Yep, it's a Lionel Tate-related question. It doesn't matter how many times I repeat it, those two ideas (kids ... life in prison) just don't 'gel'. I just can't envisage a scenario in which you could hold a 12-year old criminally-accountable for her/his actions. Can you?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Answers

We had a similar debate erupt in the UK recently after two kids, who were 10 and 11 at the time of their crime (the murder of a younger child) were recommended for release after serving the last seven years in a young offenders institute.

There was a lot of sympathy for the parents of the victim, who protested their release. They seemed to feel that justice had not been done. I, personally feel that the release could have taken place a lot sooner.

What is 'justice' in these cases? How do you justify punishing a child killer: as a deterrent? As retribution? For society's protection?

The sentencing of Lionel Tate seems incredibly harsh to me - how is it playing out in the US? Do you think that he intended to kill? And, if so, did he understand what that means?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

I disagree with the way this case turned out on so many levels. 1)I don't think a 12 year old is capable of intent, atleast not in this case, and 2) life in prison? No way. This kid needs many things, but a guarantee of criminality isn't one of them. Usually I shake my head when a lawyer tries to pass media influence off as responsible, but I think this was a case of play getting way out of hand and a child who simply didn't know his own strength (i.e. he didn't know that his playmate wouldn't simply bounce back up, like in wresting).

I've never bought sentencing as a deterrent (people who truly intend to commit crime aren't intending to get caught; therefore, possible punishments mean nothing). A good example of this is the death penalty - when it was abolished in Canada, the murder rate actually went down. As for retribution - the criminal justice system is not meant to be merely about punishment, it's suppost to be about balance/justice/security of society, and this ain't it.

The case in the UK where the 2 kids actually led away their toddler victim and killed him, leaving him on railway tracks, is different. I think those kids *really* need(ed) some help - but again, prison isn't the place for it. I understand that they have been let out and given new names, but that the parents of the deceased child wish to know their whereabouts. I'm not sure how I feel about that - what purpose would it serve?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

I know 12 years old is young, but it's not so young that you wouldn't expect someone to get hurt when you throw them into an iron railing. I don't believe that he intended to kill her, or even intended to consiously hurt her, but how could he NOT have realized that she was hurt after he struck her the first time? I don't know the full details, in so much as how each blow was inflicted, but I do know he tossed her around A LOT. It wasn't like they were jumping up and down on a bed and she fell off and got a fat lip, and oops! This was pretty horrific, which I'm sure is why it's getting so much media attention. It's pretty harsh that he got such a strong sentence, but then again, he DID kill her.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

From what I saw on the news, he subjected the little girl to various wrestling moves for about 5 minutes. Five minutes is a long time to beat someone up. While I don't think he meant to kill her, I think he meant to hurt her and should be punished. He was also offered a plea bargain where he would have been placed in juvenile facility for three years, and his mother turned down the offer.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Well, the key here is intent, and to be convicted of first degree murder, I thought, required that the act be intentional and premeditated. I don't see how that's possible here. I'm not saying he shouldn't suffer any consequences, but LIFE? Nope.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Wow, Nicole, I must have posted at the same time you did. What was that mother thinking? That seems a much more appropriate sentence given his age. Did she think he had a better chance to "get off" if tried for murder?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

I think it's sad and tragic, but I don't think it's inappropriate for children who do horrible things like that to know/find out that their acctions have consequences. Like with the school shootings... I think it's entirely wrong when kids're bullied, but when someone makes a decision to pick up a gun and bring it to school and open fire, well, IMO, all bets're off. I don't care how victimized they were, how lonely, how frustrated... there's a huge line that's crossed when you decide to kill others. And I think that children have no excuse for not "knowing" or "understanding" that killing is wrong. Beating the shit out of someone else, especially someone much littler, is wrong. And they won't realize it unless they have to take responsibility for their actions instead of "Oh, we can let Jimmy off with a lighter sentence because he's only 14 and has his whole life in front of him!" or "Jenny didn't really know what she was doing!" Sorry. They know.

That's what I think.

Hot button topic! :)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Kate, his mother seriously thought that he was not guilty and would not be convicted. What kills me is that the boy was being tried as an adult, but the offer was made to the mother. They should have made the offer to the Lionel and let him decide - apparently he didn't even know about it until after his mother turned it down.

I saw an interview with the little girl's mother, and she said that she feels bad that Lionel's life is now behind bars, but her daughter is dead.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

We're not talking about a teenager here - we're talking about a child. There's a huge difference between this kid and some 15 year old who decides to blow all his classmates to kingdom come because he's been teased/ostracized (while millions of other teens endure the same treatment and yet don't act out in this way).If the court thought he should be tried as an adult, why 'in it's wisdom' did it offer the plea to his mother? Yeah, the whole thing is awful and a child is dead. The killer, even if he did so unwittingly, deserves punishment. But, how can a 12 year old be considered an adult? How? And how can you put a child in with adult lifers? Child abuse anyone? Inhumane?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

I checked out ABC.com's news site and got this info:

"A first-degree murder conviction under Florida law does not require proof that Tate actually intended to kill the girl, prosecutors said, but only that he intended to commit the acts that led to her death.

Prosecutors sought a first-degree conviction because Tiffany's injuries were so severe, they were consistent with a fall off a three- story building. "This was a continued beating with fists and feet," said prosecutor Ken Padowitz. "Lionel Tate used his body as a weapon."

