Your article misses the point. Children are children when it is convenient for the state. The current system of "justice" involving juveniles is geared toward the needs and political desires of prosecutors. It is a system that has been so abused since In Re Gault that it almost is nonsensical.

Children can be locked in youth prisons up until age 18 in almost every state when they are problematical, or unruly, or otherwise annoying to their parents. They can be arrested and sentenced to youth prison for running away from sometimes abusive parents or for skipping school. We do this because we "care" about a youngster's upbringing. We show our caring nature by utilizing pepper spray and shackles on children as young as seven. Sometimes we show our caring nature by dragging a five year old from the classroom in handcuffs after the toddler has had a tantrum. We do these things because we love our children in America.

We also prosecute adults for coercing children under 18 into sexual conduct because young people are purportedly too immature to make such decisions for themselves, and they can be manipulated by adults. But when a child commits a sexual act involving another child, he is percieved to have the maturity to understand sexual conduct in the same way as an adult, and may be prosecuted as such. A child - even at age 10, can wind up on a public sex offender registration because he smacked another child's bottom in a "sexual way." Hence, our sex offenses involving child perpetrators have skyrocketed, while they have remained stable in almost every other country in the world.

But we use the immaturity rationale to prevent children from voting - they would be heavily influenced by adults and lack the free will to properly exercise this right. And of course, we have criminalized even young adults by creating a drinking age of 21 because these people (many of whom are fighting on our behalf in Iraq) are incapable of deciding when to drink a beer. Again, we prosecute our young people, give them criminal records for non-criminal conduct, because we love them so much.

But God help the child in the United States who commits an actual crime in the era of zero tolerance and "victim's rights." That child is presumed to have a free will, criminal sophistication, and the ability to control even the adults around him. It matters not what the child thought, but how sensationalistic the crime, and how much coverage the mainstream media gives it.

That not is to say that young people don't commit sometimes horrific acts. Children have killed since antiquity. By children, I mean youngsters from toddler age forward. Some kill because they are unkowing, some because they are angry and don't realize the consequences of their actions (i.e., they lack an understanding of death), and some kill by accident. A miniscule number are sociopathic or destined for a life of crime. There's really nothing very adult at all about killing - but it always seems shocking when it happens and the mainstream press always plays it to the hilt to sell papers or air time. Sometimes the difference between a childhood prank and murder is just dumb luck - when you threw that ball at your friend's head in the heat of anger, did you connect or not? Did he die or just get a bump on the head?

Our system used to allow for the conviction of children when a prosecutor overcame a rebuttabal presumption of incapacity on the part of someone between 7 and 14. Somewhere along the way we lost our way and stopped considering the capacity of the person doing the deed - regardless of his age. And of course, our age of criminal responsibility - usually 7 in most states - is about the youngest in the entire world. European Union countries do not allow children under 10 (and sometimes 12 or 14) to be tried for anything and they have stringent standards for allowing young people to face adult penalties - with the minimum age generally set at 16, and sometimes not until 21. So if we are sentencing people at age 10 to "juvenile life," what sanctions are left for people age 12 or 13? Nothing will seem harsh enough.

So, the United States is one of the harshest countries in the world when it comes to juvenile sentencing. Reverse certification is the norm for children between 13 and 18, and a handful of states, including Florida, South Carolina and Pennsylvania set no minimum age limits for prosecution of children as adults for homicide. Numerous other states have gone with "blended jurisidiction" - which this article did not mention. For instance, this week in Texas, a 13 year old boy was sentenced to 40 years for killing at age 12, a sibling. He will begin his sentence in juvenile jurisdiction and probably transfer to the adult system at age 17.

Blended sentencing is quite in vogue. It allows prosecutors to sleep at night, knowing that the often very young people that they have destroyed won't be raped for a few more years. Sometimes the prosecutors play the "nice" card after sending someone as young as 12 to adult prison, by keeping the child in a youth prison until age 18. A couple of examples would be Christopher Pittman in South Carolina and Tyler Edmonds in Mississippi. New Jersey does not have blended sentencing.

It is interesting that in a case that involves a brutal career criminal, aged 28, as well as at least one other adult offender in his late 20's, we are discussing two fifteen year olds who likely played a peripheral role in the case. Numerous adults from their neighborhood already have mentioned that at least one of the boys was a nice kid, easily led, who was probably "just there." He apparently loved hanging out with the older guys in the neighborhood.

Unfortunately, that is often the case of youngsters charged as adults in homicide cases - when these cases involve young teens, they often are being manipulated by older people or peer pressure, gang initiations, or things unlikely to induce an adult to take part in illegal conduct. Most criminal homicide prosecutions of youngsters under 16 have involved "felony murder," where children are charged by virtue of their presence at a crime, or their participation in another crime - or for just plain being immature and stupid.

