And along the same lines as Byrnzie's post, I would argue that it would take an animal to put a child in a cage for the rest of his or her life.
The point here is that at only 14 years old, none of us knew what we know now. The jumps in maturity, physically, emotionally, spiritually etc., are astounding between even a 14 year old and 18 year old. This is why we have a juvenile court system. To completely circumvent that sound logic is absurd. I would argue that it is criminal.
I agree with a previous post that I am not who I was at 14. Not even close. And not what I was at 18 or 25 etc. We learn, we grow, we mature. Society has set the "legal age" at 18, right? So if that's the consensus, let's stop locking kids up as if they were adults. Lock them up as kids for what they are and follow the guidelines we setup to handle things like this when kids break the law.
It's mind-boggling to me. Trying a child as an adult makes as little sense as trying the police in the Rodney King beating as if they were black. The offender is either a child or an adult. At 14 years old, he was clearly a child. Let's not pick and choose when it suits one group's agenda.
Well, while 18 is the legal voting age, it is not the national age of criminal responsibility. It is 18 in some states, but in many states (including Wisconsin) you are considered mature enough to be responsible for your own actions at 17. The young man in question here was a few months shy of his 17th b-day when he was sentenced. And as I said before (well I didn't really say it, I was quoting the court documents) his sentence was based on his continued actions up until his sentencing. It wasn't solely based on what he did as a 14 year old. The other kid in the case, who seems to be pretty much equally responsible, did not get the same sentence. He still got a chunk of a sentence, but not life without parole. Omer's sentence reflects his actions since the murder, including threatening witnesses and the judge. And it would appear that at age 26 he continues to act like a dong-hole. They didn't throw some little kid wearing his Pokemon pajamas into a cage, and the sentence was not solely based on what he did at 14.
And there has to be some flexibility in the law. Just as they bent the law to punish this kid as an adult, they make exceptions for people as well. There are loopholes and consideration that benefit people. Mentally handicapped people often get different treatment, yes they are technically adults who committed a crime, and don't get off completely, but their mental capacity is taken into account, sometimes. The law is not black and white, and they felt this young man (about to be an adult) needed to be punished as an adult. What would you say they do to a "kid" who commits a crime a few days before his birthday when he turns legally into an adult? If the legal age in your state is 18, and a person commits a crime when he is 17 years, 11 months and 364 days old, should he still be put on trial as a minor? In this case he was almost 15, and on the verge of being an adult (17 in WI) when sentenced, but they felt what he did was more serious than what they could legally do to him as a minor. Whether it was "right" or not is debatable (this thread is evidence of that) but it is not absurd. Dropping a human being to their death is absurd. Being tried as a minor is there for people who actually don't know any better, not as a loophole to do what you want and get a slap on the wrist.
I understand we all grow, and see the error of our ways as we get older. As somebody else said, they can look back at themselves as recently as 30 years old and see how much they've grown since then. But how many second chances can people get? This is real life, with real consequenses, at what point do we draw the line? Killing somebody is serious business. Yes we all grow up, but if somebody killed one of our loved ones then got himself a little Jailhouse Jesus, few of us would care or trust him/her to re-enter society, or want him/her to do so, just because they're smarter now. We all make decisions in life we have to live with. This kid made one. And after he made it, he continued to make bad decisions. If he just screwed up at age 14, then showed remorse, attempted to make amends and took responsibility for his actions, we probably wouldn't be discussing this case. Much the same way we aren't talking about the other kid in the case. The closest this kid came to even an apology was to say that he could understand why the family was upset, but there was nothing he could do about it now. As true as it may be, it is not what the family (and he did say it in response to a speech given by the victim's brother) wants to hear. Basically saying what's done is done and let's just move on. If he's not even making an effort for himself, why should the legal system make an effort to put him back on the street?
It is easy to sit here and call the judge an "asshole" when we have never met the guy. Who knows, if we were to sit down and talk to him he might tell us it was a decision that kept him up nights, and tell us how and why he went with the life without parole judgement. He has looked into the kids eyes, talked to him, been threatened by him, and it is possible that he came to his decision out of concern for the safety of himself and others. Not just to be a douche. I think the WM3 case has really jaded a lot of us when it comes to the justice system, but I think the bad guy here is the murderer and not the judge who came down with a harsh sentence.
It would be nice to be able to rehabilitate all criminals, help them see the error of their ways, and put them back into society, to make them honest/productive people and not keep them locked up in cages. And while it can work for some, as a general philosophy it is naive. And it is easy to sit from afar and say that we shouldn't keep murderes locked up forever because people can change, to be an armchair philosopher and point out the problems of the criminal justice system. But these are real problems, and people are really dead. I'm betting nobody here runs a halfway house out of their home that takes in convicted murderers. I can sit here and say "it's wrong, he learned his lesson, let him out", but I bet I would change my tune if they released him into my neighborhood. I'm not saying that I want everybody locked up forever, but when it comes to murder, I don't think it makes anybody an animal for supporting it. Releasing a murderer is gambling with other peoples lives.
Contrary to what has been said, this was not a "little kid" (he was 2 months shy of 15) who didn't understand what he was doing. He was legally a minor, but old enough to know what he was doing, while 14-15 is a minor, I don't consider them "little kids". Yes a 14-15 year old is immature, but knows that you don't kill another human being. He did something terrible, and as an adult appears to still be a terrible person. I'm pretty sure all of us on this board managed not to commit murder when we were kids/teenagers. Because we knew better, and he knew better. I think the key thing to remember when discussing this case is his age when sentenced. They did not toss a 14 year old kid in the state pen. He was on the verge of being legally adult. The imagery of a small child being tossed in prison is being used here, as if some little kid with a teddy bear was tossed in a cell with Dennis Rader, when it is simply not true. He commited the crime at 14, not thrown into Oz at 14. By the time he landed in the penitentiary he was legally an adult, and now at 26 still a dickhead by all accounts, apparently wearing this kids murder as a feather in his cap. That may be posturing for the sake of survival in prison, trying to act tough, but it doesn't help his case.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
I have no issue with this. animals need to be caged.