It also said that if he was 16 at the time of the incident, he could have been given the death penalty.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

I don't know how many of you listen to NPR but they did a few segments on this subject recently. I recall hearing that studies have shown that children under a certain age (I think it was 14 but I'm not sure) do not reason in the same part of the brain as adults. They said that this suggests that children may not be capable of cognitively understanding the seriousness of certain actions. If this were true, it seems irresponsible to hold them accountable at the same level as we do adults. This isn't to say they shouldn't be punished or held accountable, just not at the same level as adults. Besides, what the hell ever happened to counseling? Do we really think that anyone is served by locking up a person for life at a young age? I wonder when rehabilitation was dropped from the criminal justice system?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Another question... isn't Tate also mildly mentally retarded?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Okay, so I was wrong on the burden of proof for first degree murder (or atleast in Florida's case) - but man, I'm still trying to digest the life sentence. I guess that conveniently takes care of rehabilitation (no possibility for release = no reason to rehabilitate). I thought I heard that he was mentally retarded also - you'd think that would have put a different spin on things. Maybe he didn't realize that his actions would cause injury. I bet it gets overturned on appeal.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Let me state right off the bat that I have mixed feelings about this subject. Very mixed feelings, but.......there used to be a little girl who had her whole life in front of her. Love, kids, maybe grandkids who won't be born now. She won't experience a kiss or a hug or any thing else. Where are the sympathies for her? Do we as a society owe her memory anything? There used to be two kids in Santee who will never experience anything. Do we owe them anything other than a couple of memorials and then forget them in a couple of weeks? Leaving the parents to grieve the rest of their lives? Counseling? Whose? Tate's? Andy's? What about the dead kids? How about their parents. We focus on the offenders but not the relatives of the deceased? Why? What happened to punishment? Retribution? Is punishment retribution or just deserts? What's wrong with punishment? Is it so wrong? At 12 years old you know right from wrong. You know what should and shouldn't be done. You have watched enough damn TV to know. The little girl Tate killed was brutally beaten. Lacerated liver, collapsed lung, bruised heart, numerous broken ribs, skull fracture. A 5 minute beating. Andy knew better. He didn't even shoot the kids who bullied him. He reloaded 4 times. In this era of TV I refuse to believe that a teenager doesn't know the ramifications of their actions. I do believe that in this era of permissiveness and lack of strong moral upbringing that kids feel that they can do something and get away with it because they'ev been taught that. A group of teenagers beat, stabbed with a pitchfork, and shot a group of old farmhands here in San Diego last year. They were 15-17 year old men. Not teenagers who didn't know what they were doing was wrong. They knew that beating the shit out of someone would hurt and that stabbing someone with a pitchfork would hurt, and that shooting them with a pellet gun could kill, but they did it anyway. They knew better. But now all of a sudden they are children? Tate knew what he was doing was hurting the little girl. She was screaming. But now he is just a little boy. A child. A teenage child. Andy knew that shooting someone would probably kill them. Especially at point blank range. But now he is a child? I won't agree. I feel that counseling and letting them go is out too. I feel punishment is due. Why are we so afraid as a society to punish? Yes it hurts. Yes it shortens the time we get to be free. Being free is what you get when you obey societies rules. No I don't believe Tate should go behind bars for life. And he won't be put in prison with adults. He was "tried" as an adult but the law is clear as to how and where he will serve any time until he comes of legal age. Usually 18 but can be in the case of Californuia 25. And he should be counseled and educated while incarcerated as should all prisoners. But he should be incarcerated. As should Andy. I feel life is a good punishment for him. The men who beat the migrant workers, should get at least 10-25years hard labor. Yes it would send a message to others that this society will not tolerate crimes against it's citizens. I firmly believe that it will make a difference. Especially to the youngsters coming along in the future. Sounds harsh but what we have been doing in the past hasn't worked has it? No. Let's quit feeling sorry for the perpetrators of violent crime whatever the age and be hard on them. Your rebutles please. james

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

One of the parents (probably more) of those boys who beat up the farm workers (because they were Hispanic) voted Yes on lowering the age people can be charged as adults here in CA. Now, of course, they are having a shit. I worked for the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 4 years. Prison and rehabilitation are oxymorons. I wish there were restitution programs for nonviolent crimes. That would free up prison space and pay back to society a little. Yes, I stray from the thread. It just hurts too much to see someone 12 or less murdering people. I don't even know what to think. I've always thought that murderers must be extremely mentally ill or mentally deficient in some way. I mean the only other option is just that they are truly freaking evil. I get *really* sick of the prevaling attitude that people have no personal responsibility. You should see the shit the *parents* at my daughter's elementary school pull. They teach their kids it's OK to break rules, that they have the right to not be inconvenienced at any cost. Screw anyone else. I really don't know what to think about child murderers. I tend to think that each case is highly individual. Like, have they been torturing and killing small animals all their lives? I just hope my 8 year old daughter doesn't axe murder someone, or become axed murdered, in a couple of years.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Good point James. I agree 100%. The real victims here are the little girl in Florida and the migrant workers. The others are not victims, they are predators. Their age is irrelevant.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

If they had executed Richard Davis for the first brutal murder he committed then gained parole for, Poly Klaas would still be a rambunctious living teenager. How many are sitting in juvenal honor (?) camps that have been convicted of ruthlessly murdering someone(drivebys)? How many sit on death row and have been sitting there for decades? How many victims' families are still grieving for their loved ones who don't get to breathe the sweet air of life. Life must be sweet. Look at how many of fascisms victims lived in the camps for years under incredibly horrid conditions, not giving up that spark we call life. Look at the incredible amounts of money the citizens spend for a convicted murderers' appeals process just so they can escape death themselves. Something they denied there victims. Craig Peyer is still alive after trying to assault, and then throwing Kara Knott over a hundred foot freeway bridge. He couldn't care less if she had a life. He's still alive. Her dad just died a few weeks ago. He died of broken heart. Pure and simple. I thought of my sweet daughter and I cried. She was raped but they wouldn't let me know who it was. They let him go after counseling my daughter that with no witnesses the defender would rip her apart on the stand. Do I have any concern for a murderers' feelings? Years ago in San Diego a young man(young teen)shot a policeman and a ride along. The policeman died the ridealong lived. He got off. He finally years later killed again. A few years ago, two young men(young teenageers) threw a very large rock off a bridge in San Diego which crashed through the windshield of a car and crippled for life an innocent young man engaged to be married. From the neck down that man can feel nothing. Can't even get it up. The boys were so remorseful. Oh how they cried. They are both in jail for assorted offenses after getting probation because they were children. I believe they were 14 and 16 at the time. james

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

If someone told me that, instead of jailing him, they needed to "rehabilitate" the 17-year-old asshole who broke into my 96-year- old great-grandma's house and raped her, I rehabilitate their ass.

Again, severe actions have to have severe consequences. My brother ran around with some real assholes in school... no one who killed or beat anyone, but there was a fair share of vandalism and petty crime. And the attitudes of these kids were "Ha ha, we're still minors, nothing's going to happen to us!"