What alot of people don't realize is that the Lionel Tate case was a felony murder case. Tate committed manslaughter, not murder, but he was overcharged to take him out of the juvenile system. He was charged under a statute set up a few years earlier to prevent adults from getting out from under a murder prosecution by claiming that they were disciplining a child and didn't mean to kill. The basis for this legislation was the Bradley Magee case, where an adult received just a few years for manslaughter after shoving a two-year old's head into the toilet in a purported toilet training episode. Florida law specifies that if you intend to commit a harmful act against any child and the child dies, it is murder. Intention is unimportant. That may work for adults, but should it be applied to children?

Overcharging is a handy tool for a prosecutor bent on making a name for himself in political circles as "tough on juvenile crime." A recent example would be the youngster convicted a couple of months ago in the Jena 6 case. Although his case was a garden variety battery, the prosecutor overcharged it to attempted murder, thereby taking the then-16 year old out of the juvenile system and exposing him to life imprisonment. When the youngster went to trial, the prosecutor suddently dropped the attempted murder charge, because there was no basis for the charge. Yet the youngster was tried as an adult. The case, which was a high school assault matter, could easily have been handled in the juvenile system.

And don't get the idea that all kids tried as adults are the worst of the worst. That is perhaps the biggest of lies. Most decisions to charge or try or sentence a child as an adult have as their basis the social or ethinc standing of the youngster, the senationalism attached to the crime, and what the prosecutor had for breakfast that day. Most children sentenced as adults in Florida, for instance, have been convicted of nonviolent crimes. It's REALLY tough for kids in Florida, but it hasn't driven down the crime rate.

Geography is important - last week a boy who was 14 when he sodomized two 12 year olds in California was convicted as an adult and probably will serve life in prison. In a case involving similar facts - but which took place at the Fishburn Military School in Virginia, a boy who was 16 when he forced younger boys into sex was sentenced as a juvenile to two years in a sex offender program. Of course, the Virginia boy was middle class and white, and the kid in California was Hispanic and poor.

And also, don't get the idea that kids sentenced as adults probably won't serve their full sentences. Florida has an inmate who has served almost 30 years for a murder committed at age 14. The infamous Rod Matthews case in Massachusettes reared its ugly head again when the now nearly middle-aged man was denied parole yet again for killing at age 14 (at a time when his growth was stunted to 4'3" because he was on Ritalin). There are numerous cases across the country of aging adults who have been imprisoned since childhood. Chicago has one of the most infamous false confession cases - a man convicted at 17 for serial murders he likely did not commit (and which probably were not even serial murders) has served 60 years. Face reality - we were never very easy on our kids. We just take the handful of cases where kids get off easy (as opposed to adults who get off easy) and claim that it was because of the youngster's status as a juvenile.

So whither New Jersey? Likely the prosecutor here will cite "free will" as the basis for sending these two youngsters to Rahway to be used as rape fodder - and then he'll probably go out and prosecute some other adult for putting a child in danger of sexual abuse. I don't doubt that the prosecutor and those who likewise support using children as political props in this manner sleep well on earth. I can only hope that when afterlife justice judges these people, it shows just as much compassion as they did.

"Last week, two 15-year-olds were arrested in connection with the execution-style murders of three college students in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard."

Assuming that the two 15 y.o. arrested are in fact the perpetrators of this crime, what punishment would you suggest? How would it differ from what you mete out to a 21 y.o. guilty of the same crime?

Speaking of compassion, what kind of punishment would you demand for these 15 y.o. if we could somehow guaratee that, in the event they get out of jail and kill someone else, the victim will be you? Are you willing to accept the risk for your "compassion," or is your compassion contingent upon the likleliood that someone esle will pay for it?

Depending upon the culpability of the participants, I am in favor of life for the adult perpatrators - this isn't a case where it was a group of kids, but where the group was led by someone 28 years old, and at least one other adult in his 20's were involved. What were they doing with 15 year olds? Generally speaking, I would recommend indeterminate sentences for the 15 year olds of up to ten years in juvenile and youth facilities, but not less than five years. I would change my recommendation if the 15 year olds were found to have fired the shots that killed the people - a slightly longer sentence would be warranted, but not as long as for the 28 year old, who likely orchastrated the entire episode, and manipulated the boys into participating. I also would change my recommendation to an even lesser sentence for the boys if they (a) carried no guns; (b) were unaware that there would be gunplay; (c) were just accompanying the adults. In that case, a two year sentence in a youth facility would be more than sufficient. Moreover, it is possible that they had no idea what was going to happen and simply followed along, and were too frightened to do anything when the robbery started - in that case, they should serve no time. There are numerous possibilities here. But the fact that the 28 year old career criminal was involved makes it obvious that there are very different degrees of criminal culpability.

