|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Indiana Jones on 12:21 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, a life sentence for a 14/15-YEAR old is a little too much. No question, there has been boys the same age that killed adults and didn't sentence up to life to prison.
But, i applaud the decision, sending a message that females can't get away with crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 01:23 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"In my opinion, a life sentence for a 14/15-YEAR old is a little too much."
Is it? For two premeditated murders? People, even children, need to understand that if they take a life they're going to be in jail for a long, long time.
"But, i applaud the decision, sending a message that females can't get away with crimes."
Agreed and I think that's the main point here. Even the ultra PC group 15 year old lesbians shouldn't be allowed get away with it. Wonder how long before we hear feminists argue that the only real criminal is the guy who sold them the crack, and that these girls are just victims who need help, not imprisonment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 11:50 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
People, even children, need to understand that if they take a life they're going to be in jail for a long, long time.
Politicians tactic #983: complain about a ludicrous statment, even though no one said anything remotely close to it. In other words: try to find one person who said that what they did wasn't wrong or that they don't deserve jail time because of their age.
(hears crickets chirping)
Okay, now that we have that settled, on to why it is wrong to sentence a 15 year old to consecutive life sentences: because they can't vote, among other things. What is a greater responsiblity: being responsible for someone's life, or voting? Being responsible for someone's life, or drinking a beer?
That someone can be sentenced as an adult almost a full decade before they can legally take their first sip of beer is fucked up. If you are considered mature enough to be sentenced as an adult, then you sure has hell are mature enough to vote as one.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 02:37 AM April 17th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you made an incorrect inference from my statement. To repeat what you quoted People, even children, need to understand that if they take a life they're going to be in jail for a long, long time. You go on to say that "In other words: try to find one person who said that what they did wasn't wrong or that they don't deserve jail time because of their age", implying that was what I was trying to accuse the "other side" of saying, (a strawman argument). I know nobody here is saying they weren't wrong, or that they don't deserve to go to jail, and never menat to imply that anyone would. I'm actually surprised that you got that out of my statement, I thought my point was pretty obviously about how long they should be in jail. That is where I think the only disagreement is.
"why it is wrong to sentence a 15 year old to consecutive life sentences: because they can't vote, among other things. What is a greater responsiblity: being responsible for someone's life, or voting? Being responsible for someone's life, or drinking a beer?"
I agree with you that freedom and responsibilities do go hand in hand. And yes it's true that minors have fewer freedoms/rights than adults do. And they also have fewer responsibilities. I think you're being a little misleading though with the phrase "responsible for someone's life". To me, that suggests an active responsibility towards someone else, like a parent could be said to be responsible for their baby's life since they have to feed them, keep them away from danger, provide shelter, etc. That would be a lot to expect out of two girls in their middle teens.
The responsibility in question here would be better phrased as a passive responsibility to avoid murdering people. I don't think that's asking for much and I'm sure you don't either.
So what kind of sentence should they get when they do murder? There's a few questions that are involved in answering that. First, what would be fair? If you take a life, it's reasonable to argue that you owe approximately one life. In this case they took two lives. Secondly, what were the circumstances? This wasn't a case of self defense. These girls hadn't been abused by the grandparents. This wasn't even a case of a heated argument that ended with the girls acting out of rage. This was premeditated murder that had been planned for months of two people who had done nothing but disagree with their granddaughter's choice of lover. Finally, we should look at the deterant factor. In my opinion even kids need a long sentence when they commit murder because it is such a grievous act that I don't want anyone to ever do it thinking that the jailtime would be worth it.
With all that in mind, rather than paying back 2 lives for the 2 they took, (I am against the death penalty by the way, with no exceptions), they are paying with 10 and 20 years of their lives if they get off early on parole which they likely will. Considering the circumstances in which they committed the crimes and the need for a deterant I think that's an appropriate sentence for the teenagers. If they were adults, I would think it a little light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Konovan on 11:06 AM April 17th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
People under 25 can't run for an office of the House of Representatives.
People under 30 can't run for an office of the Senate.