On some level, with the "but they're just children!" and the "but s/he was harrassed at school and was lonely!", children are getting the idea that brutal and savage actions can be excused, that SURELY their sweet, young, innocent asses won't be held responsible when they fuck up.

I believe rehabilitation is excellent for kids who're just mixed up in stupid shit (like my brother's friends), or for criminals who're drug-addicts or who went through a low point and *genuinely* want to stop doing drugs and become productive members of society (like the young man in the class I'm teaching who now counsils gang members in Compton, or like the Scared Straight guys who, on some level, were trying to give back to society after they'd taken so much). But the murderers? The rapists? The brutal, violent, repeat offenders? Sorry.

(I didn't know Sam Knott just died. How sad....)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Wow. It looks like only two people thought that a life sentence was definitely the wrong response (Travis and Kate.) Sharon, Dwanollah, James and Joe all came down on the ‘harsh but fair’ side of the argument.

Intuitively, I’d guess that the ratio of responses in the UK would more likely be the other way round, which set me thinking about possible social/cultural explanations for the difference. Do you think there’s any mileage in the suggestion that there’s a correlation between the size of a country (population, rather) on the one hand and public opinion on crime and punishment on the other. It does seem to be generally true that countries with a higher population and high support a popular belief in tough sentencing for criminals – as examples, the US, China, India, Russia. At the other end of the spectrum, in countries with a smaller population, you tend to get more liberal views about punishment – ie the UK, Canada, France, Germany.

The Nordic region is home to some of the world’s most liberal views on crime and punishment – getting back to child murderers, a recent case in, I think Sweden, where two 10/11 year-olds killed a younger child resulted in no custodial sentence at all. A rehab, care and monitoring program was set up, but it took place within the community.

Could it be that large societies breed hard-line thinking on crime and punishment as a kind of self-defence mechanism?

Predictably, I also have some rebuttals for the supporters of tough sentencing for child killers. First, here are your responses (and I apologise for editing) …

“It's pretty harsh that he got such a strong sentence, but then again, he DID kill her.” Sharon

“Beating the shit out of someone else, especially someone much littler, is wrong. And they won't realize it unless they have to take responsibility for their actions instead of "Oh, we can let Jimmy off with a lighter sentence because he's only 14 and has his whole life in front of him!" or "Jenny didn't really know what she was doing!" Sorry. They know.” Dwanollah

“There used to be a little girl who had her whole life in front of her. Love, kids, maybe grandkids who won't be born now. She won't experience a kiss or a hug or any thing else. Where are the sympathies for her? Do we as a society owe her memory anything? … At 12 years old you know right from wrong. You know what should and shouldn't be done. You have watched enough damn TV to know. The little girl Tate killed was brutally beaten. Lacerated liver, collapsed lung, bruised heart, numerous broken ribs, skull fracture. A 5 minute beating … Let's quit feeling sorry for the perpetrators of violent crime whatever the age and be hard on them …” James

“Good point James. I agree 100%. The real victims here are the little girl in Florida and the migrant workers. The others are not victims, they are predators. Their age is irrelevant.” Joe

When you commit a crime, you forfeit all right to liberty – that’s what you all seem to believe.

Interesting. So, I’m guessing that, in recent high-profile executions of mentally-subnormal killers, you’d say, ‘they got what they deserved’, right? You commit the crime, you pay the price?

Is the fact that a crime has been committed REALLY the only important aspect of a murder? There’s NO room for diminished responsibility? What if the killer was drunk? I suppose you’d say that if you choose to relinquish responsibility, then you’ve chosen to relinquish your rights as well … and I’d have some sympathy for that. So, if we upped the stakes, and considered killings committed under the influence of stronger substances – would you say that the same rule applied?

How would you sentence someone who had inadvertently taken drugs and been responsible for a death, or someone whose drink had been spiked?

Yesterday, I read an article about an 80-year old man who stabbed his 85-year old neighbour to death after the sound of fireworks woke him up … he claimed that he thought he was back in the war. How would you sentence him?

What if someone kills with a car? Is that also murder? If they’re driving recklessly?

How about a woman who has been beaten by her husband, and who kills him – should she spend her life in prison?

What if that woman hadn’t been beaten, but claimed mental cruelty – would the penalty be the same?

I’d love to know whether you’d still want an eye for an eye in each of these cases.

Now let’s go back to Lionel Tate. The emotive response which James offers is the key to the whole problem, I think: he notes that Lionel’s victim will never have grandkids, will never feel hugs or kisses. He also notes that the murder was a brutal one: lacerated liver, collapsed lung, bruised heart, numerous broken ribs, skull fracture …

This is exactly what adults see when they see this kind of crime, and they seek punishment for these things – for the tragic loss, for the horrific injuries. Dwanollah claims that kids know right from wrong – there’s no excuse.

It’s such a myopic argument. You’re punishing him according to your standards and your expectations – not his, and I’m sorry, but given that he is the one being tried for murder, you have to look at HIS understanding of the crime. Not yours.

Was 12-year old Lionel aware, as he beat her, that she would never again feel hugs and kisses, that she wouldn’t have her own grandkids? Was he thinking about what her parents were losing, or her friends? Did he know how severe the injuries were that he was causing – all those terrible internal injuries?

I’m prepared to admit that he MAY have known she would die as a result of his attack. I’m also prepared to admit that he knew that was wrong. But I don’t accept that he knew HOW wrong it was, or what the consequences would be. Punish him for that and you’re adding tragedy to tragedy.

Finally, another point from James: “What happened to punishment? Retribution? Is punishment retribution or just deserts? What's wrong with punishment? Is it so wrong?”

Simply, yes. Believe it or not, a criminal justice system has to have a way of justifying the punishments it hands out. Without justification, one person is harmed (the victim) and then another person is harmed (the perpetrator) and there is no gain. There are three possible justifications for punishment: retribution, deterrent, or the protection of society.

If you favour retributive punishment, James, how do you punish victimless crime? Like smoking pot, or trespassing? And if you don’t, how do you justify Lionel’s punishment? As a deterrent – I don’t think so. For the protection of society – likewise.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Oh - I forgot to mention one thing that really tickled me: James' suggestion that kids should learn responsibility from TV.