Let's assume that the 15 y.o. was the trigger man, and that he understood what he was doing, and that he formed the intent to kill the victim(s) before making them kneel against the wall. Let's also assume that the 15 y.o. obtained the guy by stealing it, and that the 28 y.o. was just there watch. What sentence? Would you give the same sentence to the 28 y.o. if their roles in the above hypothetical were reversed? If not, why not?

I do get annoyed when this tries to be "categorized" as an "ethnic-based" or racial situation. Social/Parental responsibility lies in ALL classes and ethnic background. All of these "determined" factors have successfully reared children going on to become outstanding and productive citizens! The root of the problem lies in the rearing parents. Of course they cannot be held accountable for the actions of another, no matter how young in the eyes of current law. Thats is why current rehabilitation trends focuses on family education, parenting skills (for the Parents), and lastly interaction with their juvenile offender.

Some sociologists have keyed on the theoretical raising of the first true "Predatory" generation. You see it everyday on the news. Children committing heinous crimes with no forethought of compassion, or consequences of their actions.

The courts are doing the best they can to make up for the shortcomings of parental irresponsibility through rehabilitation for those that can be rehabilitated.

My child (a minority) and most before 5 years old are learning the consequences of touching the stove and most have had a death question or conversation. Resulting from experiencing a pet dying or seeing it on the television.

Open your eyes, children are more educated at an earlier age than ever before. A 12 year old child is very aware of death. They know exactly what it takes to take a life. Parenting gave them no social conscience for their act......at the same time, other influences making up the void taught them how to commit the act and in cases be proud of it.(a.k.a gangs or "street life") The "toddler" in reality ..."in the way" or possibly jumping approaching a mother "out of affection" resulting in a fall. A "toddler" did not pick up a gun or knife...OR worst, sodomize a playmate!!!!!

I have faith in educated mental health professionals to evaluate these types of pathological situations and make recommendations to the courts. ONE aspect not really brought to light in the publicity of these cases. A court's/prosecuting path relies on a thorough mental evaluation.

For you that wish to point it to some far-related factor of race or social status....let you adopt the sodomizing 12 year old and let him move in with your young son or daughter. Put your opinion and money where your mouth is.

Jacob-

This scenario did not happen so it is pointless to answer - and in all of the studies that I have made on this subject matter, the only place where something remotely similar to your scenario has occurred is on a made-up-television show with no basis in reality - there is one Adam 12 episode and one Ironside episode with identical fact patterns where the kid (17) was the killer and the older adult didn't want the youngster shooting off - unfortunately, many television shows of this nature get accepted into the realm of urban myths, and people begin to believe that there are 7 year old cop killers (LA LAW) and teenage murderers in LA who kill cops, get a week at a summer camp and come home to kill more (POLICE STORY), and they even come to believe that actual stories have ended differently, and juveniles just got off when they were involved in murder ("BADLANDS" - the Martin Sheen-Cissy Spacek movie based on the Starkweather case ended with the girl getting "dirty looks and probation" when she actually served almost 30 years in prison - never to offend again, BTW).

Methinks that you have been watching too much television. Me also thinks that you have been reading and believing mainstream media stories that have appeared during every budget cycle during the past 40 years: JUVENILE CRIMES UP! KID CRIMINALS GETTING YOUNGER! MORE TEEN SEX OFFENDERS! POLICE SHOCKED BY AGE OF KILLERS! These stories are planted by media "sources" with an interest in obtaining more funding for pet projects. Often their projects - like teen boot camps - turn out to be destructive, counter-productive and even criminal.

So about this case. The 28 yr old, as we know, is a career criminal who should not have been on the streets. He also was a known rapist of children. It is impossible for a 15 yr old to manipulate an adult unless the adult is mentally handicapped. When was the last time that anyone you know did what a 15 year old wanted instead of doing the right thing? Conversely, when was the last time that 15 year old did what an adult talked him into doing...hmmm. Also, there were more than one adults here - what were they doing with the kids? What 28 yr olds take 15 yr olds on their robbery or gang killing sprees?

Likely adults who hope to use the kids as the fall guys for the event - they probably know the kids quite well and may even expect the kids to confess and confuse the facts. They are probably hoping for a false confession.