And along the same lines as Byrnzie's post, I would argue that it would take an animal to put a child in a cage for the rest of his or her life.
The point here is that at only 14 years old, none of us knew what we know now. The jumps in maturity, physically, emotionally, spiritually etc., are astounding between even a 14 year old and 18 year old. This is why we have a juvenile court system. To completely circumvent that sound logic is absurd. I would argue that it is criminal.
I agree with a previous post that I am not who I was at 14. Not even close. And not what I was at 18 or 25 etc. We learn, we grow, we mature. Society has set the "legal age" at 18, right? So if that's the consensus, let's stop locking kids up as if they were adults. Lock them up as kids for what they are and follow the guidelines we setup to handle things like this when kids break the law.
It's mind-boggling to me. Trying a child as an adult makes as little sense as trying the police in the Rodney King beating as if they were black. The offender is either a child or an adult. At 14 years old, he was clearly a child. Let's not pick and choose when it suits one group's agenda.
Well, to be fair though,
I don't know about everyone else.... But at 14 years old, as immature as I might have been compared to now, I'd know it was WRONG to beat up a person and throw them off a 5 story parkade....
I agree. And I think we can assume that he knew it was WRONG. But did he fully understand the ramifications? I wouldn't think so. Is it easier for a 14 year old to get caught up in the moment or push limits without thinking things through? I think so. There are valid reasons for classifying people as children or adults. A 14 year old is a child....any way you look at it.
Coming from a fathers point of view, if you deliberately end my childs life then you also lose your "right" to live.
At 14 you should understand the ramifications of your actions... You might not understand how that will effect family members, community, your own family, etc.
Though I do agree with an earlier poster that the parents should be punished for crimes like these. If your 10 year old, or 14 year old kills someone, then some of the punishment should fall on the parents.
some of the punishment?? which part did you have in mind? are you speaking incarceration or just a hefty fine?? im assuming that because in these cases the child is incarcerated, thats what you mean for the parent/s as well. and which parent.. mother??... father??... both??
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I have no issue with this. animals need to be caged.
And along the same lines as Byrnzie's post, I would argue that it would take an animal to put a child in a cage for the rest of his or her life.
The point here is that at only 14 years old, none of us knew what we know now. The jumps in maturity, physically, emotionally, spiritually etc., are astounding between even a 14 year old and 18 year old. This is why we have a juvenile court system. To completely circumvent that sound logic is absurd. I would argue that it is criminal.
I agree with a previous post that I am not who I was at 14. Not even close. And not what I was at 18 or 25 etc. We learn, we grow, we mature. Society has set the "legal age" at 18, right? So if that's the consensus, let's stop locking kids up as if they were adults. Lock them up as kids for what they are and follow the guidelines we setup to handle things like this when kids break the law.
It's mind-boggling to me. Trying a child as an adult makes as little sense as trying the police in the Rodney King beating as if they were black. The offender is either a child or an adult. At 14 years old, he was clearly a child. Let's not pick and choose when it suits one group's agenda.
the whole idea behind moving a "child" up to adult court is the fact that you are allowing the law to treat each offender on a case-by-case basis. if you draw the line at a specific age, down to the date, then the law is more flawed. you can't assume that everyone is at the exact same mental/emotional/physical maturity level at the same age.
by your logic, then someone who also got convicted of a horrible crime at age 30 is not the same person as they are at age 50, so hey, let's turn em loose!
I am 36. Am I the same person I was at 14? Of course not. But you know what? I, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTACES, EVER would have callously thrown someone to their death. that person deserves special treatment in the courts.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I agree. And I think we can assume that he knew it was WRONG. But did he fully understand the ramifications? I wouldn't think so. Is it easier for a 14 year old to get caught up in the moment or push limits without thinking things through? I think so. There are valid reasons for classifying people as children or adults. A 14 year old is a child....any way you look at it.
a 14 year old is not a child, actually. 2 years away from being legally allowed to be in sole charge of a thousand pounds of metal at mind-boggling speeds............4 years away from being able to injest alcohol unsupervised..........1 or 2 years away from being able to hold down a job.........legally allowed to have sex with someone of the same age............is that a child to you?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I agree. And I think we can assume that he knew it was WRONG. But did he fully understand the ramifications? I wouldn't think so. Is it easier for a 14 year old to get caught up in the moment or push limits without thinking things through? I think so. There are valid reasons for classifying people as children or adults. A 14 year old is a child....any way you look at it.
a 14 year old is not a child, actually. 2 years away from being legally allowed to be in sole charge of a thousand pounds of metal at mind-boggling speeds............4 years away from being able to injest alcohol unsupervised..........1 or 2 years away from being able to hold down a job.........legally allowed to have sex with someone of the same age............is that a child to you?
Ummm....yeah. You pretty much proved my point. X amount of YEARS away from doing those things.