Heh. That's a good one.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Pale Blue, I'm only going to answer one question you asked. In the U.S. you can be arrested and convicted of vehicular manslaughter. A man in my town was just found guilty of that after driving drunk and getting into a car accident where the woman in the other car died. Another man in the area is going to trial for vehicular manslaughter after deciding that the "NO U-TURN" sign didn't apply to him and he ended up hitting another car and killing the driver. I think they both should go to jail for taking the lives of people because they thought certain laws didn't apply to them.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

I'm sorry, but if some teenager decides to shoot my husband because he pulled him over for speeding or a broken tail light....I think the little bastard would deserve to rot in jail. Teenagers know right from wrong. If they don't, it's their parent's fault. Children should be taught right from wrong from the beginning. What if it ends up being MY child who commits a violent crime? It could happen. I will do everything I can to teach him how to live and be a good person, and pray every day that he turns out to be a productive member of society. How would I feel if he DID kill someone else--accident or not? Would I want my child to be in jail for the rest of his life? No, I wouldn't. But in my heart, I would know that if it had been the other way around--if HE had been killed, I would want the killer to pay. I think Tate should remain in prison for at LEAST 20 years. And when he gets out, maybe he will keep in mind the consequences for killing another person.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Nicole - let me play devil's advocate for a second.

So, a driver's in a hurry (I could really pile on the pressure here and claim that he's on his way to hospital or ... well, you get the picture ... he's hurrying) and decides to take a quick u-turn, and there's a tragic accident. Sure he should go to jail - but was he guilty of murder?

If not - and it seems that this is what the 'vehicular manslaughter' crime exists for - then you're accepting that it isn't JUST the consequences of an action that matter, but also the circumstances surrounding that action, right?

I agree with that entirely.

Shanna - of course kids should know right from wrong, and I'm sure that Tate knew that killing was wrong. But I'll re-iterate, because this is important - I don't think he knew HOW wrong it was, or properly understood WHY it was wrong. You may want to refer to Travis' reply earlier in the thread, for extra depth.

You also raise an important point - the education of kids IS, to a large extent, the responsibility of the parents. But it's also the responsibility of wider society - the media, teachers, other kids, other kids parents etc ...

If a kid DOESN'T know 'right from wrong' as you so quaintly put it, shouldn't other sections of society share the blame? Would you support punishment for parents of child criminals? Or for teachers? Surely you wouldn't make the kid shoulder the responsibility for the failings of others ... oh, you would?

That's what I thought.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

If a driver needs to go to the hospital, he/she should have called an ambulance. Most road rules are there for the safety of drivers, and if the driver was late for a job interview, or was trying to get to Toys R Us to get the last Play Station 2, or going to the hospital because his wife was in labor, breaks a law and has an accident and ends up killing someone they are responsible for that person's death and should be punished. I feel that the driver felt that he/she was above the law because they had some place to get to in a hurry, and because he/she couldn't plan ahead and manage their time correctly someone is dead.

If someone got into an accident because the sun blinded them and they swerved into someone's lane, or they hit a patch of ice on the road, or a traffic sign couldn't be seen very well, etc. then I don't think the driver is responsible for anyone's death. Only when a driver chooses to break a law and it results in a death should the driver be punished.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

"I’m prepared to admit that he MAY have known she would die as a result of his attack. I’m also prepared to admit that he knew that was wrong. But I don’t accept that he knew HOW wrong it was, or what the consequences would be. Punish him for that and you’re adding tragedy to tragedy."

I so, so agree. If this CHILD was incapable of grasping just what the consequences were, then he should not have been tried as an adult.

I don't think anyone who is against Tate being tried/sentenced as an adult is saying he shouldn't be punished, just that his treatment and sentencing are unjust. This need for punishment (the 'hang em high' attitude) is the reason that victims aren't (or shouldn't be)involved in the justice system as far as the trial process goes - emotions have no place in it (victim impact statements at sentencing bring victims' experience in at point of sentencing here - I assume it's the same in the US). I mean, if someone killed my children, no matter the circumstances, I'd probably want to kill the person myself - but that wouldn't mean it was right or justified, or that my feelings should be brought out in court before anyone was actually convicted.

"I think Tate should remain in prison for at LEAST 20 years. And when he gets out, maybe he will keep in mind the consequences for killing another person."

Shanna, if this happens, I guarantee he'll come out much more damaged and more dangerous than when he went in. The concept of rehabilitation, especially among long-term federal inmates, is a farce. The resources aren't there, and with many people holding this same 'hang em high' attitude, I doubt there's going to be any more tax money funnelled towards rehab. I don't know what an appropriate sentence is for this - what he was offered as a juvenile seems more appropriate. He obviously can be dangerous, especially if he has no concept of what he can/can't do physically.

Pale Blue, I do have to address the issue of chemically impaired people committing crimes. I have problems with diminishing responsibility in this way. I believe that movements are afoot here in Canada to have drunk drivers charged with murder (if this isn't in place already). The concept being that, as adults, knowingly driving drunk is on par with knowingly running someone down. Also, if a drunken frat boy rapes someone while smashed, is he any less responsible? No, 'cause he took those drinks willingly. Having a drink spiked or freaking out due to a drug interaction are different as no decision was made by the perpetrator.

Maybe this is a societal/population thing, although I know that when they poll Canadians they usually return 'yes' vote towards the return of capital punishment and we can be just as hell-bent on punishment. As in England and Scandinavia, we are also a welfare state, with an attitude more in line with taking care of our own, rather than throwing away all the bad apples. Y'idontknow. Now I'm rambling.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Nicole, I agree with you. I just think it's telling that you feel the punishment should be less in this case than in other instances where one person kills another.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Kate - I'm pretty sure I agree with you on the diminished responsibility through drink/drugs issue: I just raised it because I wanted the eye-for-an-eye posse to address the issue.

And respect, by the way!

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

I'm still mulling some things, but I just want to commend everyone, regardless of what "side" of the issue they're on, for keeping this such an interesting and productive discussion. Y'all're way smart!

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Pale Blue, which instance are you talking about? Sorry, but we just started talking about so many different instances I'm getting confused.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Nicole - any other instance. Correct me if I'm wrong: you were simply saying that drivers should be punished if they break the law and cause someone's death as a result. But I assumed you were also saying that it shouldn't be tried as murder ...

