My that was quick, but fair.
Yeah, when you pretty much fess up straight away (not that any other outcome was really going to happen there anyway) there's not much room for any other verdict.
His lawyer should have prepped him better. He should never have answered that question the way he did.
You mean honestly?
His lawyer should have prepped him better. He should never have answered that question the way he did.
You mean honestly?
Plead the 5th.
His lawyer should have prepped him better. He should never have answered that question the way he did.
You mean honestly?
Plead the 5th.
Why? He just saved the state a bunch of money by making it a short trial.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
It's only in major crimes like murder or **** where a minor can be tried as an adult.
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
It's only in major crimes like murder or **** where a minor can be tried as an adult.
So... In the cases when the defendant is most in need of the Constitution's safeguards.
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
It's only in major crimes like murder or **** where a minor can be tried as an adult.
So... In the cases when the defendant is most in need of the Constitution's safeguards.
As opposed to the victim/victim's family.
Lock him up in solitary for the duration, since he hates people so much.
As opposed to the victim/victim's family.
Who doesn't need the protection of the Constitution.
I'm really just playing devil's advocate. In the case of 16+ year-olds, I'm totally fine with it. But why is it ok? That's my question. I was hoping someone had a real answer.
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
Following this, there's no way for you (I'm assuming) or I to know what it feels like to want to kill someone badly enough to try it. People being tried for murder really can't be understood by those that haven't actually attempted it. Therefore, the peers required are people that have at the least attempted murder. They're the only ones that understand.
As opposed to the victim/victim's family.
Who doesn't need the protection of the Constitution.
I'm really just playing devil's advocate. In the case of 16+ year-olds, I'm totally fine with it. But why is it ok? That's my question. I was hoping someone had a real answer.
Probably because at the time the constitution was written there was no age requirement to be considered an adult. The whole 18 years of age to be considered an adult is a fairly recent thing. During the industrial revolution children worked in factories doing some pretty harsh jobs. You won't find that in the U.S. today. Well, you might, but it is considered illegal now.
As to the families and the victims, they also have rights. You have to weigh whose rights you value more: the criminal's or the victim's?
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
It's legal because some "children" commit horrendous crimes that the juvenile justice system simply is not equipped to handle. And really the only reason we consider them to be children is because of an arbitrary age that we decided on. The definition of a child varies with the culture and the times. In Afghanistan you can find 10 year olds armed with AKs serving in the police and military.
As for being afforded the same rights, from what I understand (I researched this a long time ago in school for a debate, and this could vary from state to state) they are not simply being treated the same except for a different sentencing. When the motion to try them as an adult is approved, the entire case is moved to an adult court, which affords them the same rights that an adult has.
When the motion to try them as an adult is approved, the entire case is moved to an adult court, which affords them the same rights that an adult has.
Which includes a "jury of their peers". How many "peers" of a 12-year-old are you really going to find in a jury pool?
They're essentially biased by design... any true jury of peers would vote "not guilty" merely on account of being criminal and/or insane themselves and looking out for their own.
When the motion to try them as an adult is approved, the entire case is moved to an adult court, which affords them the same rights that an adult has.
Which includes a "jury of their peers". How many "peers" of a 12-year-old are you really going to find in a jury pool?
A bunch of people have already pointed it out, but "peers" does not mean "people in your age/race/economic bracket" as much as it means "people who aren't hell bent on sending you to jail or on the payroll of the prosecution." The phrasing specifically goes back to when jurors used to be other judges and aristocrats, not civilians.
A bunch of people have already pointed it out, but "peers" does not mean "people in your age/race/economic bracket"...
Oh, really? Considering that it has been called a valid tactic even by Clarence Thomas (but only in the case of Blacks), I'd say you're wrong. Or did you not watch the OJ trial?
Oh, and now that it's been brought up:
l
A bunch of people have already pointed it out, but "peers" does not mean "people in your age/race/economic bracket"...
Oh, really? Considering that it has been called a valid tactic even by Clarence Thomas (but only in the case of Blacks), I'd say you're wrong. Or did you not watch the OJ trial?
