US court approves life without parole for 14-year-old

Eliot Rosewater

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

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.

Eliot Rosewater

force-10 wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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)

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

force-10

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

SatansFuton

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.

Eliot Rosewater

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

Very good. Then we're in agreement. The law is wrong either way.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

force-10

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

Eliot Rosewater

SatansFuton wrote:

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?

Eliot Rosewater

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

SatansFuton

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

catefrances wrote:

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.

Eliot Rosewater

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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?

Eliot Rosewater

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

catefrances wrote:

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. :?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

SatansFuton

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

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.

catefrances

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

catefrances wrote:

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.

inmytree

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...

Jason P

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.