So there is no point to answering this hypothetical, which is based on a lack of awareness of the difference between adolescents and 28 yr olds. A 28 getting stuck on a killing spree initiated and planned by a 15 year old? No, not in this lifetime.

logicalleao:

My goodness. Not someone who STILL accepts the myth of the "super predator" - that horrible, right-wing nonsense that was proferred by that idiot, Professor DiIulio, and his fellow-travellers in the late 80's and 90's, and popularized by the useless mainstream media. This now discredited myth victimized vast numbers of children and led to the toughened laws that give aboslute rights to prosecutors in handling juvenile "criminals." Instead of the murder rates going up as this purported sociologist predicted - they went down, and as always, were tied to the economy and other factors.

Billy the Kid was a super predator and killed his first man at age 12. And he was not alone. Thousands of children were hanged in Five Points, the notorious NY Gang sewer at the end of the 1900's, many for murder or other serious crimes. At that time, 14 year olds were getting married and taming the west. People in their early and mid teens routinely worked at adult jobs and conducted themselves as such. Pity that we cannot accurately compare murder rates in the 1900s with murder rates today - we likely would find that there were more teenage killings before we "softened" the laws to handle juveniles in a different court system.

If anything, children in the US have gotten less intelligent on the meaning of death - they rarely have to watch three of four siblings die of the flu. When Granny dies, she does so away from the family at a nursing home. When a TV character is killed, he shows up next week when the dream sequence ends. People get shot and stabbed on TV and walk around the next week. The video game allows people to die off and come back to life yet again for another round. There are plenty of killings in the ghettos, but they are often romantisized by the gangs, and the youngsters there, as everywhere, still see themselves as invincible - that's why kids make such great soldiers - they don't understand death, and walk into battle with less emotional baggage.

Right on, Yerevan.

When a child is abused by an adult, we righfully are outraged. But when an abused child (as most troubled kids are - physically, sexually, verbally,or emotionally with absent parents) we lock them up first and ask questions later. Trying a troubled juvenile as an adult is an oxymoron, and most judges and prosecutors ignore the guidelines and family history. Shame on them. We spend millions to lock kids up and nothing to prevent future violence and rehab.

yerevan2:

Jacob-

This scenario did not happen so it is pointless to answer -

The point is to help me understand why you feel that a 15 y.o. who maliciously forms the intent to murder someone and does should be treated differently than a 28 y.o. under the same circumstances. Why didn't you answer the question instead of spending 20 min. writing a condescending response? (That's a rhetorical question; don't answer it. However, I would appreciate an answer to my question about why a minor who can form the intent to murder and acts on it should be treated differently than an adult who does the same.)

deajohn:

Trying a troubled juvenile as an adult is an oxymoron, and most judges and prosecutors ignore the guidelines and family history. Shame on them. We spend millions to lock kids up and nothing to prevent future violence and rehab.

Well, I think we need to spend the "millions" to lock up the juveniles even if they are getting treatment, unless you are suggesting we release violent offenders prior to completion of rehabilitation. Accordingly, we would need to find additional money to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Have you lobbied your representatives to increase taxes to pay for rehabilitation programs?

And what about recedivism? If a juvenile has murdered someone with malice aforethought, how can you NOT lock them up for a long time? Do you have any compassion for the person or persons who might be their next victim? How would you explain your views on imprisoning juveniles to that victim's family?

yerevan2:

Jacob-

[I]n all of the studies that I have made on this subject matter, the only place where something remotely similar to your scenario has occurred is on a made-up-television show with no basis in reality - there is one Adam 12 episode and one Ironside episode with identical fact patterns where the kid (17) was the killer and the older adult didn't want the youngster shooting off - unfortunately, many television shows of this nature get accepted into the realm of urban myths, and people begin to believe that there are 7 year old cop killers (LA LAW) and teenage murderers in LA who kill cops, get a week at a summer camp and come home to kill more (POLICE STORY), and they even come to believe that actual stories have ended differently, and juveniles just got off when they were involved in murder.

Methinks that you have been watching too much television. Me also thinks that you have been reading and believing mainstream media stories that have appeared during every budget cycle during the past 40 years: JUVENILE CRIMES UP! KID CRIMINALS GETTING YOUNGER! MORE TEEN SEX OFFENDERS! POLICE SHOCKED BY AGE OF KILLERS! These stories are planted by media "sources" with an interest in obtaining more funding for pet projects.