That doesn't actually invalidate what I said. Those are all cases where they've contested the meaning of "peers" indicating that the legal meaning of peers is not expressly defined, or even de facto assumed, to include all age/race/status factors. That's why they had to argue it.
Really that entire linked article almost boils down to "racism in America is such a messed up issue that it screws with everything else." Of course, with that in mind, in many areas of your country the distinction between Blacks and Whites is, sadly, a lot like the difference between the English pesants and the aristocrats and as a result a jury of peers in those regions must include a race factor.
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
It's legal because some "children" commit horrendous crimes that the juvenile justice system simply is not equipped to handle. And really the only reason we consider them to be children is because of an arbitrary age that we decided on. The definition of a child varies with the culture and the times. In Afghanistan you can find 10 year olds armed with AKs serving in the police and military.
As for being afforded the same rights, from what I understand (I researched this a long time ago in school for a debate, and this could vary from state to state) they are not simply being treated the same except for a different sentencing. When the motion to try them as an adult is approved, the entire case is moved to an adult court, which affords them the same rights that an adult has.
First, the whole thing is silly. Children are either incapable of understanding and should be tried as children in all things, or they are capable and should be tried as an adult in all thing. A 12 year old who knows that Murder is wrong ALSO knows that Theft is wrong and all 12 year olds should be tried as adults for both, or else all 12 year olds should not.
Second, the whole notion of cherry picking needs to be removed from the system entirely. If one 12 year old can be tried for murder, then they all can. The idea that this 12 year old should be tried as a juvenile for murdering his parents with a shotgun and that one should be tried as an adult for offing his parents with a .38 is absurd. If they are going to establish that certain crimes warrant trying juveniles as adults, then make it so that everyone who commits that crime who is X age or older is tried as an adult. Stop all this BS about asking the judge to make the decision. It's wasteful and not necessary.
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
Following this, there's no way for you (I'm assuming) or I to know what it feels like to want to kill someone badly enough to try it. People being tried for murder really can't be understood by those that haven't actually attempted it. Therefore, the peers required are people that have at the least attempted murder. They're the only ones that understand.
Peers simply means adult citizens of the U.S. It doesn't mean someone who is exactly the same as you. If it did, I would never be able to be tried, as I have no peers ;)
When the motion to try them as an adult is approved, the entire case is moved to an adult court, which affords them the same rights that an adult has.
Which includes a "jury of their peers". How many "peers" of a 12-year-old are you really going to find in a jury pool?
All of them. Any adult citizen is a peer.
When the motion to try them as an adult is approved, the entire case is moved to an adult court, which affords them the same rights that an adult has.
Which includes a "jury of their peers". How many "peers" of a 12-year-old are you really going to find in a jury pool?
Would you expect a jury of 12 year olds to provide a fair trial? I don't trust most adults to provide a fair trial.
First, the whole thing is silly. Children are either incapable of understanding and should be tried as children in all things, or they are capable and should be tried as an adult in all thing. A 12 year old who knows that Murder is wrong ALSO knows that Theft is wrong and all 12 year olds should be tried as adults for both, or else all 12 year olds should not.
Second, the whole notion of cherry picking needs to be removed from the system entirely. If one 12 year old can be tried for murder, then they all can. The idea that this 12 year old should be tried as a juvenile for murdering his parents with a shotgun and that one should be tried as an adult for offing his parents with a .38 is absurd. If they are going to establish that certain crimes warrant trying juveniles as adults, then make it so that everyone who commits that crime who is X age or older is tried as an adult. Stop all this BS about asking the judge to make the decision. It's wasteful and not necessary.
I agree. Put everyone under the same justice system. Then everyone has the same rights, and there's no need for special laws or motions to move a child to an adult court, although I could see varying sentencing guidelines (in terms of minimum sentence), and you would definitely want inmates separated by age (a twelve year old with a bunch of grown men is going to get brutalized).
Would you expect a jury of 12 year olds to provide a fair trial? I don't trust most adults to provide a fair trial.
First, the whole thing is silly. Children are either incapable of understanding and should be tried as children in all things, or they are capable and should be tried as an adult in all thing. A 12 year old who knows that Murder is wrong ALSO knows that Theft is wrong and all 12 year olds should be tried as adults for both, or else all 12 year olds should not.
Second, the whole notion of cherry picking needs to be removed from the system entirely. If one 12 year old can be tried for murder, then they all can. The idea that this 12 year old should be tried as a juvenile for murdering his parents with a shotgun and that one should be tried as an adult for offing his parents with a .38 is absurd. If they are going to establish that certain crimes warrant trying juveniles as adults, then make it so that everyone who commits that crime who is X age or older is tried as an adult. Stop all this BS about asking the judge to make the decision. It's wasteful and not necessary.
+1
I agree. Put everyone under the same justice system. Then everyone has the same rights, and there's no need for special laws or motions to move a child to an adult court, although I could see varying sentencing guidelines (in terms of minimum sentence), and you would definitely want inmates separated by age (a twelve year old with a bunch of grown men is going to get brutalized).
But not the other way around, apparently. Tyson didn't go to prison; he was sentenced to the Indiana State Home for Boys.
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
It's only in major crimes like murder or **** where a minor can be tried as an adult.
Or you know hacking, stealing more than $20 and many other non-crimes... They updated it a few years back. I think assault even made it in there somewhere...
I'm curious: Why is it legal to try children as adults? I've seen reports of kids as young as 12 being tried as adults, and it just boggles the mind.
Here's why: The Constitution guarantees certian rights for the defendant, including the right to be tried by a "jury of his peers". But only adults are allowed to be jurors, and does a 45-year-old really remember what it's like being a teenager? So these kids aren't afforded the same rights as the adults that they are being tried as. Strikes me as a valid way to challenge the legality of it.
It's legal because some "children" commit horrendous crimes that the juvenile justice system simply is not equipped to handle. And really the only reason we consider them to be children is because of an arbitrary age that we decided on. The definition of a child varies with the culture and the times. In Afghanistan you can find 10 year olds armed with AKs serving in the police and military.
As for being afforded the same rights, from what I understand (I researched this a long time ago in school for a debate, and this could vary from state to state) they are not simply being treated the same except for a different sentencing. When the motion to try them as an adult is approved, the entire case is moved to an adult court, which affords them the same rights that an adult has.
First, the whole thing is silly. Children are either incapable of understanding and should be tried as children in all things, or they are capable and should be tried as an adult in all thing. A 12 year old who knows that Murder is wrong ALSO knows that Theft is wrong and all 12 year olds should be tried as adults for both, or else all 12 year olds should not.
Second, the whole notion of cherry picking needs to be removed from the system entirely. If one 12 year old can be tried for murder, then they all can. The idea that this 12 year old should be tried as a juvenile for murdering his parents with a shotgun and that one should be tried as an adult for offing his parents with a .38 is absurd. If they are going to establish that certain crimes warrant trying juveniles as adults, then make it so that everyone who commits that crime who is X age or older is tried as an adult. Stop all this BS about asking the judge to make the decision. It's wasteful and not necessary.
Um... its already like this. If you commit murder you are tried as an adult regardless of whether your 2 years old or 65...
So if one 12 year old understands, they all do?
WTF
By that reasoning, they should do away with the whole 'protecting the retarded' thing they have going. If one person age 30 understands, they 30 year old guy with the the IQ of a thumbtack understands too.
Not to imply that I am opposed in anyway to the literal proposal of the following bit of hyperboly (It's stupid: if your too [dumb/crazy/evil/high/foreign] to realize what you did is wrong, then you are even more lost) I think it is not done strictly by age because age is not the only factor.
...
So if one 12 year old understands, they all do?
WTF
By that reasoning, they should do away with the whole 'protecting the retarded' thing they have going. If one person age 30 understands, they 30 year old guy with the the IQ of a thumbtack understands too.
Not to imply that I am opposed in anyway to the literal proposal of the following bit of hyperboly (It's stupid: if your too [dumb/crazy/evil/high/foreign] to realize what you did is wrong, then you are even more lost) I think it is not done strictly by age because age is not the only factor.
The idea behind it is if you are intelligent enough to premeditate murder or hack into a professional protected computer (yeah right), then you are aware enough and mentally old enough to suffer the consequences...