If so, I'm in full agreement, and the reason I picked up on it is because although the consequences of murder and manslaughter are the same (someone is dead, someone else is culpable) the punishment is different because the criminal is being tried on THEIR intentions, and THEIR understanding - not the bald fact that, because of them, someone is dead.

It's an important distinction, and one which I didn't see room for in some of the earlier responses.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Okay, I see where you are coming from. Yes, I think if someone causes an accident because they broke a law and someone is killed they should be charged with manslaughter, not murder (doesn't that *sound* worse than murder?) because they didn't go out planning to hurt someone, but they did, and it was because of their actions. I don't think they need to be in jail for the rest of their lives, but they need to do some time in some capacity. Now, if they planned on running over someone to kill them (Like some crazed girlfriend did here a few years ago) then they should be charged with murder. And then there are the Road Rage incidents, which is a whole other can of worms...

I wonder if Florida's strict ways of punishing criminals is because of the wave of crime against tourists, where a number were killed. Florida is so reliant on tourism that to make sure people came and visited they may have made harsh laws on violence towards others. I'm just throwing out a thought here, please feel free to comment.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

My $0.02...I think the sentence handed down was harsh in view of the defendent's age...but this little girl, when the paramedics found her, had a fractured skull, multiple broken ribs, a torn liver, and was covered in her vomit....Now this kid had to know he was beating the living daylights out of her. If he was just roughhousing, do you think her spewing vomit would have stopped him? Or the cracking and crunching sound of ribs and skull breaking? Not to mention the obvious crying and screaming that would have accompanied this kind of injury over the course of the 5 minutes he "wrestled" with her?

Putting a 12 year old away for life sounds like a wrongheaded approach to dealing with what happened.

But there is no mistaking the fact that something very evil went on there, well beyond the realm of rough children's play gone awry.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Yeah Fruitbat, this went way beyond childs play. The kid is probably criminally insane. We don't really know what went on at the trial. There were probably numerous psychiatric evaluations performed on this kid. I don't think that his understanding of his actions comes into play because of his age or lack of mental capacity. He elected to be tried as an adult, and he had his day in court. The 14th amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law". This means there are no "double standards" or "subjective interpretations". Rich, poor, smart, or stupid; the law applies equally to everybody. You can't kill people. I really don't care what happens to that nutcase, as long as he is behind bars and not on the streets. He is extremely dangerous, and I think the court did the right thing. This is not meant to be mean or nasty; it is meant to be fair and to protect society at large.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Thanks Pale Blue.

Creeeeeeeeak! (sound of can of worms opening here).

"Rich, poor, smart, or stupid; the law applies equally to everybody."

It should, but it has been doled out unevenly in the past. I think that this child is also of colour(?). Anyone think that he would have been treated any differently were he a little blonde-haired, blue-eyed, upper-middle-class kid? Perhaps he would have just become a poster boy for another cause (as opposed to media influence on children, maybe he would have been held up as an example of why all latchkey children are at risk of becoming violent offenders, or some other nonsense).

Just had to bring this up.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

The behavior of that kid goes way beyond his colour(?). He is lucky he got off with just life imprisonment. He belongs in a straight jacket 24/7/365. And the same goes for anybody else who does the things that this kid did.

Just had to answer you question, Kate.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Okay, I have to be honest with you guys. I'm 14, quite possibly the youngest person here. (Please don't hate me. My eyes haven't fallen out yet, so I don't think I'm quite corrupted by y'all enough. :)) And all I can say is this: Knowing kids, knowing teenagers, knowing how I myself was a couple years back? I, and just about everyone I know, would have known exactly what we were doing. I feel bad that it has come to this, but to tell you the honest swear-to-God truth? Once you're about twelve, you know the difference between right and wrong pretty damn well. You know the difference between playing and seriously injuring someone. You know you can go to jail. You know, somewhere in your mind, that that person could die and never get up in the morning or yawn or laugh or succeed or fail ever again. I can't believe that there is such a difference between the mind of a twelve-year-old and an adult mind. (At least, there wasn't such a huge difference in mine or anyone I knew's.) And honestly, as sympathetic as I am towards the boy and his mother, I feel that the sentence he received was just.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

"Knowing kids, knowing teenagers, knowing how I myself was a couple years back? I, and just about everyone I know, would have known exactly what we were doing."

Just about everyone? Not everyone, then?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Joe - far from answering Kate's question, all you've done is re- iterate your earlier position. If you scroll up the thread, you'll find that inbetween your first iteration and your second iteration, there were a whole bunch of questions. Do you feel like trying to answer any of them?

All the other advocates of 'hang 'em high' crime and punishment - what the hell happened to you? Sharon? Dwanollah? James? Shanna? It's all gone kind of quiet. Given that you were so ready to condemn Tate to life in prison (which isn't a morally-trivial position to assume) I was kind of expecting you to be able to elaborate on your views, maybe respond to the rebuttals that were offered.

*saloon doors swing in the breeze ... a tumbleweed blows across set ... the dust at the side of the road stirs uneasily and settles*

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

I guess there is no need to say anything more. Justice has been served. "Hang em high" is your metaphor, not mine and certainly not the courts. Let the kid stay behing bars, forever.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Sure. That's what the courts are there for, after all, isn't it? So that 'ordinary people' can abdicate their responsibility for making difficult decisions, or forming ethical opinions ...

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Uh, Kate, the victim was also of colour. You can't have it both ways.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Uh, (sorry I've forgotten how to spell your name) I think Kate was suggesting that because Tate is black, the predominantly-white judicial system (as well as white society) may have found it easier to vilify him, to disassociate themselves from him, than if he was a white kid.

How does the fact that the victim was also black have any bearing on white perceptions of Tate? Are you trying to suggest that the court would be more lenient on the black perpetrator of black-on-black violence than a black perpetrator of black-on-white violence?

Well, it's an interesting suggestion, but it doesn't mean that Kate was trying to 'have it both ways'.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Mallory, first I want to say that this is not meant to belittle you in anyway. Your point of view is well appreciated but I think you’ve forgotten something. We were all 14 and younger once too. Some of us even remember what it was like. When you get to 25 (or around there) you will look back, if you are inclined to do so, and understand the difference between the adult mind and the adolescent mind. When you have only 14 years to draw from it is hard to understand that you will most likely live for 50 or 60 years. As this becomes more clear to you and the torrent of hormones slows down the world takes on a different perspective. Things become a little less intense. But understand, I’m not saying one is better then the other. Just different.

All that said, I still think that someone of Tate's age would have a hard time completely understanding the consequences of what he had done. This is not as simple as knowing “right from wrong”. It’s fully grasping the years he took away from that little girl or the years he’s taken away from himself.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

"This is not as simple as knowing “right from wrong”. It’s fully grasping the years he took away from that little girl or the years he’s taken away from himself."

And for that reason, he shouldn't be severely punished... shouldn't experience punishment appropriate to the crime?

I guess that's the big conundrum here: which takes precidence? Punishment appropriate to the crime, or punishment appropriate to the age of the criminal?

I think knowing "right from wrong" IS enough. More than enough. Yeah, I'm sure the horror of what he did won't hit him until he's older... and that, too, can be part of "appropriate" punishment (IMO). I remember once seeing an interview with one of the women in Manson's cult, who killed Sharon Tate et. al. (I'm not belittling the other victims, I just can't remember everyone's name!)... she was talking about how, at age 17, she was "just a dumb kid," didn't fully fathom just how wrong what she did was, she was doing what this mentor/father figure told her to... but she never made any bones about the fact that she deserved life in prison, and that she deserved to live every day of her life being reminded of what she took away from someone, of what unspeakable crimes she committed. And it was sad... I mean, here's a woman who looks like my mom! And she's going to spend the rest of her life in prison, no hope for a "normal" life.

It's sad. But. She totally deserved it as well.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

I think it's easier for people to cope with such psychotically antisocial behavior if they just write off the perpetrator as a broken toy or a piece of rotten fruit. People want to remove him from society so they won't have to look at him anymore, and yet they don't want to give him the death penalty because that would be "inhumane".

James, that little girl isn't coming back whether Lionel Tate goes to prison for life or not.

The scenario I hate to envision is Lionel being incarcerated for life, and then his parents raising more kids like him. And other parents like them raising more kids like him. And then what do we do? Put them all in jail for life, right? Because it's too much trouble to rehabilitate them, right? Because they're just psycho and need to be removed from society, right? Like the Columbine kids and the kids who've been shooting their peers since then -- let's just put them some place where we don't have to look at them because I don't want to face the fact that children in our society are being raised this way. I just want the rotten fruit cleared off the streets and shoved into a dumpster before my kids grow up, dang it. Then, after I've made all the money I could and then died, I won't give a shit what happens to the poor jerks left around after that.

I don't think a twelve-year-old should be imprisoned for life. My serious, non-sarcastic question, then, is: What are the alternatives offered these days? Kate, do you know? Letty? Somebody?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Hey, Pale Blue, I think everyone went home for the evening - Survivor's on tonight, that could have something to do with it.

I wasn't having to "try it both ways", I was just, as Pale Blue suggested, wondering whether the justice system (not always known to be colour blind) would have treated him any differently were he white. It was just another thing to throw out there for discussion/thought. Really, in this instance, I don't think that his colour is an issue.

Joe, well, no one is saying that this kid isn't dangerous/disturbed - I believe the main arguement was whether or not a 12 year old should be treated as an adult. Yes, at 12 years someone should be able to know right and wrong (hey, my 4 year old knows it's wrong to hit), but are they mature enough to grasp the meaning of murder? Of death? Of consequences? I believe that we're also talking about a mildly retarded child as well, who would be even less capable (Joe, I'm NOT saying that it makes him any less dangerous or deserving of close supervision/detention, it could make him more dangerous). How did the court come to this decision - who offered the option to try as an adult (prosecuting attorney)? Should we treat a 12 year old, slow kid who murders differently from a 15 year old who took days to plan and carry out a murder? Uh, yeah.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Hi Gwen - I don't know what the alternatives are. For cases like this, it makes better sense for a boy to go into a secure environment run by the mental health system, rather than simply a prison. What people forget is that, if they're not handing these kids/people life sentences, that they WILL GET OUT, and if they have only been subjected to punishment and not rehab, they're not going to be Joe Civilian. Boot camps seem to be in vogue for young offenders right now, but I've read some studies that indicate that they don't do much for serious offenders (just like prison, kids caught for minor incidents will be scared off). Rates of re-offence between boot camp 'graduates' and kids in traditional detention even out after about 6 mos or so. It seems that you just end up with criminals who can shine shoes and make hospital corners.

If you're throwing away the key, well, fine, screw rehab - but if not, then give some thought to parole etc. It always pisses me off to hear people say "he was given early release from his sentence and given parole instead" - parole is a part of every sentence meant to allow for a supervised adjustment to society, if you keep offenders in until the end of their sentence, then they're free to walk out the door, no supervision, no strings, buh bye. Just as with the adult system (well, it's more of a problem with the adult system in Canada), you need better cooperation between mental health professionals and correctional staff. Better rehab programs. Better psychological assessment.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

I live in a blue collar neighborhood in the urban east. (Philadelphia). Jury duty is an ongoing obligation. We have a lot of lawyers and a lot of crime in Philadelphia. I have sat on 5 juries, and 1 of them was a homicide. From my experience, I can say that a lot of things surface that never make their way into the media. We really don't know as much as we think we know about what really happened in Florida. All that we know for sure is that we have a convicted adolescent with a life sentence. Now what should we do with him?

The sad reality is that is costs as much to jail a convict for 1 year as it costs to send a kid to Harvard.(About $30,000.00/yr) So how can we justify spending more money on rehabilitation, psychiactic care, job training, etc.? I would rather see my tax dollar send a worthy kid to Harvard. That's the issue I have with your argument, Kate.

There are now about 55 million school age children in the USA between ages 6 and 17. If 10 of them pull a Columbine, then the odds of being involved in a school shooting are about 1 in 5 million. In other words, the number of school shootings is very small. Likewise, the number of child murders is also very small. The media would have you believe otherwise.

