so what happens to deterrence?
we obviously need to be able to distinguish between amateurs and professionals

No we don't! We don't judge someone based on potential. We don't punish people based on what can happen; we use what has happened.

ok, it was just a case of you not understanding what hyperthetical actually means
I apologise for assuming your level of English comprehension was higher than it is

And thus we break into the realm of (justice) philosophy. In the Nordic countries, most of us think a person under the age of criminal responsibility shouldn't be labeled as a criminal. An offence by a person under that age is interpreted as a symptom of a problem in the psychology of the person or the way he's raised.

so again I ask what happens to deterrence?

Mhm, funny because all throughout highschool I was in an advanced English class with an A+.

There is no need to fake apologize and insult me, it just shows how mature you actually are.

Now please read http://www.craphound.com/images/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg

Have a nice day.

Well, in many states in America, there is no floor for the age in which someone can be tried as an advlt.

You're not answering. Isn't the kid's dad legally and morally responsible of his kid's actions ? Shouldn't he be questionned for irresponsability at the very least, leaving full access to a weapon to a child ?

And then, let's assume that the kid is guilty, and understood what he did. What is he, evil ? At 12 ? More likely, he's a psych case. Should be punished, but still not as a sane advlt in the same situation would.

Ever read Lord Of The Flies?

I'd be interested to know what rule you think I've broken

I think he should be punished, not to make him suffer as revenge, but to keep him from endangering other peoples lives. IF he did it that is. If theres a chance of success, let him see a shrink, if theres a possibilty to make an law-abiding person out of him then try to do so. If it doesnt work, keep him somewhere where he cant do any harm.

Maybe he didnt understand how wrong the act was, but it doesnt change the fact that he took 2 lives. And from what you can read it wasnt an accident. And ofcourse hes not the only one to blame, say what you want about firearms, but they are tools for killing. I doubt it was the fathers intention, but still he opened up a door that lead to two deaths. Maybe the mother would have been stabbed to death instead if the kid didnt have access to a gun, but it made things easier.

Yes. But at the same time, parents can't control everything their children do.

:rofl: Now that's me. I should be doing my English homework by now, but this hot debate is too interesting.


Then therein lies the problem. Different philosophies leads to different legal systems which aren't compatible.

Flame bait. You insulted and belittled me. Not cool.

If you were really apologizing all would have been good, but you weren't - you were only insulting me.

Which is one of the reasons why several EU states are reluctent to extradite to the US

Oh yes. The father told his son to kill his fiance...

Yes, the father gave his a rifle. This was indeed a means (better than a knife at least) to kill the woman. But it does not, in the slightest, mean the father should be punished. That's like saying, "Well the mass murderer isn't to blame, the gun-manufacturer is!"

Yes. And that's my whole point exactly... Kids are NOT evil. Kids are little bastards with no brakes who, if left unattended, can be quite barbaric in their impulses - because, we're not born with care and respect and self control built in. And that's why parenting, education exists, to keep that in check, teach them to keep that in check. If the article kid is guilty, then it's lack of parenting. Not a rational decision. Certainly not evil.

He doesn't need punishment. He needs help, in form of a professional social worker and psychologist.

But I did my best not to, but you do make it so easy

When youre 11, its hard to control your feelings. even if he is guilty, i think he should get another chance because hes an adolescent and teens' minds are all weird during that age. its kinda hard to explain.

The prosecutor had a choice, try him as an advlt, or, don't charge him at all. Which do you think was the more prudent choice? If he is guilty, shall we let him get away with murder, because he is 12? What will that teach him? And what kind of advlt do you think that would produce.


I got my first gun when I was 8. A .22 caliber rifle. Not a 'youth' gun, and advlt gun. I never killed anyone with it. It wasn't locked up, it was MY responsibility. It was NEVER loaded unless I was out at the range.

The fact is, in America, guns are legal, and parents decide when a child is given one/allowed to use one. You disagree? Well, that is YOUR choice to make for YOUR children. Don't presume to put your values on the whole world.

Thank You.

I brought that up because I believe the author thought kids could be evil. And I think he's right. In my opinion, the second you learn the difference between right and wrong, which most people learn in Elementary School, you can be "evil." At least to a degree. A 12 year old should know that shooting a pregnant women in the head = bad.

I honestly fail to see how. Because we share different view points? Because I misinterpreted a word? Please, explain.

It's your choice until it starts having an effect on someone else's life.

Giving a gun to a 12 years old and leaving full access to it isn't "can't control everything". It's creating a situation where you can control even less.

Didn't say he told her to kill her fianc?. Said he shouldn't leave access to a weapon to a child. How is that hard to understand ? Do I leave matches near a young child, then go "well, I sure didn't told him to set himself on fire" ?