdered a woman. It was awful, and I cannot imagine the details that went into it...but I cannot see how trying them as adults 'helped' the situation. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/12/young-killer-catherine-jones-release-date-nears/21636259/ I think in these situations it becomes much more about retribution and politics than rehabilitation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I agree with you. If the age of majority is 18, then it's 18 - for contracts, crimes, military service, drinking, sex, etc... All sorts of exceptions just make the term "legal age" meaningless. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 A sealed record or not, and the ability to lock them up for 50 years. What is the functional difference between being tried as an adult and as a juvenile, other than "keeping them in the system longer"? If that is the point of doing so, then the real question is your second post. I'm too ignorant to comment on whether they should or should not be tried as adults because I don't know what the difference is, functionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 It seems like the juvenile system should be better set up for rehabilitation than the adult system. I guess that's not true though? That would make too much sense probably. Doesn't that mean though if they were convicted they would be in an adult facility? I've a friend who works with some of these youthful offenders - rehabilitating them is not as easy as it sounds. eventually it is about protecting other people from what they've already proven they are capable of doing. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I've a friend who works with some of these youthful offenders - rehabilitating them is not as easy as it sounds. eventually it is about protecting other people from what they've already proven they are capable of doing. No, it's often difficult because they would require skilled and long-term therapy and the state usually does not pay for that. Parents are sometimes unwilling or financially unable to pay. The offender sometimes shows little or no remorse which requires even longer and "deeper" therapy and depending on circumstances, they can opt out of it or it is discontinued after too few sessions. And then there are those who would be almost impossible to rehabilitate...almost. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camelfeet Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 The judges reasoning was that as juveniles, their access to mental health help would end when their sentence does, which is by the age of 18. Trying them as adults means that they have will have mandatory to mental health checks or therapy even after they leave juvenile detention, and authorities will also be able to monitor/keep tabs on them when they are released. They won't be incarcerated with adults, it isn't like they are going to put them into a supermax or something. Considering one of the girls has been diagnosed with early onset schizophrenia and has said she is opposed to treating it because it will mean she can't talk to her imaginary friends anymore.... I think it sounds like a good thing to have her monitored perpetuity. She sounds like a good candidate to re-offend if left untreated. Oh the broader issue, I dunno. I think Americans need better access to mental healthcare. Maybe they wouldn't be trying them as adults is there were other options. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 No, it's often difficult because they would require skilled and long-term therapy and the state usually does not pay for that. Parents are sometimes unwilling or financially unable to pay. The offender sometimes shows little or no remorse which requires even longer and "deeper" therapy and depending on circumstances, they can opt out of it or it is discontinued after too few sessions. And then there are those who would be almost impossible to rehabilitate...almost. That would imply that if it is just the right therapy and for long enough, it would fix the person. It doesn't work like that. Therapy can work if the person wants it. If he/she doesn't, it will never work. I have seen it over and over again. And that doesn't even calculate the ones with mental illnesses, often for which there is no medication or fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenade Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 This whole aspect of our criminal justice system is weird to me. :( I think that more than anything, those girls need psychological help...maybe the judge wanted to ensure they were in the system in that regard for long enough to go back into society? (To do what they did over a fictional character is pretty damn scary to me!) This is the feeling I got from the one story I read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-rap Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 A somewhat different subject, but this thread brings to mind the story on NPR last year about the famous mystery author Anne Perry. She and her best friend killed that friend's mother when they were 15 years old. It sounded horrible. It sounds like they also had a bizarre fantasy life together. She served time in prison for five years I believe. Sometime after she was released, she changed her name to Anne Perry, and eventually seems to have settled into a responsible life and obviously has become a famous writer now. Anyway, I was really shocked to learn this about her, but it's also encouraging to know to sometimes youth who commit violent crimes like that can turn around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 The judges reasoning was that as juveniles, their access to mental health help would end when their sentence does, which is by the age of 18. Trying them as adults means that they have will have mandatory to mental health checks or therapy even after they leave juvenile detention, and authorities will also be able to monitor/keep tabs on them when they are released. They won't be incarcerated with adults, it isn't like they are going to put them into a supermax or something. Considering one of the girls has been diagnosed with early onset schizophrenia and has said she is opposed to treating it because it will mean she can't talk to her imaginary friends anymore.... I think it sounds like a good thing to have her monitored perpetuity. She sounds like a good candidate to re-offend if left untreated. Oh the broader issue, I dunno. I think Americans need better access to mental healthcare. Maybe they wouldn't be trying them as adults is there were other options. The mental health system is a huge part of the issue. I think I would like to do more reading about how it interacts with both the juvenile and adult criminal system. What a sad, sad case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 What is the functional difference between being tried as an adult and as a juvenile, other than "keeping them in the system longer"? If that is the point of doing so, then the real question is your second post. I'm too ignorant to comment on whether they should or should not be tried as adults because I don't know what the difference is, functionally. Juvenile justice is supposed to focus on rehabilitation. Tried as an adult means going to an adult prison. Usually in a segregated population until 18, but that doesn't mean a lot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I've a friend who works with some of these youthful offenders - rehabilitating them is not as easy as it sounds. eventually it is about protecting other people from what they've already proven they are capable of doing. I don't think anyone has said rehabilitation is easy. No one should expect anything worthwhile to be easy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 No, it's often difficult because they would require skilled and long-term therapy and the state usually does not pay for that. Parents are sometimes unwilling or financially unable to pay. The offender sometimes shows little or no remorse which requires even longer and "deeper" therapy and depending on circumstances, they can opt out of it or it is discontinued after too few sessions. And then there are those who would be almost impossible to rehabilitate...almost. And some genuinely are impossible to rehabilitate. Not almost. Actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daria Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 If one or both is found not guilty due to insanity, how does being tried as juvenile or adult impact that? If one of the girls has early onset schizophrenia, it seems possible that she will meet criteria for insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I'm not sold on the reasoning that you try a kid as an adult if you want her to have more mental health services. Don't they have to meet certain legal thresholds and honestly believe the kid is adult-like in certain respects? Juvenile justice is a mess. I don't know what the fix is, though. A lot of things that sound smart have been tried and failed. It seems most kids come out worse than they were when they went in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimeeM Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 My opinion on this isn't popular, particularly among my fellow conservatives. I believe there's a reason children and young teenagers can't vote, drink, smoke, drive, or serve in the military. I believe it's been proven, beyond a doubt, over many many years and many many studies, that children are NOT simply miniature adults. At 12, the age these girls were when the crime was committed, my own daughter still believed that her acceptance letter from Hogwarts had merely been delayed; she was only a year or two out from believing in Santa Claus. It's already been established that THESE girls WERE living in a fantasy world. They are not adults. They just aren't. They can't held to the same standards as adults, when our own laws-of-the-land prohibit them from taking part in adult activities - because it recognizes that they ARE. NOT. ADULTS. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sewingmama Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I was just thinking about this the other day. It seems more and more children are being tried as adults. I can understand it if the kid was maybe 16-17 but under 14 is pushing it. I was reading a story yesterday about parents that had killed their 4 month old baby. My eyes nearly fell out of my head when I realised the mother of the baby was NINE. The father who was an adult was sent to prison for many years but the mother was let off with a two year good behaviour bond. My own daughter is nine...she can barely make herself a sandwich let alone care for a baby. Who the heck let her keep the baby in the first place or decide it was alright for her to be living with an "adult" partner. He wasn't even charged for offences relating to the mother. Apparently child services removed the nine year old from her parents care when she turned up at the hospital to give birth BUT they let her go home with the father and the baby...the father was over 21?????? Turned out it was the father beating the baby and the nine year old who was too afraid to do anything about it. I just can't comprehend what is going on these days...kids are not adults why are they being treated as such. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 And some genuinely are impossible to rehabilitate. Not almost. Actually. In the US, how can we tell? Our criminal justice system doesn't really put a high priority on rehabilitation in the first place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.