So, kids being prone to violence is a media-induced myth. Got it.

yerevan2:

If anything, children in the US have gotten less intelligent on the meaning of death - they rarely have to watch three of four siblings die of the flu. When Granny dies, she does so away from the family at a nursing home. When a TV character is killed, he shows up next week when the dream sequence ends. People get shot and stabbed on TV and walk around the next week. The video game allows people to die off and come back to life yet again for another round. There are plenty of killings in the ghettos, but they are often romantisized by the gangs, and the youngsters there, as everywhere, still see themselves as invincible - that's why kids make such great soldiers - they don't understand death, and walk into battle with less emotional baggage.

So, kids are the perfect killing machines. Got it.

Funny, my BS meter just exploded.

Kids are the perfect killing machines. Adolph Hitler proved this theory a long time ago. Strangely, we took many of those very young Hitler Youth killers and turned them into productive citizens, and one even went on to become a Pope. Another - an award winning author, recently confessed the killings in which he participated. You could take almost any youngster and isolate him, traumatize him, and teach him that he is killing for a proper cause. The younger the person, the less mature, the easier it is to convince him of the rightousness of your cause. It really isn't that difficult. Most teenage gang members see no moral problem with killing - they have become part of a culture that tells them that killing under specific circumstances is correct - regardless of the penalty. Some wake up once they hit youth prison - with the proper care - but gang members in adult facilities only become more entrenched in the gangs.

The Hitler Youth theory has been proved again and again - from the Killing Fields of Cambodia to the pre-teen death squads in Africa. Strangely, we celebrate the teenage soldier-killers from other countries who go on to be rehabilliated - as shown by the sale of this year's Starbuck's blockbuster about a teen soldier. Yet, we have little sympathy for our own children when they are recruited by gangs and such to act in a similar fashion. Canada has come under fire recently for not protecting Omar Kadhr, the 15 year old, who while fighting as a soldier in Afghanastan, was labled an "enemy combatant" and imprisoned in the notorious Guantamano Bay. He did nothing that a Hitler Youth did not do, yet has been labled a "war criminal" for throwing a grenade at what were to him, enemy soldiers, and the "tribunal" is even considering acts committed by him at age 9. Yes, 9.

When is a child responsible and when is he not? This is not a simple answer. If a 15 year old premeditates, and carries out a killing, with the understanding of the permanent nature of death, and shows a special maturity that allows us to believe that he was never manipulated or encouraged by an older person to do so, and that he acted free from the peer pressure that burdens youth - well yes, he should be punished. But we had better test him to see if he is an organic sociopath. And he should even be punished under the circumstances where this is untrue depending upon his level of culpability. But we must also recognize that he will one day rejoin society - and that anyone that age should have the opportunity to change. If we gave the Hitler Youths the opportunity to change, why not give the same benefit to American children in this day and age? Why not give these kids the opportunity to grow up and become Pope?

If I condescend it is because I am sick of the garbage churned out by the mainstream media - often poorly researched and rarely fact-checked - that has led to this deplorable situation. I am tired of sensationalistic law and order type TV shows that conjure up whacked images of nonexistent children who repeat lines written by thinking adults. I am sickened by the large numbers of false confessions involving juveniles. As I have already said, there are kids who commit criminal offenses and need to be locked up. And I do have sympathy for anyone who has been victimized. I would never advocate letting kids off - but I have seen juvenile institutions and I recognize that they are facilities aimed at punishment - some of which are quite brutal in nature. But I also know that at least some kids stand an even chance of emerging from those places OK, versus adult facilities, which are nothing but abuse factories.

Double victimization helps no one. Our system is broken. We need to review it, to see what works and what doesn't, to check successful methods in more enlightened nations, and overhaul it to make things more even for children throughout the country, regardless of wealth or ethnicity.

You are completely right. There is a double standard when it comes to children and crimes. When a child commits a crime he is trated as an adult but when a child runs away with an adult he is seen as a sweet innocent child who was manipulated by an adult. You can see how children can be manipulatedIn the case of Elizabeth Smart. This 15 year old girl lied to police about her name. She had the opportunity to recive help and she did not. She was left alone by her kidnappers for hours at a time and she did nothing. Children are children and that is why they cannot live on their own, drive, have sex or vote. They do not have the mental capacity to make grown up decisions and to understand the consequences.

So, about this case.......the 28 year old is a career criminal.....that started at the age lf 15......he should have been dealt with at the age of 15 and we would not be in the position of having to deal with this incident now.....but now that we are we must deal with the new 15 year olds before they are also career criminals.

If you will do a little study into the subject you will start to see that much of the problem started with the so called "mental health professionals" and "sociologists". Along with the fact that we are into the 6th and in some cases 7th generation of children who have been taught in the education systems that they are nothing more than animals and we are starting to see the results of that teaching sink in, in that they are starting to act like the animals they have been told they are.