Oh and btw, the dictionary disagrees with your definition of child too.
child
[chahyld]
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth
I agree. And I think we can assume that he knew it was WRONG. But did he fully understand the ramifications? I wouldn't think so. Is it easier for a 14 year old to get caught up in the moment or push limits without thinking things through? I think so. There are valid reasons for classifying people as children or adults. A 14 year old is a child....any way you look at it.
a 14 year old is not a child, actually. 2 years away from being legally allowed to be in sole charge of a thousand pounds of metal at mind-boggling speeds............4 years away from being able to injest alcohol unsupervised..........1 or 2 years away from being able to hold down a job.........legally allowed to have sex with someone of the same age............is that a child to you?
i live with a 14 year old and hes far from being an adult. and if hes far from being an adult that means hes a child.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I agree. And I think we can assume that he knew it was WRONG. But did he fully understand the ramifications? I wouldn't think so. Is it easier for a 14 year old to get caught up in the moment or push limits without thinking things through? I think so. There are valid reasons for classifying people as children or adults. A 14 year old is a child....any way you look at it.
You posted you have a 9 year old. What if your child would have been the victim? In such case, what if you would have witnessed such crime? In such anger many of us, I believe, being adults, would have choked the 14 year old to death. How would you sentence yourself or any other parent?
Of course, I am talking hipothecaly, but comes to show how a court or judge can "bend" the law accordingly. If it were up to me, I would have in mind my unborn child, my brother, my dad, and my grandfather. If that kid would have escaped, I wonder how regreted he would have been. But I am no judge and for a good reason I guess. I would have beaten the crap out of him!
I have no issue with this. animals need to be caged.
And along the same lines as Byrnzie's post, I would argue that it would take an animal to put a child in a cage for the rest of his or her life.
The point here is that at only 14 years old, none of us knew what we know now. The jumps in maturity, physically, emotionally, spiritually etc., are astounding between even a 14 year old and 18 year old. This is why we have a juvenile court system. To completely circumvent that sound logic is absurd. I would argue that it is criminal.
I agree with a previous post that I am not who I was at 14. Not even close. And not what I was at 18 or 25 etc. We learn, we grow, we mature. Society has set the "legal age" at 18, right? So if that's the consensus, let's stop locking kids up as if they were adults. Lock them up as kids for what they are and follow the guidelines we setup to handle things like this when kids break the law.
It's mind-boggling to me. Trying a child as an adult makes as little sense as trying the police in the Rodney King beating as if they were black. The offender is either a child or an adult. At 14 years old, he was clearly a child. Let's not pick and choose when it suits one group's agenda.
the whole idea behind moving a "child" up to adult court is the fact that you are allowing the law to treat each offender on a case-by-case basis. if you draw the line at a specific age, down to the date, then the law is more flawed. you can't assume that everyone is at the exact same mental/emotional/physical maturity level at the same age.
by your logic, then someone who also got convicted of a horrible crime at age 30 is not the same person as they are at age 50, so hey, let's turn em loose!
I am 36. Am I the same person I was at 14? Of course not. But you know what? I, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTACES, EVER would have callously thrown someone to their death. that person deserves special treatment in the courts.
No, I am not saying that a 50 year old should be punished differently than a 30 year old. I am making the distinction between children and adults. How are you people not able to understand this?
I cannot say with 100% certainty that the "legal" age nationwide is 18. But it was my understanding that until the age of 18, a person is considered a MINOR. To my knowledge, this includes not being able to enter into contracts, needing a parent's or guardian's consent on many things rather than just being able to make all of his or her own decisions. I am saying that there is a reason we have set the line at 18. A child should know right from wrong if he or she was raised by responsible parents. But the mental capacity to understand all that may be involved in making such a terrible decision probably isn't fully there at the age of 14.
I understand that apparently this kid wasn't a model citizen in jail or in court. I personally wouldn't let that influence the sentencing from the horrible crime he committed years ago. He obviously is troubled and I am in no way saying to turn him loose. But I think he should have the opportunity to be free again someday.
I agree. And I think we can assume that he knew it was WRONG. But did he fully understand the ramifications? I wouldn't think so. Is it easier for a 14 year old to get caught up in the moment or push limits without thinking things through? I think so. There are valid reasons for classifying people as children or adults. A 14 year old is a child....any way you look at it.
You posted you have a 9 year old. What if your child would have been the victim? In such case, what if you would have witnessed such crime? In such anger many of us, I believe, being adults, would have choked the 14 year old to death. How would you sentence yourself or any other parent?
Of course, I am talking hipothecaly, but comes to show how a court or judge can "bend" the law accordingly. If it were up to me, I would have in mind my unborn child, my brother, my dad, and my grandfather. If that kid would have escaped, I wonder how regreted he would have been. But I am no judge and for a good reason I guess. I would have beaten the crap out of him!
Well...witnessing the murder has nothing to do with this so I'm gonna pass on that one.
Had my daughter been murdered by a 14 year old I would obviously be heartbroken. Probably impossible to even guess at this....but I don't believe in vengeance and I truly don't think I would want a child locked up for the rest of his life. I would do my best to forgive. As a staunch protester of the death penalty, this is something I have already spent much time considering. Even though this is life without parole, I don't think it's a huge leap to apply what I have already figured out regarding revenge vs. forgiveness (or maybe even just moving on at some point)
Oh and btw, the dictionary disagrees with your definition of child too.
child
[chahyld]
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth
weak. by that definition, the law is then wrong as well. if you are an adult at 18, that is incorrect according to the dictionary. you aren't physically full grown at 18.
try again.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I am saying that there is a reason we have set the line at 18. A child should know right from wrong if he or she was raised by responsible parents. But the mental capacity to understand all that may be involved in making such a terrible decision probably isn't fully there at the age of 14.
This is wrong, man. I have a neigbhor that have always been wonderful parents. They have two daughters and a son, who is the youngest.
The girls, both, have been drug addicts, one got preagnant underage. Both of them have tried to commit suicide at least three times each. The boy has witnessed all of this. He is a straight A student. He is currently in college and will become an engineer. I must add, they are a wealthy family.
How can someone judge the parenting? Obviously, the 14-year old murderer had bad parents, so the article says. But you shouldn´t blame the parents all the time.
14 years old. A normal kid knows right from wrong. If the defense would have tried making point that he was drunk off his ass, or high as hell, that would be different. Who gave him booze or cocaine? If it would have been the case.
I understand what you're saying Eliot, but it's as simple as this.
Big Boy Crime = Big Boy Time
Minors are tried as adults from time to time, and it is done on a case to case basis, that takes into account many factors.
As for whether or not his actions in jail or court should be taken into account, that's the way the justice system works in many cases. It is mainly done to establish the defendants character. A pre-trial investigation is conducted, and your behavior between the time the crime was committed and sentencing is taken into account. Whether somebody was cooperative with the police or not, and taken responsibility for their actions. All of these things are taken into account, as they should be. Otherwise a judge would have no other job than to just point to a mandatory sentence in a law book and give it to you. Most people try to use this to get some leniency, deserved or not. Cooperate, show the judge respect instead of threatening him, etc.
There are some crimes that minors (as long as they aren't little kids) are almost always tried as adults for. And if a teenager commits a murder, you can usually bet they'll be tried as an adult. As for not letting minors enter into contracts, and other legal measures taken with minors, that is to protect them from being taken advantage of.
I don't even know if there is a sentencing guideline or procedure for trying a minor for murder, other than to do it as an adult. I think that the reasoning is that if you've decided to step up to the plate and think you are big enough to decide who lives and dies, then you've outgrown your OshKosh B'Gosh overalls and stepped into your big boy pants.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
I agree with a previous post that I am not who I was at 14. Not even close. And not what I was at 18 or 25 etc. We learn, we grow, we mature. Society has set the "legal age" at 18, right? So if that's the consensus, let's stop locking kids up as if they were adults. Lock them up as kids for what they are and follow the guidelines we setup to handle things like this when kids break the law.
It's mind-boggling to me. Trying a child as an adult makes as little sense as trying the police in the Rodney King beating as if they were black. The offender is either a child or an adult. At 14 years old, he was clearly a child. Let's not pick and choose when it suits one group's agenda.
No, I am not saying that a 50 year old should be punished differently than a 30 year old. I am making the distinction between children and adults. How are you people not able to understand this?
actually, you specifically made the distinction as well between an adult and a slightly older adult. you made that comparison first.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Well...witnessing the murder has nothing to do with this so I'm gonna pass on that one.
Had my daughter been murdered by a 14 year old I would obviously be heartbroken. Probably impossible to even guess at this....but I don't believe in vengeance and I truly don't think I would want a child locked up for the rest of his life. I would do my best to forgive. As a staunch protester of the death penalty, this is something I have already spent much time considering. Even though this is life without parole, I don't think it's a huge leap to apply what I have already figured out regarding revenge vs. forgiveness (or maybe even just moving on at some point)
Well I was only trying to set how a judge can bend the law depending on the case.
You against death penalty is why we differ in this case from the start. I see your point but i don´t agree.
I understand what you're saying Eliot, but it's as simple as this.
Big Boy Crime = Big Boy Time
Minors are tried as adults from time to time, and it is done on a case to case basis, that takes into account many factors.
As for whether or not his actions in jail or court should be taken into account, that's the way the justice system works in many cases. It is mainly done to establish the defendants character. A pre-trial investigation is conducted, and your behavior between the time the crime was committed and sentencing is taken into account. Whether somebody was cooperative with the police or not, and taken responsibility for their actions. All of these things are taken into account, as they should be. Otherwise a judge would have no other job than to just point to a mandatory sentence in a law book and give it to you. Most people try to use this to get some leniency, deserved or not. Cooperate, show the judge respect instead of threatening him, etc.
There are some crimes that minors (as long as they aren't little kids) are almost always tried as adults for. And if a teenager commits a murder, you can usually bet they'll be tried as an adult. As for not letting minors enter into contracts, and other legal measures taken with minors, that is to protect them from being taken advantage of.
I don't even know if there is a sentencing guideline or procedure for trying a minor for murder, other than to do it as an adult. I think that the reasoning is that if you've decided to step up to the plate and think you are big enough to decide who lives and dies, then you've outgrown your OshKosh B'Gosh overalls and stepped into your big boy pants.
My point is that it is OBVIOUS that a 14 year old is a child. If there is no way to prosecute a 14 year old murderer in juvenile court then that is a fundamental flaw IMO. I understand that you feel there needs to be flexibility in the laws. I'm not sure whether I agree with that or not. You may be right. But even if it isn't black and white all of the time, I believe it should be when it comes to children vs. adults.
Age plays such a huge part in our laws. Ask the kid who just turned 18 and gets thrown in prison for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. It has happened. And while I think that is far less severe than an 18 year old having sex with a 12 year old, I think the line does have to be drawn somewhere and in most cases, most states, most issues regarding minors vs. adults, we have drawn that line at 18.
Now, regarding the highlighted text above....don't you think there is a reason that society feels the need to write laws in order to protect minors? Could it be that they are not capable of making many of their own decisions and therefore not ready to accept responsibility for those decisions? Or maybe aren't capable of understanding the full scope of those decisions? Why else would we have to protect minors (under 18) aka children from being taken advantage of?
I agree with a previous post that I am not who I was at 14. Not even close. And not what I was at 18 or 25 etc. We learn, we grow, we mature. Society has set the "legal age" at 18, right? So if that's the consensus, let's stop locking kids up as if they were adults. Lock them up as kids for what they are and follow the guidelines we setup to handle things like this when kids break the law.
It's mind-boggling to me. Trying a child as an adult makes as little sense as trying the police in the Rodney King beating as if they were black. The offender is either a child or an adult. At 14 years old, he was clearly a child. Let's not pick and choose when it suits one group's agenda.
No, I am not saying that a 50 year old should be punished differently than a 30 year old. I am making the distinction between children and adults. How are you people not able to understand this?
actually, you specifically made the distinction as well between an adult and a slightly older adult. you made that comparison first.
I wasn't saying that adults should be punished differently based on their age. That's not even close to what I am saying. I am saying that CHILDREN shouldn't be treated the same as ADULTS. If you still don't understand then please re-read the thread from the start. Someone else made a good post and mine was along those lines....that I am not who I was at 14 or 25 etc and the point is that he's been locked up since 14 so maybe when he's 40 or 50 or 60 he will have changed, realized the horrible things he has done, and possibly deserves another chance in society.
Now, regarding the highlighted text above....don't you think there is a reason that society feels the need to write laws in order to protect minors? Could it be that they are not capable of making many of their own decisions and therefore not ready to accept responsibility for those decisions? Or maybe aren't capable of understanding the full scope of those decisions? Why else would we have to protect minors (under 18) aka children from being taken advantage of?
Contract law is a complicated thing, and many full grown adults are capable of being tricked by deviously worded contracts and the like, not just children. I think one of the big reasons that a guardian is needed is to keep a minor from entering into a contract that could become the parents responsibility.
Contracts can be confusing to anybody. Hell, I'm a grown man who recently discovered some small print in my cable contract that I wasn't aware of that has me bent over a barrel. But I don't think anybody is confused by what happens when you kill another human being.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
I wasn't saying that adults should be punished differently based on their age. That's not even close to what I am saying. I am saying that CHILDREN shouldn't be treated the same as ADULTS. If you still don't understand then please re-read the thread from the start. Someone else made a good post and mine was along those lines....that I am not who I was at 14 or 25 etc and the point is that he's been locked up since 14 so maybe when he's 40 or 50 or 60 he will have changed, realized the horrible things he has done, and possibly deserves another chance in society.
please stop with the talking down "if you don't understand...." garbage. it's getting tired. I understand very well what you are saying. and I don't agree. everyone matures, everyone changes, not just minors. you can't just draw the line at a certain date on every case and say "sorry, I don't care that tomorrow is his 18th birthday, he committed this murder at 17 years and 364 days, so he's a child". BULLSHIT. there has to be flexibility or the law does not work. if flexibility wasn't allowed, there would be no sentencing, just "this crime = this punishment". that doesn't happen. there are guidelines to follow, but the law allows for flexibility based on the specific case.
in no way am I saying that this should be the norm. bringing a 14 year old up to adult court should be used sparingly, and it is (at least where I am). this is an extreme case.
I knew at 14 the ramifications of throwing someone to their death. I'd go to jail for life.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i live with a 14 year old and hes far from being an adult. and if hes far from being an adult that means hes a child.
yes, YOUR 14 year old may be a child. this 14 year old may not be. maturity is all based on life experience. I'm guessing your 14 year old has a MUCH different upbringing and day to day life than this one.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I wasn't saying that adults should be punished differently based on their age. That's not even close to what I am saying. I am saying that CHILDREN shouldn't be treated the same as ADULTS. If you still don't understand then please re-read the thread from the start. Someone else made a good post and mine was along those lines....that I am not who I was at 14 or 25 etc and the point is that he's been locked up since 14 so maybe when he's 40 or 50 or 60 he will have changed, realized the horrible things he has done, and possibly deserves another chance in society.
please stop with the talking down "if you don't understand...." garbage. it's getting tired. I understand very well what you are saying. and I don't agree. everyone matures, everyone changes, not just minors. you can't just draw the line at a certain date on every case and say "sorry, I don't care that tomorrow is his 18th birthday, he committed this murder at 17 years and 364 days, so he's a child". BULLSHIT. there has to be flexibility or the law does not work. if flexibility wasn't allowed, there would be no sentencing, just "this crime = this punishment". that doesn't happen. there are guidelines to follow, but the law allows for flexibility based on the specific case.
in no way am I saying that this should be the norm. bringing a 14 year old up to adult court should be used sparingly, and it is (at least where I am). this is an extreme case.
I knew at 14 the ramifications of throwing someone to their death. I'd go to jail for life.
I must apologize for being condescending. I know you understand what I am saying. I am frustrated that some of you folks don't understand that a 14 year old is a child. Or is it that you just don't agree with that either? Honestly, I'm being sincere. Which is it? Are you arguing that a 14 year old isn't a child? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter that he was a child?
i live with a 14 year old and hes far from being an adult. and if hes far from being an adult that means hes a child.
yes, YOUR 14 year old may be a child. this 14 year old may not be. maturity is all based on life experience. I'm guessing your 14 year old has a MUCH different upbringing and day to day life than this one.
And drinking and snorting coke must prove that this 14 year old was mature enough to be labeled as an adult in the courtroom. :?
