I'm sure he knows X is Right and Y is wrong, but that doesn't mean he was capable of the forethought required to understand the consequences of doing X right or Y wrong. I'm saying that a young kid may know something is wrong, but ''wrong'' may mean nothing to him besides the act of not wanting to get grounded. Have you ever seen kids playing? They can be really cruel, as Rhekarid, I think it was, said, those rocks being thrown would just as easily have been guns being fired in some situations. There is a reason parents have to keep a close eye on children as they grow up, because they can and will go wrong. In this case it was extremely tragic, and the kid will be given due punishment, but my whole point is that the ''advlt crime, advlt time'' statement is absolutely stupid and is just catering to the mob mentality very clearly evident in this thread.

Cases like these make me glad we have a fine justice system. Gutreactions and massive calls for lynching are not what's needed in such a situation. It's a tricky situation, on the one hand you have a person who's murdered, on the other hand he's only 12. Does that in any way excuse what he has done? I think not. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know that once he pulled that trigger, she would be dead.
But does he grasp the full concept and the consequences of his actions? I think not. Why? Because he's 12. There's a lot more to death than 'POP,you're gone forever' that I don't think a 12-year old can comprehend.

The boy should obviously be punished, but he should also receive help. Judging from the article the boy has hardly any idea of what is happening to him. He should learn and be able to understand the full consequences of his actions. Throwing him in jail without him ever properly understanding what it is he did will just help create another criminal.

I think the point being made is that those things have not been proved yet. Thank God for lawyers again.

And he was 12, he hunted and knew what death was, if he knew it was wrong why do it ? And he made himself a criminal the moment he pulled the trigger.

Eh, the whole prison system is whacked anyway. Locking people up is not a solution. Locking them up and educating/reforming them is. As it stands, a lot of petty thieves come out hardened criminals. It's a shame that the current jail system svcks so much. Because in this case, there is no winning. Send the kid to jail and society's safe, but he doesn't get reformed. Don't send him to jail he might get therapy and learn that it's wrong, but his actions wouldn't have had consequence. There is no winning here.

I don't get how everyone thinks 12 is so young. That is your first year of highschool. If you don't know right from wrong and realize there are consequences for your actions by then, you really shouldn't be out in public. It doesn't matter if it is his fault or his parents/societies for not teaching him. The fact of the matter is for whatever reason he doesn't realize murder is wrong. Lock him up. Yes, try and rehabilitate. But just because he is young doesn't mean you go easy on him. And actually rehabilitate. Not what they try around here, which is "rehabilitate" then release with a high risk to re-offend. Which is as far as I will go without getting in politics.

8th grade is still middle school in america.
Im 15 and a freshmen.

OK, lets take another look at this

Most murders are one offs committed for personal reasons

I can't stand my wife/husband/mother's new boyfriend/father's new girlfriend etc

People who commit this type of murder rarely commit another murder unlike six crimes/professional criminals/terrorists

Does it make sense to treat the murderers that are unlikely to repeat crimes in the same way as other murderers?

Mob mentality? It's called getting punished for being a [censored]. I don't really care if you are 12, 34, or 90. You kill, you get punished.


For the sake of argument we are assuming he did it.

EDIT: Yes, Amazon Queen, murderers don't get the benefit of the doubt.

Not always. Where I went to school (in America) 7th grade was High School.

When I was a kid - 10 or so, on one occasion, I broke a plate on the head of one kid, on another, I smashed a ski stick in the temple of another one. With next to zero provocation in both instances.

Did I know it was wrong when I did it ? Yes. Did it prevent me from doing it ? No.
When did I understand and feel the consequences of my actions ? When I had a bloody kid crying in front of me.

IF he's guilty, I don't say he should go free - even more so if he acted without little understanding of what he was doing. Gotta make sure he does understand. But yes, he is a child, and it does mean something. Kids aren't allowed to do a number of things until 18 for a reason - because somehow, society thinks a developping being is well, developping, and that means they shouldn't be loose in society before a reasonable amount of years tells you they have learned and understood enough to go by.

