Fifteen Year Old Girl Stabs, Strangles, and Slits the Throat of a Nine Year Old Girl.

kafka.:

How is giving somebody a lethal injection/etc. not murder?

Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

Lethal injection is not unlawful.

/double

Children have no legal responsibilities, cannot make legal decisions, and their guardians or parents are the one suffering their unlawful acts, for the most part. So they can't have consentual sex, they can't vote, drive etc. At least the those that aren't 16 and up. In the eyes of the law, they have diminished mental capacity and aren't allowed any of these things. Until they turn 18 (16). And I agree, in most cases they aren't mature enough and the law should protect them from their own potentially bad decisions, ignorance or naive opinions.

But if we are disgusted enough with something they've done, the law should change a bit, so that it accomodates our vengeful judgement? And the fact is, that there is no clear rule for when a child is tried as an adult. There is no age limit, there is no specific crime, nothing.

Forget the hypocrisy of it all, the possibility that a child may be tried as adult in a place where capital punishment is still present is as horrible as it is barbaric.

In my opinion, no person under 16 should ever be tried as adult. In this particular case, I think there is something obviously wrong with the girl. Trying her as adult is not only wrong because of her age but probably because of her mental state as well. She doesn't appear to have had any conscious malicious premeditated thought, and probably has underdeveloped sense of right and wrong. She seems extremely apathetic, and I think that if she isn't a mental case (which is unlikely), that it's the parent's fault for not handling her properly. Either way, definitely not tried as adult.

And Sing:

Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

Lethal injection is not unlawful.

But it is premeditated. And only "lawful" because the government decide it's perfectly acceptable to kill another human being.

See, to me this just screams "It's murder...unless the government does it."

Sheepy:

But it is premeditated. And only "lawful" because the government decide it's perfectly acceptable to kill another human being.

See, to me this just screams "It's murder...unless the government does it."

Yes, but it's still lawful, so it's not murder.

^-shrug- If not by their own standards, then my own morals, it's murder. Murder by any other name like "lawful killing" or "capital punishment" is still murder.

...Say this girl was tried as an adult, and found guilty in a state where the death penalty was the punishment for murder.

Would you be able to say "Yes, she should be killed"?

Sheepy:

But it is premeditated. And only "lawful" because the government decide it's perfectly acceptable to kill another human being.

See, to me this just screams "It's murder...unless the government does it."

Just like war. Kill one person, that's murder. Kill 100,000 people and that's foreign policy.

Jewel Nicole:

But we're talking about a fifteen year old girl here. One who was completely aware of what she was doing.

Thing is, you don't know that yet. Yes, she said she wanted to feel what it was like, but what was the reason behind that? If she suffers from some sort of mental illness, she might actually not have been aware of what she was doing.

You say that you believe in "an eye for an eye", is it right for a family member of the little girl to kill the fifteen year old girl then? Or does it only apply if the government were to kill the fifteen year old girl because it's "legalized murder"?

Jewel Nicole:

It's legalized murder.

But I thought that any person who took a life deserved to be killed because murdering someone is wrong from a moral point of view, not because it's illegal. Underage drinking is illegal, yet nobody sentences people who sell alcohol to minors to death.

The Marty Parade:

You say that you believe in "an eye for an eye", is it right for a family member of the little girl to kill the fifteen year old girl then? Or does it only apply if the government were to kill the fifteen year old girl because it's "legalized murder"?

This is one of the major flaws in eye-for-an-eye logic, as far as I'm concerned.
It's an action of pure revenge and nothing else. If we follow that through literally, then the family of the victim should be the ones in the execution chamber putting the person to death. But we wouldn't accept that, because the notion is sickening and disturbed. So why is it acceptable for a faceless state executioner to carry out essentially the same action? It isn't, but thinking about it in these terms shows just how wholly revenge-motivated (and therefore flawed) the logic is.

The Marty Parade:

Thing is, you don't know that yet. Yes, she said she wanted to feel what it was like, but what was the reason behind that? If she suffers from some sort of mental illness, she might actually not have been aware of what she was doing.

You say that you believe in "an eye for an eye", is it right for a family member of the little girl to kill the fifteen year old girl then? Or does it only apply if the government were to kill the fifteen year old girl because it's "legalized murder"?

I've already stated this. This would be the third time.