We can afford to incarcerate only so many people before the economic burden becomes onerous. That is why many people, including myself, would rather spend less, not more on any convicted felon. Don't the other 54,999,990 school age kids deserve a bigger slice of this limited economic pie?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Well, as far as I know, Harvard is a private university, any kids going there are having their parents or scholarships pay for it, not the average tax payer. Also, I'm talking about guys who are going to get out of prison, not lifers - you can treat/train them now, and lessen the likelihood that they will reoffend, or you can simply prosecute and incarcerate them over and over again when they reoffend and/or end up spending life in prison (at a much greater cost to society than original treatment/training). Also, who would you rather have in your community - a guy who spent 12 years in prison, then did 3 years parole with counselling, job and life skills training - or someone who's spent ten years, more or less, in a cell, only to be set free directly into your neighbourhood with no required contact from police? Think about it; it's not just about 'fixing' criminals, it's about the public's safety.

Also, I really don't like to equate human life with a financial value - what happens when we can't afford to house all these guys who are serving life on the 'three strikes you're out' legislation (that still exist in the US?) - do you just do them in cause it costs too much to feed them? No, wait, don't answer that.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

You made good points Kate. I think I made a few good ones myself. It's kind of ironic, but I think Gwen may have stumbled onto a good idea. Keep sweeping the "rubbish" off the steet, and then make enough money and move out. In the meantime, just hope that it remains within our means to sustain humane treatment of prisoners. I don't think she really meant the part about "not giving a doo-doo". After all "The Gulag Archipelago" was a leftist/Socialist solution. This is the USA, and we don't do things that way here.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2001

Where to start?

Joe, I hope you recognise that Gwen didn't 'really mean' any of the stuff she wrote in the mid-section of her post. She was trying to highlight the absurdity of some of the posts supporting Tate's incarceration by taking an exaggeratedly hard-line view. I don't think I need to go into detail about what that says re your position here: is there already a school of thought called right-wing absurdism? If not, I think you'd be well-placed to get the ball rolling.

Next ... the 'good point' you made about the unacceptably high public cost of funding a rehab program isn't, I hate to say, all that good. As Kate pointed out, the cost of relatively brief rehab and release is probably lower than the cost of life-long incarceration or temporary incarceration followed by recidivism.

Further, if society made a committment to rehab as a preferred means of dealing with child offenders, there are other options available than using 'your' tax dollars. The initiative could be privately- funded through bond issuance - I'm sure ethical investors would be only too happy to add those instruments to their portfolios.

Finally ... "After all "The Gulag Archipelago" was a leftist/Socialist solution. This is the USA, and we don't do things that way here."

The Gulags were NOT a leftist/Socialist solution. That would be like claiming that the Holocaust was a capitalist solution. The gulags existed as corrective institutions (work camps for offenders) before the communists turned them into labour camps, and it wasn't until Stalin (a DICTATOR - not a 'leftist' or a 'socialist') got hold of them, that they became the equivalent of death camps.

And no, you don't do things that way in the US - but then, given that Russia ALSO doesn't do things that way now, it looks like you're talking about history. And we don't need to go far back into US history (or the history of most countries) before we find some pretty appalling behaviour. Anyone for slavery and genocide?

I'd put the champagne on ice if I was you.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

This is one of life's more complicated situations. As individuals and as a society, we feel a need for retribution. It's a basic instinct.

But just because we feel that need, does it mean that punishment is effective? Why do we punish people? To teach them that what they did was wrong, that it was bad for society as a whole even if it was for their immediate gratification. To prevent them, and others, from repeating the offense. And to satisfy our need for retribution.

Take it to a simpler level: if you get a speeding ticket, you've been punished. Didn't you know speeding was wrong, that it could make an accident more likely? Probably, so the ticket didn't teach you anything you didn't already know. Does it prevent you from repeating the offense? Maybe, for a while, but probably not forever. I know it just makes me hyperalert for cops. In this example the only goal really achieved was the need for retribution. And the locality has picked up a little of my cash along the way.

Obviously speeding is a whole different matter than the brutal murder of a child. But I really think the whole question of punishment has been shuffled away for far too long, with too few alternatives and nothing really being done to solve the underlying problems.

There's a woman I met a few months ago who truly inspires me. Her adult son was killed by some young men, and as she sat through the murder trial, all that kept running through her mind was, if someone had taken an interest in these kids when they were young, my son might be alive today. She now spends her life running a free daycare center for children in the worst part of town, providing them with nutrition, stability and a caring atmosphere for at least part of their lives.

I'm sure there are people who think I'm simplistic and so far left I can only walk in circles, people who will cynically ask how I'd feel if it were my daughter that had been killed. That's fine, I don't pretend to have the answers. The more I think about it the more angles I discover.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Mary Ellen, I thought what you said is very interesting. All I can add is, when my aunt was murdered, my family was divided fairly evenly between two sides: one that wanted to kill the seventeen year old murderer and had to be physically removed from the courtroom when the verdict was read, and those of us who felt horrible that my aunt suffered because of this person, but who realized that nothing was going to bring her back. The whole trial was surreal ( he admitted that he killed her, but claimed that he was insane because of lead paint poisoning so he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions), especially watching his parents sit there and hear that their son was going to go to prison for life. This happened ten years ago, and I still don't have a clear idea of how I feel about the whole thing.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Obviously, this is a topic that has many valid points on all sides, and Pale Blue, I find that you're painting pictures with a pretty big stoke, which just seems to cause debates out of points that stem from what we originally started talking about. Not that that's a bad thing, but in regard to the specific situation, the one with Lionel Tate, I don't feel bad that he got such a hard sentence. Maybe I would if I knew the kid personally, or if something like that happened in my life somehow, but I don't and it hasn't.

Now, I can't say I wouldn't feel sympathetic in every murder/manslaughter case that involves a minor, but I'm honestly not in this case.

I can't fix the world, and I can't take away the evil that people do, and I can't get upset every time someone who shouldn't have done something, did, and as a result killed a kid and gets punished for it. I so admire people like the woman who runs a daycare for those poor neglected kids, because her love and care will do so much for them. But when you get old enough to except responsibility for your actions, I don't have the same patience.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

"When you get old enough to accept responsibility for your actions, I don't have the same patience"

I agree with that statement.

I don't agree that twelve is always old enough to accept responsibility for certain actions. And that's where the other points come in - should the kid take all the blame? Should his parents share some?

How does the concept of diminished responsibility fit in here? Are there lessons to be learnt from other examples of diminished responsibility?

What is the point of punishment in this case? What does society gain? And if you apply a certain justification for punishment in one case - shouldn't it be applied equally in others?

Are there alternatives to life in prison? Could they be more appropriate?