So basically burden of proof only applies to those crimes you decide it does
Unless burden of proof etc apply to all cases we might as well go back to vigilantes

Then he will know the consequences of his actions behind bars. Someone else's life is messed up because of him.

EDIT: Amazon Queen, I am not, nor is anyone else, discussing burden of proof. We are assuming he is guilty for the sake of discussing whether or not something should be done.

Thank you.

When overcome by emotions, kids act, they do not rationalize. There were loads of things my parents didn't want me to do when I was a kid. The only thing preventing me at the time from doing it was the wrath of my parents if they found out. On several occasions I just did it anyway, thinking the benefits would outweigh the yelling of my parents. Did I ever think about why what I did was wrong, aside from being told it was wrong? Not really.

12 is young. It's still in the period in psychological development where they start to think of their actions and parental guidance is still needed for it. If he murdered someone and thought it was wrong at this age, then you can't give him an archaic sentence. He gains his morals from his upbringing and it's mainly his parents who raise him, then his definition of wrong hasn't been strengthened enough to get him to start thinking rationally which would make him refrain from murdering. He hasn't fully gained the ability to think of his actions and their consequences. It's not the kid to blame, it's the parents. This is why the parents take blame and the kid is instead to a social special care unit (Ungdomsanstalt/Ungdomshem in Sweden). You need to take the psychological development of a child into account before you can even begin choosing a penalty.
This is why the upbringing of a child is so damn important. To prevent tragedies like this from happening.

Yes.

it's still the same crime, even if you don't intend to kill someone again.

Upbringing or not, if the kid did it, he should be punished.

I can see lots of future lawyers and judges from this thread.

Not.

Exactly.


Yes, we don't make special circumstances for age.


Discussion the views, not the people sharing them.

What can I say. Thread makes me sad.

Parents give the keys to their car to a 12 years old kid, saying "drive only in the lot", or something. Kid takes the car and drives around the town and kills someone... Where's the fault ?

Parents pour a glass of booze to a kid, saying "one glass can't hurt". Kid when alone drinks himself to hospital. "Oh wait, this is the child's fault, he shouldn't be treated since he drunk himself into a coma" ?

You're basically saying that kids are responsible of what they do, and if they don't understand their actions, then tough luck. Then what's the role, point or responsability of parents ? Aren't they here to make sure the kid can learn about actions and consequences - and that means make mistakes - without hurting or being hurt in the process ?

If he's guilty, I want to know why :
- a 12 years old has his own gun
- why the gun wasn't locked out of access when they were not hunting.

Yet we do for mentally unstable people. What's the difference between a person who's concept of right and wrong and consequences is lacking and a person who's concept of right and wrong and consequences has not yet fully developed?

Well apart from Nextmastermind who just assumes he is guilty

Not by throwing him in jail and eating the key. A social special care unit isn't exactly a punishment, it's treatment. It's the equivalence of hospitals for the sick and mental clinics for the mentally diseased, the only thing changing is that this a mandatory treatment facility for young offenders who have committed a severe crime.

"[S]tate police found 26-year-old Kenzie Houk in her bed with a bullet though her head." He knew what he was doing.


We do, but it doesn't mean I agree with it.


Again, changing the subject to something that doesn't matter. Please stop.


The severity of the crime is what gets me. Of course he should get the chance for parole, but to not throw him in jail... I wouldn't want my kids or anyone in my family having anything to do with a killer.

I do not appreciate being singled out. I never said the kid was guilty. And I never said he wasn't. When I said I wasn't being hypothetical and was being dead serious, I was saying that IF the kid did it, I am dead serious. Hypothetical implies no chance of it being possible.

So please, don't single me out. It is belittling, insulting, rude, and disrespectful.

I never said we should lock him up and throw away the key. Here's what I said.

By me: