Asp-Z
Clockwork Planet
Joined: Dec 07, 2009
Posts: 11016
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
If you can't prove intention, the sentence would be reduced, but it's still a crime.
Here in the UK, you cannot be charged with any crime until you're 10 years old. Personally, I think that's utterly stupid. Why can kids literally get away with murder? There's no good reason for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
jojobean
sacred clown
Joined: Aug 13, 2009
Posts: 3341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Asp-Z wrote: | If you can't prove intention, the sentence would be reduced, but it's still a crime.
Here in the UK, you cannot be charged with any crime until you're 10 years old. Personally, I think that's utterly stupid. Why can kids literally get away with murder? There's no good reason for that. |
I will accept your statement as frustration.
_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin |
|
| Back to top |
|
Asp-Z
Clockwork Planet
Joined: Dec 07, 2009
Posts: 11016
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not frustrated over anything, I'm just simply not letting emotions overrule my logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
dr01dguy
Toucan
Joined: Nov 16, 2011
Posts: 295
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In order for it be a crime, you have to prove intention to commit the crime (at least in the US) A 2 year old or a 5 year old have no concept of death therefore cant concemplate trying to kill someone. |
Not quite. The only specific crime I can think of where *intent* factors into innocence or guilt is premeditated first-degree murder. In general, if someone dies because you did something stupid or reckless, you can't be convicted of "murder", only "manslaughter". The monkey wrench is a concept called "felony murder" (or "capital murder", depending on the state), which basically states that you can be convicted of murder if you're involved in a felony where somebody (even a criminal) dies, even if you personally didn't directly cause the death.
I believe Texas has the dubious honor of being the only state in the country where you can be executed for felony murder, and that it's part of the reason why it has roughly twice as many convicts on death row per capita as any other state.
For other crimes, you most certainly CAN be convicted, regardless of whether you intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed. The most extreme example is sex with a minor. In most states, you can be convicted EVEN IF it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that the minor actively misled you into thinking they were 18.
That said, charging a 3 year old with ANYTHING more than simple battery (assuming they had to be charged with anything at all) is insane. The criminal justice system should not even be involved. At worst, it should be grounds for a lawsuit against the parents.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 170 of 200 · Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 34 of 200 · You are very likely an Aspie [ AQ=41, EQ=11, SQ=45, SQ-R=77; FQ=38 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
jojobean
sacred clown
Joined: Aug 13, 2009
Posts: 3341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dr01dguy wrote: | | Quote: | | In order for it be a crime, you have to prove intention to commit the crime (at least in the US) A 2 year old or a 5 year old have no concept of death therefore cant concemplate trying to kill someone. |
Not quite. The only specific crime I can think of where *intent* factors into innocence or guilt is premeditated first-degree murder. In general, if someone dies because you did something stupid or reckless, you can't be convicted of "murder", only "manslaughter". The monkey wrench is a concept called "felony murder" (or "capital murder", depending on the state), which basically states that you can be convicted of murder if you're involved in a felony where somebody (even a criminal) dies, even if you personally didn't directly cause the death.
I believe Texas has the dubious honor of being the only state in the country where you can be executed for felony murder, and that it's part of the reason why it has roughly twice as many convicts on death row per capita as any other state.
For other crimes, you most certainly CAN be convicted, regardless of whether you intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed. The most extreme example is sex with a minor. In most states, you can be convicted EVEN IF it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that the minor actively misled you into thinking they were 18.
That said, charging a 3 year old with ANYTHING more than simple battery (assuming they had to be charged with anything at all) is insane. The criminal justice system should not even be involved. At worst, it should be grounds for a lawsuit against the parents. |
thank you for clarifying that. It only seems right that a child 8 or under could not be charged for a crime...if a crime was truly comitted then the parents should be the ones held accountable. I agree, charging a 3 or even a 5 year old with a crime is insanity. I expect that out of nations like North Korea, not the US.
Of course we are becoming more and more like an insane police state every cogressional season.
Jojo
_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin |
|
| Back to top |
|
OliveOilMom
Queen of cans and jars
Joined: Nov 12, 2011
Posts: 6990
Location: Living in Faulkner's nightmare
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Give him the chair!
The time out chair that is. He's 5. He's obviously got issues that need to be addressed but at five years old? He's not capable of criminal logic I don't believe.