I must apologize for being condescending. I know you understand what I am saying. I am frustrated that some of you folks don't understand that a 14 year old is a child. Or is it that you just don't agree with that either? Honestly, I'm being sincere. Which is it? Are you arguing that a 14 year old isn't a child? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter that he was a child?
I'm saying that within the context of the crime committed, it was completely acceptable for him to be brought up to adult court.
are you saying that all 14 year olds have the exact same mental state of maturity? age is but a number, my friend, in many cases, nothing more.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I must apologize for being condescending. I know you understand what I am saying. I am frustrated that some of you folks don't understand that a 14 year old is a child. Or is it that you just don't agree with that either? Honestly, I'm being sincere. Which is it? Are you arguing that a 14 year old isn't a child? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter that he was a child?
Here's the way I see it Eliot
14 year old. Child, no. Minor, yes.
It may be splitting hairs, but when I think child, I think little kid. I would call him a teenager, or young man before I call him a child.
As for your last question, I don't think it does matter that he is a minor. The law makes consideration for minors, to an extent. Graffiti, destruction of property, general misbehavior. The law tries to treat minors in a way that will teach them a lesson, punish them, but mostly try to scare them out of acting like little dumbasses.
Murder goes above and beyond that though. If it were a little child who doesn't even understand death, then yes the law will definitely take that into account. Maybe not even do anything, call it an accident. But in a case with a teenager, two months short of being 15, who does know better, then he just stepped up into a whole different class of crime. That is the most heinous crime known to man/woman-kind. The concscious decision to take the life of another human being rises above immaturity, "boys being boys", or whatever.
He knew what he was doing, maybe he didn't understand the seriousness of the punishment, but as with adults, ignorance is no defense. His actions should not be solely governed by what will happen to him, but what would happen to the 13 year old he dropped off the building.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
i live with a 14 year old and hes far from being an adult. and if hes far from being an adult that means hes a child.
yes, YOUR 14 year old may be a child. this 14 year old may not be. maturity is all based on life experience. I'm guessing your 14 year old has a MUCH different upbringing and day to day life than this one.
and yes i agree not all 14 year olds have the same level of maturity. BUT one that kills someone doesnt necessarily have a greater level of maturity than one that doesnt. an action shouldnt determine how mature a child is... nor that they should necessarily be treated as an adult.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
They beat him and chased him up the ramp of a nearby parking garage, where Ninham and a 13-year-old boy beat Vang some more then grabbed him by the ankles and wrists, swung him back and forth over the edge, and let go.
A bystander testified that Vang's 45-foot fall sounded like "a bag of wet cement hitting the pavement."
Life without parole is fitting...funny how some worry so much about the killer and easily forget the victim...
I think the in depth info that Satan's Futon posted sheds some light that this convicted murderer is still as big of an evil dick today as he was at 14.
Comments
Well, while 18 is the legal voting age, it is not the national age of criminal responsibility. It is 18 in some states, but in many states (including Wisconsin) you are considered mature enough to be responsible for your own actions at 17. The young man in question here was a few months shy of his 17th b-day when he was sentenced. And as I said before (well I didn't really say it, I was quoting the court documents) his sentence was based on his continued actions up until his sentencing. It wasn't solely based on what he did as a 14 year old. The other kid in the case, who seems to be pretty much equally responsible, did not get the same sentence. He still got a chunk of a sentence, but not life without parole. Omer's sentence reflects his actions since the murder, including threatening witnesses and the judge. And it would appear that at age 26 he continues to act like a dong-hole. They didn't throw some little kid wearing his Pokemon pajamas into a cage, and the sentence was not solely based on what he did at 14.
And there has to be some flexibility in the law. Just as they bent the law to punish this kid as an adult, they make exceptions for people as well. There are loopholes and consideration that benefit people. Mentally handicapped people often get different treatment, yes they are technically adults who committed a crime, and don't get off completely, but their mental capacity is taken into account, sometimes. The law is not black and white, and they felt this young man (about to be an adult) needed to be punished as an adult. What would you say they do to a "kid" who commits a crime a few days before his birthday when he turns legally into an adult? If the legal age in your state is 18, and a person commits a crime when he is 17 years, 11 months and 364 days old, should he still be put on trial as a minor? In this case he was almost 15, and on the verge of being an adult (17 in WI) when sentenced, but they felt what he did was more serious than what they could legally do to him as a minor. Whether it was "right" or not is debatable (this thread is evidence of that) but it is not absurd. Dropping a human being to their death is absurd. Being tried as a minor is there for people who actually don't know any better, not as a loophole to do what you want and get a slap on the wrist.
I understand we all grow, and see the error of our ways as we get older. As somebody else said, they can look back at themselves as recently as 30 years old and see how much they've grown since then. But how many second chances can people get? This is real life, with real consequenses, at what point do we draw the line? Killing somebody is serious business. Yes we all grow up, but if somebody killed one of our loved ones then got himself a little Jailhouse Jesus, few of us would care or trust him/her to re-enter society, or want him/her to do so, just because they're smarter now. We all make decisions in life we have to live with. This kid made one. And after he made it, he continued to make bad decisions. If he just screwed up at age 14, then showed remorse, attempted to make amends and took responsibility for his actions, we probably wouldn't be discussing this case. Much the same way we aren't talking about the other kid in the case. The closest this kid came to even an apology was to say that he could understand why the family was upset, but there was nothing he could do about it now. As true as it may be, it is not what the family (and he did say it in response to a speech given by the victim's brother) wants to hear. Basically saying what's done is done and let's just move on. If he's not even making an effort for himself, why should the legal system make an effort to put him back on the street?