People under 35 can't run for the office of President.
Just because a person isn't eligible to do certain things doesn't mean they get left off the hook when they commit crimes.
Now, there is an argument that young people aren't capable of understanding of what they are doing. For instance, a six-year old kills a friend, but doesn't realize what he was doing. The problem is that some young people definitely are capable of understanding what they are doing (I'm talking about teenagers here). Anyone who is capable of understanding their actions should be punished no matter their age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:18 AM May 8th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I think its being simplified to much.Its not a case of understanding what they are doing.Its a case of understanding the gravity of the situation,even if the intent was to kill.
The're are two different situations that seem to get clumped together.
1.A kid is being actively picked on by another kid or more.The victim of the verbal abuse lashes out and picks up a bat.Then starts swinging deliberitly at their heads.It never crosses the mind of the bat swinger that he might kill them.He just wants to inflict pain.I would put the colinbine shootings in this catagory.It doesnt matter that its premeditated IMO.Its a mindset that these kids are put in.A "no way out situation"
2.A kid is the aggressor.Like say a bully or a kid hating his parents for no logical reasons.
The latter of the two i could understand harsh penalties.
"""People under 25 can't run for an office of the House of Representatives.
People under 30 can't run for an office of the Senate.
People under 35 can't run for the office of President"""
these laws as a defence for "personal freedoms does not equal personal accountability" is crap.Just because we have obscure age limits for offices is not a justification for punishment under adult law.Laws,generally, are set up to restrict personal freedoms that may inflict pain or harm on others.The above laws should be thrown out the window.Really whats the point of having them.I know 20 year olds that are much wiser then 50 year olds.Age does not equal wisdom or intel anymore.
I do think if your going to charge kids as adults at a certain age you should also give them the rights adults have at that age.Its ludicris to charge them because they have a "adult brain" but then say they cant buy liqour because they dont have a "adult brain".
Have it one way or another not "both"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:02 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Note that the concurrent "life sentences" mean that both young women will be eligible for parole in 10 -12 years.
So, they'll both still be young enough to get their lives back, perhaps sucker a man into marrying them, having kids, and then they will not have to murder again in order to destroy.
They can call 9-1-1, or file for divorce, or allege false rape, etc.
These young predators are not going to prison, they're going to SCHOOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:44 PM April 18th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think they would ever marry MEN.
I think they are lesbians, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Holly Harvey. She looks like a mutated Raggedy Ann.
Incidentally, has this story made it out of the main stream media? Or are the sweeping this under the ol' rug, like they do with alot of 'feamle violence' stories?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:47 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Sur did. Saw it on cable news and also on CNN.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 05:04 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
On this news site there is another story to the bottom right about a sailor who had 3 children in his van. The story is a bit confusing but the children were 2 underaged girls and a "boy" age unspecified. The "boy" had sex with one of the girls and has been charged with statutory rape. If this is true and the "boy" is underaged himself then how can he be charged with a sex crime when the sex was mutual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:50 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Because he's male, of course. Could also be he is of the age of consent for males in the state but the girls were not. In any case, the fact that he is the boy doesn't help him at all. He's guilty by default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:56 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
While the article linked to in this story makes it look as if the decision to murder the grandparents was the result of the drugs, (thus trying to justify the murder charge against the man who gave them the drugs), other articles reveal that in fact, this murder had been premeditated a lot longer than that.
"Holly had become increasingly abusive towards them; she had even begun to make death threats. It was so bad that Carl even approached his adopted son, Kevin, sometime in late July and told him that Holly wanted him dead, according to the report.
Neither Holly nor Sandy were secretive about their evil intentions; the girls were brazen enough to tell their friends that they were going to kill Holly's grandparents. Moreover, both girls were actively looking for a gun, asking whomever they knew about how to obtain one so that they could carry out their plans."
Read more here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 07:08 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"While the article linked to in this story makes it look as if the decision to murder the grandparents was the result of the drugs"
My mistake, the article linked to in the original story doesn't mention the drugs. I was thinking of this article about the same story.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Where to begin with