12 year old faces life in prison

[El Cazador]

I'm jumping in late. And I didn't read all the replies.

That being said....I remember being 12. I remember not having the money for things I wanted. I DID NOT try to rob someone...I did not murder someone. I don't know if I think he should get the death penalty, let the judge do the dirty work. What I do know, is if he is capable of this at a young age...imagine what he is capable at 25...or 26 etc. I believe that even if he doesn't get the death penalty, he is tarnished. He will never live a normal life. He killed someone, and didn't think twice about it. That is something he will always remember. I DO NOT think he should be placed back in society. And it kind of makes me wonder what kind of up-bringing he had. At 12...I knew murder was wrong. I knew robbery was wrong. I also knew you had to work for what you wanted. So why he decided to go kill someone for money rather than mowing a few lawns to earn a few bucks is beyond me. Mentally, He's not all there.

Interested to hear the outcome. Either way, it's a sad loss of life. Not only the victims...but his own!

RM

This why I called this youth a "feral predator". Much like wild animals who have learned humans mean food (in both ways), and are doubly dangerous for it. They are no longer scared of people (or the consequences, in the case of this youth) and do as they wish. Can you "unlearn" this behavior? You can't in wildlife, so they are either transported to where there is no human contact, or they are eliminated. In human behavior, there are studies on both sides of the court, but even the "pro-unlearning" studies admit there is a high degree of recidivism. So as RM says, you can't turn them loose on society again. We've seen what happens plenty of times with adult violent criminals paroled back to society. What do you do with conscious-less youth that are as coldly dangerous as a copperhead snake, or a grizzly bear conditioned to knowing human scent equals food?

It will (and should, in my opinion) boil back down to parents being responsible for their children. The responsible parent or guardian should be held accountable for their charges actions. If the parent can't control them, they should acknowledge that, and seek help from the police/courts.

The occurrence for these young cold blooded killers are still few and far between thankfully, but they do occur, just as with that girl in Brasil.

 

[Fargo]

As Indiana's murder statute doesn't distinguish between 1st and 2nd degree murder I don't really think your example works. Also, it isn't really a "felony murder" statute as it does not allow accomplices to be charged with murder. That said, my point is that he is just as guilty under 1(1) as he is under 1(2).

It was my understanding that Indiana does have a true felony murder statute, I just am not sure that it is the one you posted.

Either way, I'm pretty sure my point about 2nd degree with a possible enhancement to 1st vs. "felony murder" still stands.

 

[stilllearning09]

Probably asleep? You never snuck out as a kid when your parents were sleeping?

Nope, I KNEW better. My children never snuck out at 12, either!

 

[public servant]

Nope, I KNEW better. My children never snuck out at 12, either!

Ask them when they are 20 something.

 

[dburkhead]

As Indiana's murder statute doesn't distinguish between 1st and 2nd degree murder I don't really think your example works. Also, it isn't really a "felony murder" statute as it does not allow accomplices to be charged with murder. That said, my point is that he is just as guilty under 1(1) as he is under 1(2).

It was my understanding that Indiana does have a true felony murder statute, I just am not sure that it is the one you posted.

Either way, I'm pretty sure my point about 2nd degree with a possible enhancement to 1st vs. "felony murder" still stands.

I think you would get accomplices under "conspiracy":

IC 35-41-5-2
Conspiracy
Sec. 2. (a) A person conspires to commit a felony when, with intent to commit the felony, he agrees with another person to commit the felony. A conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony of the same class as the underlying felony. However, a conspiracy to commit murder is a Class A felony.
(b) The state must allege and prove that either the person or the person with whom he agreed performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
(c) It is no defense that the person with whom the accused person is alleged to have conspired:
(1) has not been prosecuted;
(2) has not been convicted;
(3) has been acquitted;
(4) has been convicted of a different crime;
(5) cannot be prosecuted for any reason; or
(6) lacked the capacity to commit the crime.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.23.

Agreement to perform a criminal act (the robbery), someone among those party to the agreement perform an overt act (pointing the gun at someone and demanding money pretty clearly meets this criterion). And when the robbery becomes a murder? Well, OK. In Indiana it only goes to a Class A felony rather than Murder itself.

So in Indiana, at least, the accomplices are only on the hook for 20-40 years ("advisory sentence" 30 years). However, for the trigger person, it's murder, with the full penalties for murder being applicable.

BTW, it appears that the portion of the IC that I quoted uptopic is Indiana's Felony Murder statute. From a particular court case (thanks to Google)--http://indiana.gov/judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/02260411.pdm.html-- we get:

The relevant portion of Indiana’s felony murder statute provides, “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit . . . burglary . . . commits murder, a felony.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(2). Indiana’s burglary statute requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “[broke and entered a] building or structure of another person, with the intent to commit a felony in it.” Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.

(It was a burglary case.)

So killing someone in the course of committing certain felonies is murder with the same penalties attached as if one had set out intentionally and with premeditation ("malice aforethought" and all that stuff) to kill that individual, at least according to Indiana law. Per Ingersoll's column, this is fairly common in law throughout the US.

Accomplices might not be on the hook quite so much, at least in Indiana, where conspiracy maxes out as a Class A felony, but the OP wasn't an accomplice but the person who actually killed the victim.

 

[Oldcoyotedream]

I never snuck out with a gun! Capitol Punishment needs to return to this country when the country is returned to the people!

 

[Fargo]

dburkhead,

I don't think we really disagree on the legal aspect of the thing, rather I was referring to the "felony murder rule" as laid out at common law which focuses on accomplice liability and you were referring to the present usage of "felony murder" which means an automatic enhancement to first degree murder based upon the killing being committed during a felony. In this case, my quick and dirty research shows that Michigan law does make such a "felony murder" enhancement but does not make it a capital offense as Michigan does not have the death penalty.

 

[JustGone]

I guess the bottom line is that whether or not the dad knew the 12 year old snuck out...maybe the kid did it because he feared no concrete consequence - not if he'd never been taught that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction...usually located in the posterior region.

What I was tryin to say is not to blame the parents because 'society' has dictated the way children are raised in these days. Parents just cant punish their kids in the same ways they got punished and it's leading to kids growin up as brats and punks.


When I lived out West in Kalifornia I always saw the neighbor kids sneakin out at night, and these kids are in the strictest family I ever seen I'm talkin alarms on all the doors and windows at night and activated, and they always managed to get out without wakin anyone, A+ students though

 

[JetGirl]

What I was tryin to say is not to blame the parents because 'society' has dictated the way children are raised in these days. Parents just cant punish their kids in the same ways they got punished and it's leading to kids growin up as brats and punks.

I'd agree with that ^.

 

[femurphy77]

I'm all for the death penalty..FOR ADULTS...certainly not 12 year old CHILDREN! anyone have kids? remember when they were 12? Hell, remember when YOU were 12? Sure you knew right from wrong, but i'm pretty sure your ability to make reasonable decisions wasn't as good as it was at 16 or 18...we may need to do more than incarcerate this young man until 21, but HANG HIM, really? That's the only thing we can come up with?

Yeah I remember 12, I remember being in a fight on the playground on the losing end ( you should have seen what my face did to his fist though) Anyways, somebody hands me a baseball bat, I still vividly remember thinking to myself I might kill the kid and refused the bat. End result, got my hiney handed to me because I refused to beat this kids brains out with a baseball bat. So YES I believe that kids are able to understand the consequences of their actions. If you don't want to off a 12 year old, imprison him until he's 21 then off him

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

What I was tryin to say is not to blame the parents because 'society' has dictated the way children are raised in these days. Parents just cant punish their kids in the same ways they got punished and it's leading to kids growin up as brats and punks.

If it was solely a societal restriction of punishment that is causing our current crop of children to exhibit excessive negative behavior then I would.

Some of the parents in my neighborhood do not have even a moderately close relationship with their teenagers. They do not monitor who the children hang out with, where the kids are at any given time, do not know what time the child left or what time they will return home, etc., so to me, the parents ARE to blame.

There was the 19 year old girl that just got shot a week or so ago in Muncie at the unofficial "after hours club" that was being run near the Mall. When the cops arrived to deal with the shooting they found children as young as 12 years old at 1:30 A.M. in the parking lot that they tried to interview as witnesses. All the parents refused to let their children give any type of statement and took them home. I sure don't let my 12 y.o. son out at 1:30 A.M., especially in an illegally operated club that was serving alcohol to minors.

I have been told that my wife and I are/were too strict with our sons (I have a 20 y.o. step-son, too). We are simply trying to ensure that our sons get to enjoy their childhood, know right-from-wrong, are respectful of others even if those others aren't respectful in return, and give them a good start in life. Some times I think that parents border on purposely trying to allow bad things to happen to their children. I don't buy "but everybody's doing it!" from my sons, nor do I buy it from adults.

 

[rambone]

I hear it costs $100,000 per prisoner per year in America's pampered prison system. That means if that kid DID stay in prison for life, he would conservatively live at least 50-60 years, equating to $5-$6 MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

But lets face it, they will probably not execute him or keep him in prison. That kid will probably be released in 25 years. Being a 37-year-old virgin, having no life skills, little education, raised around rapists and murderers, and hardened in prison, he will then commence wreaking havoc on society.

 

[dburkhead]

Being a 37-year-old virgin....

Quoted just to highlight the incredible naivety of that comment.

 

[originalhonkey]

 

[RCB]

Well, whatever they decide, it needs to be the rule. If you are going to try a 12 year old as an adult, don't arrest a 16 year old for drinking under age and don't arrest some old pervert for hooking up with a 14 year old.

If you can say that a 12 year old knew what their actions would do (and they should) then it should apply across the board.

It seems that the more time passes, the more they want to treat teens like grade schoolers. If you want to hold them to be responsible, it needs to be all of the time. Don't change expectations to suit a case. I can't tell you how many kids I have ran across that didn't think a thing about shop lifting cause it would be off their record after 18 IF they got caught.

Make them responsible for their actions, but to be fair, they need some of the perks as well.

 

[eatsnopaste]

TWELVE....sixth grade...ELEMENTARY SCHOOL...too young to make logic based decisions..little brains aren't anywhere close to being formed yet, but you know best, KILL THEM...slowly, in public in HD preferably. For those of you who never sneaked out, never drank underage, never did anything with poor judgment as a teenager...oops...preteen, good for you! For those of us who might have broken a few rules (ok..Laws) who were brought up well, and because of that upbringing never did that particular crime again...maybe at that age you can be rehabilitated. Not if your dead though.

 

[dburkhead]

TWELVE....sixth grade...ELEMENTARY SCHOOL...too young to make logic based decisions..little brains aren't anywhere close to being formed yet, but you know best, KILL THEM...slowly, in public in HD preferably. For those of you who never sneaked out, never drank underage, never did anything with poor judgment as a teenager...oops...preteen, good for you! For those of us who might have broken a few rules (ok..Laws) who were brought up well, and because of that upbringing never did that particular crime again...maybe at that age you can be rehabilitated. Not if your dead though.

Is the scarecrow business doing well where you live, because if you are going to build straw men like that you really ought to make some money at it.

Robbery and murder are not just a matter of "poor judgment." Your attempt to conflate "underage drinking" with other things that are not uncommon to young folk is an insult to young folk everywhere.

Unlike you, I am quite confident that even twelve year olds are fully capable of knowing that robbery and murder are wrong and not just an error in judgment.

I do remember being twelve (I remember being three, for that matter) and at twelve I had no difficulty whatsoever understanding "thou shalt not kill" and even the more sophisticated original meaning "thou shalt not murder" in combination of the rest of the Law of Moses which not only permitted, but required, killing in a variety of circumstances.

As for your attempts to bring torture, crimes such as involuntary manslaughter which are not capital crimes, and the like into the discussion, please look up the term "straw man." Here. I'll give you a link.

 

[public servant]

You forgot the link. Oops...no...there it is. I forgot my glasses. My bad.

 

[eatsnopaste]

Is the scarecrow business doing well where you live, because if you are going to build straw men like that you really ought to make some money at it.

Robbery and murder are not just a matter of "poor judgment." Your attempt to conflate "underage drinking" with other things that are not uncommon to young folk is an insult to young folk everywhere.

Unlike you, I am quite confident that even twelve year olds are fully capable of knowing that robbery and murder are wrong and not just an error in judgment.

I do remember being twelve (I remember being three, for that matter) and at twelve I had no difficulty whatsoever understanding "thou shalt not kill" and even the more sophisticated original meaning "thou shalt not murder" in combination of the rest of the Law of Moses which not only permitted, but required, killing in a variety of circumstances.

As for your attempts to bring torture, crimes such as involuntary manslaughter which are not capital crimes, and the like into the discussion, please look up the term "straw man." Here. I'll give you a link.

the post was about children being able to make decisions. You have all the answers and obviously know what the age should be so enlighten us..at what age do we NOT execute children? No, don't give me any bull**** answer like, "well at 12 I knew..." give me an age! 10, 8?
no lower limit? We hear a lot about the "slippery slope" well it isn't just gun rights, if we execute a 12 year old then next year people like you will be screaming for the execution of 8 yr. old..then....? So you tell us now where YOU set the bar?

 

[dburkhead]

the post was about children being able to make decisions.

And the thread is about a capital crime.

And, in case you've forgotten, the post was:

Originally Posted by eatsnopaste
TWELVE....sixth grade...ELEMENTARY SCHOOL...too young to make logic based decisions..little brains aren't anywhere close to being formed yet, but you know best, KILL THEM...slowly, in public in HD preferably. For those of you who never sneaked out, never drank underage, never did anything with poor judgment as a teenager...oops...preteen, good for you! For those of us who might have broken a few rules (ok..Laws) who were brought up well, and because of that upbringing never did that particular crime again...maybe at that age you can be rehabilitated. Not if your dead though.

"KILL THEM...slowly"
There's the comment on torture, right in your post.

"might have broken a few rules"
There you are conflating "broken a few rules" with robbery and murder.

"never did that particular crime"
As if the kinds of things that most folk here might have done was anywhere close to robbery and murder.

And thus the straw man.

You have all the answers and obviously know what the age should be so enlighten us..at what age do we NOT execute children? No, don't give me any bull**** answer like, "well at 12 I knew..." give me an age! 10, 8?
no lower limit? We hear a lot about the "slippery slope" well it isn't just gun rights, if we execute a 12 year old then next year people like you will be screaming for the execution of 8 yr. old..then....? So you tell us now where YOU set the bar?

I don't give you an age because I don't think a calendar is the best (or even a particularly good) method of determing the "mens rea" aspect of crime. It's not age per se, but ability to know right from wrong, to know that what one is doing is wrong, and that, yes if caught the action of doing so can have consequences ("don't think they will get caught" is not an excuse under this part--that applies to pretty much 12 out of every dozen criminals).

And no, that a person doesn't exercise the judgement of not eating too much candy and getting a tummy ache has very little to do with whether they are capable of exercising the judgement to know that robbery and murder are wrong.

I'm talking about the blueness of the sky and you're asking for how much water it takes to be wet. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and moon rocks.