It is easy to sit here and call the judge an "asshole" when we have never met the guy. Who knows, if we were to sit down and talk to him he might tell us it was a decision that kept him up nights, and tell us how and why he went with the life without parole judgement. He has looked into the kids eyes, talked to him, been threatened by him, and it is possible that he came to his decision out of concern for the safety of himself and others. Not just to be a douche. I think the WM3 case has really jaded a lot of us when it comes to the justice system, but I think the bad guy here is the murderer and not the judge who came down with a harsh sentence.
It would be nice to be able to rehabilitate all criminals, help them see the error of their ways, and put them back into society, to make them honest/productive people and not keep them locked up in cages. And while it can work for some, as a general philosophy it is naive. And it is easy to sit from afar and say that we shouldn't keep murderes locked up forever because people can change, to be an armchair philosopher and point out the problems of the criminal justice system. But these are real problems, and people are really dead. I'm betting nobody here runs a halfway house out of their home that takes in convicted murderers. I can sit here and say "it's wrong, he learned his lesson, let him out", but I bet I would change my tune if they released him into my neighborhood. I'm not saying that I want everybody locked up forever, but when it comes to murder, I don't think it makes anybody an animal for supporting it. Releasing a murderer is gambling with other peoples lives.
Contrary to what has been said, this was not a "little kid" (he was 2 months shy of 15) who didn't understand what he was doing. He was legally a minor, but old enough to know what he was doing, while 14-15 is a minor, I don't consider them "little kids". Yes a 14-15 year old is immature, but knows that you don't kill another human being. He did something terrible, and as an adult appears to still be a terrible person. I'm pretty sure all of us on this board managed not to commit murder when we were kids/teenagers. Because we knew better, and he knew better. I think the key thing to remember when discussing this case is his age when sentenced. They did not toss a 14 year old kid in the state pen. He was on the verge of being legally adult. The imagery of a small child being tossed in prison is being used here, as if some little kid with a teddy bear was tossed in a cell with Dennis Rader, when it is simply not true. He commited the crime at 14, not thrown into Oz at 14. By the time he landed in the penitentiary he was legally an adult, and now at 26 still a dickhead by all accounts, apparently wearing this kids murder as a feather in his cap. That may be posturing for the sake of survival in prison, trying to act tough, but it doesn't help his case.
At 14 you should understand the ramifications of your actions... You might not understand how that will effect family members, community, your own family, etc.
some of the punishment?? which part did you have in mind? are you speaking incarceration or just a hefty fine?? im assuming that because in these cases the child is incarcerated, thats what you mean for the parent/s as well. and which parent.. mother??... father??... both??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the whole idea behind moving a "child" up to adult court is the fact that you are allowing the law to treat each offender on a case-by-case basis. if you draw the line at a specific age, down to the date, then the law is more flawed. you can't assume that everyone is at the exact same mental/emotional/physical maturity level at the same age.
by your logic, then someone who also got convicted of a horrible crime at age 30 is not the same person as they are at age 50, so hey, let's turn em loose!
I am 36. Am I the same person I was at 14? Of course not. But you know what? I, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTACES, EVER would have callously thrown someone to their death. that person deserves special treatment in the courts.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
a 14 year old is not a child, actually. 2 years away from being legally allowed to be in sole charge of a thousand pounds of metal at mind-boggling speeds............4 years away from being able to injest alcohol unsupervised..........1 or 2 years away from being able to hold down a job.........legally allowed to have sex with someone of the same age............is that a child to you?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Oh and btw, the dictionary disagrees with your definition of child too.
child
[chahyld]
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth
i live with a 14 year old and hes far from being an adult. and if hes far from being an adult that means hes a child.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You posted you have a 9 year old. What if your child would have been the victim? In such case, what if you would have witnessed such crime? In such anger many of us, I believe, being adults, would have choked the 14 year old to death. How would you sentence yourself or any other parent?
Of course, I am talking hipothecaly, but comes to show how a court or judge can "bend" the law accordingly. If it were up to me, I would have in mind my unborn child, my brother, my dad, and my grandfather. If that kid would have escaped, I wonder how regreted he would have been. But I am no judge and for a good reason I guess. I would have beaten the crap out of him!
I cannot say with 100% certainty that the "legal" age nationwide is 18. But it was my understanding that until the age of 18, a person is considered a MINOR. To my knowledge, this includes not being able to enter into contracts, needing a parent's or guardian's consent on many things rather than just being able to make all of his or her own decisions. I am saying that there is a reason we have set the line at 18. A child should know right from wrong if he or she was raised by responsible parents. But the mental capacity to understand all that may be involved in making such a terrible decision probably isn't fully there at the age of 14.
I understand that apparently this kid wasn't a model citizen in jail or in court. I personally wouldn't let that influence the sentencing from the horrible crime he committed years ago. He obviously is troubled and I am in no way saying to turn him loose. But I think he should have the opportunity to be free again someday.
Had my daughter been murdered by a 14 year old I would obviously be heartbroken. Probably impossible to even guess at this....but I don't believe in vengeance and I truly don't think I would want a child locked up for the rest of his life. I would do my best to forgive. As a staunch protester of the death penalty, this is something I have already spent much time considering. Even though this is life without parole, I don't think it's a huge leap to apply what I have already figured out regarding revenge vs. forgiveness (or maybe even just moving on at some point)
weak. by that definition, the law is then wrong as well. if you are an adult at 18, that is incorrect according to the dictionary. you aren't physically full grown at 18.
try again.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This is wrong, man. I have a neigbhor that have always been wonderful parents. They have two daughters and a son, who is the youngest.