_________________
Frances
I can be a little much sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nurylon
Raven
Joined: Oct 11, 2010
Age: 25
Posts: 109
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've known hateful 6-year-olds... very angry short skinny little male runts.
Anyway, as to the prison caf comment... these days schools ARE prisons. All they teach is "Sit down and shut up or else". |
|
| Back to top |
|
snapcap
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 2328
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I bet he stabbed them with his straw.
OH NO!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 46
Posts: 5761
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Asp-Z wrote: | | If you can't prove intention, the sentence would be reduced, but it's still a crime. |
You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. If there is no mens rea then there is no crime, unless the offence is defined as an absolute liability or a strict liability offence (and there are precious few of these). Assault and battery (the offences most likely involved here) most assuredly require mens rea, and the issue at hand is, does a child of tender years have the mental capacity to form the mens rea required to make out the offence.
| Quote: | | Here in the UK, you cannot be charged with any crime until you're 10 years old. Personally, I think that's utterly stupid. Why can kids literally get away with murder? There's no good reason for that. |
Here the limit is 12 years. But which would you prefer: a fixed limit established by Parliament, or a flexible limit established on a case by case basis by judges?
Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions--but it's important that policy be made on a basis of general application. When specific cases start weilding undue influence over public policy, you being to wade into situations of unintended consequences (or worse, intended consequences that are repugnant).
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26302
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | | Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions-- |
So, hang about a minute, if a 9-year-old were to go on a mass murder spree, killing adults and other kids, he would go unpunished? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Venger
Seal
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Posts: 2614
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | visagrunt wrote: | | Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions-- |
So, hang about a minute, if a 9-year-old were to go on a mass murder spree, killing adults and other kids, he would go unpunished? |
That would prove it's a loophole in the law like with this case involving mass murderers that were 11 and 13 at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Middle_School_massacre |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, so a 5-year old boy has an anger problem.
My question is where did this anger problem come from in the first place? He was seen hitting his mom, but where did he learn this behavior in the first place? Five year-olds don't stab people for no reason.
Once a person reaches 18, I don't care what they have been influenced by, they are are responsible. If a person is around 10 years or older it may be a gray area. But five years old??? This is clearly learned behavior. I'm sorry, but people aren't born this way. It is learned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 46
Posts: 5761
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | visagrunt wrote: | | Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions-- |
So, hang about a minute, if a 9-year-old were to go on a mass murder spree, killing adults and other kids, he would go unpunished? |
Yes. He would.
That does not mean, however, that there would not be consequences to his actions. Clearly a nine year old child engaging in behaviour of this type presents a prima facie need for intervention since leaving him in the circumstances of the status quo ante will create a danger to himself and to others.
But he would have no criminal record and he would not be jailed, detained or imprisoned by reason of his actions alone.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
Asp-Z
Clockwork Planet
Joined: Dec 07, 2009
Posts: 11016
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | | You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. If there is no mens rea then there is no crime, unless the offence is defined as an absolute liability or a strict liability offence (and there are precious few of these). Assault and battery (the offences most likely involved here) most assuredly require mens rea, and the issue at hand is, does a child of tender years have the mental capacity to form the mens rea required to make out the offence. |
Funnily enough I've done a bunch of research on the law since posting that and of course you are indeed correct. For most crimes, you need to prove mens rea.
However, I would argue that a kid should still know right from wrong and probably knows full well that stabbing someone isn't right.
| Quote: | | Here the limit is 12 years. But which would you prefer: a fixed limit established by Parliament, or a flexible limit established on a case by case basis by judges? |
The latter.
| Quote: | | Certaily the James Bulger case created a difficult set of policy decisions--but it's important that policy be made on a basis of general application. When specific cases start weilding undue influence over public policy, you being to wade into situations of unintended consequences (or worse, intended consequences that are repugnant). |
Surely the whole basis of our legal system is that past cases do influence future cases? Or am I mistaken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Venger
Seal
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Posts: 2614
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Asp-Z wrote: |
Surely the whole basis of our legal system is that past cases do influence future cases? Or am I mistaken? |
In the case I mentioned a few posts up, the two very young murderers were released when they were just barely adults because of a loophole in the law which was closed after that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
