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

It's In The Blood.:

^ 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?

But they are mentally-ill. It seems... sane for them to tell the difference?

Mayhem's Lady:

But they are mentally-ill. It seems... sane for them to tell the difference?

There are many, many kinds of mental illnesses. Not all of them affect your ability to tell right from wrong.

I don't think she should be tried as an adult, for the obvious reason she is not an adult. Rather, institute her to either a care home if she's been diagnosed with some illness that affects her or else to a juvenile hall, and then sentence her as an adult when the time comes.

asth3nia.ie:

I don't think she should be tried as an adult, for the obvious reason she is not an adult. Rather, institute her to either a care home if she's been diagnosed with some illness that affects her or else to a juvenile hall, and then sentence her as an adult when the time comes.

You can't sentence someone as a juvenile and then turn around and give them a different sentence because they turned 18.

^ Am I right in believing that her mental health can be reevaluated at 18 or 21?

It's In The Blood.:

^ Am I right in believing that her mental health can be reevaluated at 18 or 21?

Isn't that the equivalent of double jeopardy?
Unless they find her incompetent to stand trial and then when she's released from the mental health facility she stands trial.

can't you see dru?:

You can't sentence someone as a juvenile and then turn around and give them a different sentence because they turned 18.

Actually you can, because it's the law. They can't be tried as an adult until they reach a certain age; 18 in some places, 21 in others.

asth3nia.ie:

Actually you can, because it's the law. They can't be tried as an adult until they reach a certain age; 18 in some places, 21 in others.

So they put them on trial as a juvenile and then on trial again as an adult?

can't you see dru?:

So they put them on trial as a juvenile and then on trial again as an adult?

It depends on the severity of the case and the state of the person. In majority of cases like this, judges will institute the offender to a juvenile centre and state that they will be immditaly transferred to an adult institution once of age to complete the sentence they have been fined with.

The only way it's double jeopardy is if they find her innocent now and then hold another trial for the same charge; but that can't happen.

Okay, I guess I was misinformed. Either way, I completely disagree with charging her as a juvenile and then later charging her as an adult.

Wow. I feel so terrible for that 9 year old girl and her family.
I'm glad that 15 girl was tried as an adult. "She won't survive jail." Well then so be it.
That 9 year old girl lost her life for no reason at all.
So the murderer has a mental problem? Okay. She tried to kill herself at the age of 13? Okay. Well why wasn't she given proper help then? In a way, I kind of blame her parents.
You don't let a loose canon out in the world.

^Is it not something of a hideous generalisation to suggest that the parents of children with mental problems/children who've attempted suicide shouldn't let their kids be "let out in the world" on the offchance they might commit murder?

^ The child shouldn't be let out, not the parents.

Or did you mean to say that? Because I agree. I attempted suicide. It was in no way a warning that I was going to go murder a nine-year-old.

Was the girl given psychiatric help?

^Yeah, I did mean that (Apologies, since edited).

It's not like "attempted suicide" is in any way synonymous with "will commit horrific murder at some point in life"...or anything like that.

Especially since mentally ill people are much, much more likely to harm themselves.

(I.E. if she had been mentally ill, knowing and treating that would be no way of predicting that she was going to harm someone else.)

That's cool. You disagree with me.
I still think it's partly her parents fault.

I never said I didn't agree =P I think it's highly likely that her parents are in some small (or big) way to blame. But since we can't prove it and we don't have the facts, I won't blame them. Not thinking a suicidal child might murder someone doesn't count.

If, however, it's found out that they knew she had a history of murdering animals and torturing children... well, yes.

She is not an adult. She should not be tried as an adult. The law states that 18 is the year of adulthood. This girl is little more then a child, and clearly has some unstable mental disposition. She needs some form of severe punishment, and psychiatric help for sure, but I cannot see locking up a 15 year old girl, who clearly most suffer from some mental illness, for the rest of her life. My heart goes out to the family of the innocent 9 year old girl. This is a horrible and heart-wrenching tragedy. But charging a child as an adult, and isolating her for the remaining 85 years or so of her life, doesn't sit well with me either.

You know.. I just wonder if this girl doesn't have a form of schizophrenia. I really wish they would have included results of a psychological examination in that article. Her wanting to know what it felt like to kill someone seems like a delusion of grandeur. It also seems reasonable to say that she has an antisocial personality disorder.

I would say that this girl needs a lifetime of care in a mental institution... not a prison sentence.