The girls, both, have been drug addicts, one got preagnant underage. Both of them have tried to commit suicide at least three times each. The boy has witnessed all of this. He is a straight A student. He is currently in college and will become an engineer. I must add, they are a wealthy family.
How can someone judge the parenting? Obviously, the 14-year old murderer had bad parents, so the article says. But you shouldn´t blame the parents all the time.
14 years old. A normal kid knows right from wrong. If the defense would have tried making point that he was drunk off his ass, or high as hell, that would be different. Who gave him booze or cocaine? If it would have been the case.
Big Boy Crime = Big Boy Time
Minors are tried as adults from time to time, and it is done on a case to case basis, that takes into account many factors.
As for whether or not his actions in jail or court should be taken into account, that's the way the justice system works in many cases. It is mainly done to establish the defendants character. A pre-trial investigation is conducted, and your behavior between the time the crime was committed and sentencing is taken into account. Whether somebody was cooperative with the police or not, and taken responsibility for their actions. All of these things are taken into account, as they should be. Otherwise a judge would have no other job than to just point to a mandatory sentence in a law book and give it to you. Most people try to use this to get some leniency, deserved or not. Cooperate, show the judge respect instead of threatening him, etc.
There are some crimes that minors (as long as they aren't little kids) are almost always tried as adults for. And if a teenager commits a murder, you can usually bet they'll be tried as an adult. As for not letting minors enter into contracts, and other legal measures taken with minors, that is to protect them from being taken advantage of.
I don't even know if there is a sentencing guideline or procedure for trying a minor for murder, other than to do it as an adult. I think that the reasoning is that if you've decided to step up to the plate and think you are big enough to decide who lives and dies, then you've outgrown your OshKosh B'Gosh overalls and stepped into your big boy pants.
actually, you specifically made the distinction as well between an adult and a slightly older adult. you made that comparison first.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Well I was only trying to set how a judge can bend the law depending on the case.
You against death penalty is why we differ in this case from the start. I see your point but i don´t agree.
Age plays such a huge part in our laws. Ask the kid who just turned 18 and gets thrown in prison for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. It has happened. And while I think that is far less severe than an 18 year old having sex with a 12 year old, I think the line does have to be drawn somewhere and in most cases, most states, most issues regarding minors vs. adults, we have drawn that line at 18.
Now, regarding the highlighted text above....don't you think there is a reason that society feels the need to write laws in order to protect minors? Could it be that they are not capable of making many of their own decisions and therefore not ready to accept responsibility for those decisions? Or maybe aren't capable of understanding the full scope of those decisions? Why else would we have to protect minors (under 18) aka children from being taken advantage of?
Contract law is a complicated thing, and many full grown adults are capable of being tricked by deviously worded contracts and the like, not just children. I think one of the big reasons that a guardian is needed is to keep a minor from entering into a contract that could become the parents responsibility.
Contracts can be confusing to anybody. Hell, I'm a grown man who recently discovered some small print in my cable contract that I wasn't aware of that has me bent over a barrel. But I don't think anybody is confused by what happens when you kill another human being.
please stop with the talking down "if you don't understand...." garbage. it's getting tired. I understand very well what you are saying. and I don't agree. everyone matures, everyone changes, not just minors. you can't just draw the line at a certain date on every case and say "sorry, I don't care that tomorrow is his 18th birthday, he committed this murder at 17 years and 364 days, so he's a child". BULLSHIT. there has to be flexibility or the law does not work. if flexibility wasn't allowed, there would be no sentencing, just "this crime = this punishment". that doesn't happen. there are guidelines to follow, but the law allows for flexibility based on the specific case.
in no way am I saying that this should be the norm. bringing a 14 year old up to adult court should be used sparingly, and it is (at least where I am). this is an extreme case.
I knew at 14 the ramifications of throwing someone to their death. I'd go to jail for life.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
yes, YOUR 14 year old may be a child. this 14 year old may not be. maturity is all based on life experience. I'm guessing your 14 year old has a MUCH different upbringing and day to day life than this one.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm saying that within the context of the crime committed, it was completely acceptable for him to be brought up to adult court.
are you saying that all 14 year olds have the exact same mental state of maturity? age is but a number, my friend, in many cases, nothing more.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Here's the way I see it Eliot
14 year old. Child, no. Minor, yes.
It may be splitting hairs, but when I think child, I think little kid. I would call him a teenager, or young man before I call him a child.
As for your last question, I don't think it does matter that he is a minor. The law makes consideration for minors, to an extent. Graffiti, destruction of property, general misbehavior. The law tries to treat minors in a way that will teach them a lesson, punish them, but mostly try to scare them out of acting like little dumbasses.
Murder goes above and beyond that though. If it were a little child who doesn't even understand death, then yes the law will definitely take that into account. Maybe not even do anything, call it an accident. But in a case with a teenager, two months short of being 15, who does know better, then he just stepped up into a whole different class of crime. That is the most heinous crime known to man/woman-kind. The concscious decision to take the life of another human being rises above immaturity, "boys being boys", or whatever.
He knew what he was doing, maybe he didn't understand the seriousness of the punishment, but as with adults, ignorance is no defense. His actions should not be solely governed by what will happen to him, but what would happen to the 13 year old he dropped off the building.
and yes i agree not all 14 year olds have the same level of maturity. BUT one that kills someone doesnt necessarily have a greater level of maturity than one that doesnt. an action shouldnt determine how mature a child is... nor that they should necessarily be treated as an adult.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Life without parole is fitting...funny how some worry so much about the killer and easily forget the victim...