Jewel Nicole:

I'd like to add that I don't think these people/minors should be put in the electric chair or any sort of fatal punishment. But I believe they should get every sort of treatment that's available to them for their psychological well being as they're incarcerated.

And as far as the capital punishment argument goes, I'm completely for it. I've already stated that I wouldn't suggest it for this case, but overall I'm for it. There's no point in telling me "it's still murder even if it's the government doing it", because I'm going to stand by my opinion.

^ We still have the right to disagree and debate your opinion though.

I personally think that no one has the right to take a life, state included. I think - and I've mentioned this - that this girl should be tried as a child, and her case should be reviewed when she's eighteen or twenty-one. Because she is a child, regardless of how shocking and terrible her crime is.

It's In The Blood.:

^ We still have the right to disagree and debate your opinion though.

I know.

It's In The Blood.:

I personally think that no one has the right to take a life, state included. I think - and I've mentioned this - that this girl should be tried as a child, and her case should be reviewed when she's eighteen or twenty-one. Because she is a child, regardless of how shocking and terrible her crime is.

I understand that's your opinion. Everyone has a different one.

Under the law though there is a possibility she will be tried as an adult, right? I mean, it's not one hundred percent certain, yet, but it's a possibility.

With the "What if she was put to death" issue, thought I'd add: In 2005 the Supreme Court declared that sentencing someone under 18 to death would count as "cruel and unusual punishment". So even if she was tried as an adult, it would be legally impossible for her to face capital punishment for her crime.

Sheepy:

With the "What if she was put to death" issue, thought I'd add: In 2005 the Supreme Court declared that sentencing someone under 18 to death would count as "cruel and unusual punishment". So even if she was tried as an adult, it would be legally impossible for her to face capital punishment for her crime.

I knew that already. Hence why I said earlier I didn't think she should get capital punishment; I knew it was impossible, anyway.

Joe Jonas.:

Under the law though there is a possibility she will be tried as an adult, right? I mean, it's not one hundred percent certain, yet, but it's a possibility.

Varies on the state, but essentially, yes. There's a total possibility she could be tried as an adult.

This crime took place in Missouri. Before the 1995 session of the Missouri Assembly, you had to be over 14 before you could be tried as an adult.

Now? If at ANY age you've committed a serious crime (such as murder), the juvenile court can certify you as an adult and put you into the adult criminal system. They'll have a certification hearing for this purpose to decide whether she should go through the system as a juvenile or an adult...the decision of which is left entirely at the discretion of the presiding judge.

Though statistically Missouri have had a reduction in the number of juvenile cases they've transferred to the adult system.

Sheepy:

Varies on the state, but essentially, yes. There's a total possibility she could be tried as an adult.

This crime took place in Missouri. Before the 1995 session of the Missouri Assembly, you had to be over 14 before you could be tried as an adult.

Now? If at ANY age you've committed a serious crime (such as murder), the juvenile court can certify you as an adult and put you into the adult criminal system. But whether the criminal stays in the juvenile system or not is completely at the judge's discretion; they'll have a certification hearing for this purpose to decide whether she should go through the system as a juvenile or an adult. Though statistically Missouri have had a reduction in the number of juvenile cases they've transferred to the adult system.

I knew that, also. I wasn't really looking for an answer when I asked it. I meant to point out that it was in fact a possibility. Sorry, I should have stated I wasn't really looking for an answer.

I hate it when somone kill somebody and doesn't get the deserved punishment because they are deduced as mentally-illed patients. I know they are a bit "coo coo" in the head but... somehow it's unfair. But I won't put the whole blame on the killers.

^ Who does the rest of the blame go to?

It's a bit more than being a "bit coo coo". You have to be unable to be held accountable for your actions to be found insane - that means that you can be very messed up in your head, but if you're still able to tell that killing someone is wrong, you're not "insane". And if they're truly incapable of understanding that what they did was wrong, what do they "deserve" then?

I believe she should be locked up in a padded cell for quite some time while receiving extensive treatment for whatever illness caused her to do that, not thrown into a jail cell or killed. What if she came out of this fully realizing what she did was completely barbaric and felt absolutely horrible about doing what she did? What if treatment turns her completely around? Treatment doesn't help everyone, of course, but why take the risk that it won't? If someone does one really fucked up thing in their life, should that deem them completely useless? She could have her entire life ahead of her to potentially make up for at least part of the horrific act she committed.