Mary Ellen's post put a lot of these issues in context a lot more clearly than I've succeeded in doing. It looks, to me, like you see no reason to consider the wider implications of Tate's punishment, simply because you think he 'deserved' it. But this whole notion of 'deserving' punishment fails to touch on the questions which Mary Ellen raised so well - what purpose does that punishment serve?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Some people have been saying that a 12 year old doesn't know the consequences of his own actions. How would anyone, regardless of age, NOT know that if you weigh 180 pounds and you jump on someone who weighs about 45 pounds that you are going to hurt that person? When heavy things fall on you, they hurt you. He knew he was going to hurt that girl when he slammed into her. Repeatedly.

I think the plea agreement that the Procecution offered was a little too fair, in that he was in a juvenile facility for 3 years, then on probabion for 10. I think he should be the facility until he reaches the age where he would go to an adult prison (some places 18, some 21) and then go on probation for 10 years.

And then maybe send the girl's mother a check for $1 every week for the rest of his life, so he is reminded every week what he did.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

"Are there alternatives to life in prison? Could they be more appropriate?"

The thing that I'm saying, in this case, I don't care. I'm sure there are alternatives, and in a perfect world they would save this kid and all the others that are in a place like he is, but this world ain't perfect, and until you can promise a program that will work to it's fullest capacity to do all it can to help, and that the kid is responsive to all that work, then I won't sit around waxing sympathetic. If you show me one that works, then I'd love to throw my support behind it.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Nicole, no-one has been saying that a twelve-year old doesn't know the consequences of their actions. No-one has suggested that Tate didn't know he was hurting the girl.

The position is a bit more complicated. But not THAT complicated.

Tate may have intended to kill her. I'm certain he knew that killing is 'wrong'. I don't think he knew HOW wrong killing is, and I don't think he properly understood the consequences.

Having said that - here's a question for you. If you're so certain that Tate a) intended to kill b) properly understood what that meant and c) knew what the consequences for him would be ... why would he do it?

I mean - he'd have to be crazy, right?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Sharon. Fine - I'll push a bill through Congress shall I?

I'm sure you know as well as I do that unless 'ordinary' people discuss these things, unless they raise the issues, nothing changes.

You're perfectly entitled not to care that there's a better way to do things - that the current system is flawed - and because you don't care, I'm glad you had the courage to say so.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

I'd put the champagne on ice if I was you.

Hey Pale

I don't understand your comment. I don't drink champagne. Could you put it in other words or explain it more fully in plain English?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Sure, Joe. But, y'know, 'I'd put the champagne on ice' IS plain English - maybe the inclusion of a word derived from French (that would be 'champagne') threw you a little bit.

I was suggesting that you were indulging in a bit of inappropriate self-congratulation.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

I wasn't congratulating myself at all. I was remarking about how good I feel about being a US citizen. I think my country does things pretty well considering out superpower status and world standing. I was comparing the USA/prison system/crime rate vrs the Soviet/Socialist/prison system/crime rate.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Yeah - and I was saying that's misplaced.

If you feel good about being a US citizen because it doesn't have death camps, then by the same criteria, you should feel happy to live anywhere else.

And if you feel justified in criticising Russia for something which happened at the start of the century, then you should also feel uncomfortable about the things which were happening in the US at the start of the century.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Yeah but Pale, 20,000,000-40,000,000 people died in the Soviet/Socialist Prison System. Their country is unable to establish any kind of economy now because of their crime rate. Our incarceration rate and prison death rate is trivial compared to that. Our per capita income is much higher than Russia's. I think my pride in my country in not misplaced.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Oh, hey, Joe - this is getting a little off-topic, but I can't resist sharing this. You know you said ...

"I was remarking about how good I feel about being a US citizen. I think my country does things pretty well considering out superpower status and world standing."

... right? I did a quick google search to see if I could find comparisons of crime rates, living standards etc between the US and other nations, and I did!

You can find the entire document at;

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

And here's the lead paragraph;

"The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their labor unions stronger.

And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us on statistic after statistic after statistic."

Which statistics? Go take a look ... I found the figures on crime to be particularly instructive. You'll have to scroll down a little way.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

I DON'T think he intended to kill her, but I DO think he intended to hurt her and in the process got totally into the WWF wrestling stuff and proceeded to destroy her body. I don't think someone like that should walk among society until he gets a lot of psychological help, which he is getting right now at the juvenile facility he is in at the moment.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

I checked it Pale, I can't find the Soviet/Socialist/Russia statistics. I thought that is was the system we were talking about.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Oh, right: you're feel good about being an American citizen because America has lower crime rates and a better per capita income than Russia?

More power to you, then.

Personally, I feel great about being in the UK because the UK has a higher minimum wage than Cambodia.

And Nicole - what you've just said isn't a million miles away from how I feel about this. I think we're on more or less the same ground.

And now I'm leaving the office and going home for the weekend, where I don't have internet access. Although the whole thread has kind of lost its way in recent posts, I'd just like to say that on the whole I've really enjoyed discussing this - apologies if I pissed anyone off.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Okay, I'm going to take one last stab at the original question re treating children as adults. Can a 12 year old get married? No, even though I'm sure they understand the concept. Can a 12 year old give consent to sexual activity? No, and any adult who knowingly has sex with someone of this age should quite rightly be charged. Can a 12 year old legally purchase cigarettes and alchohol? No. Can they legally operate a car? No. We recognize childhood/immaturity in these other matters, so why try such a young person as an adult? When is the cut-off age? Again, I'm not saying that child murderers/violent offenders shouldn't be punished or detained, but why the need to up them to adult court?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Is it because we don't have anything in our legal system to detain juveniles and then transfer them for another period to adult prison? I honestly am asking because I don't know. I always thought that being charged as a juvenile was a way to get a really super short sentence for a horrible crime. Like, if you're 15 (and I *think* that Lionel Tate is 14 or 15 now) and you get sentenced to juvenile detention, at 18 you are released and your records are sealed.

I don't know if that's really how it works. I don't know if a 15 year old can be sentenced to 20 years, and spend 3 in juvie and 17 in real prison. But, it seems more appropriate to me to do it that way than to make the divide.

Of course, if you put a 15 year old in prison for 20 or 30 years, why would you ever let them out? Could they ever be a member of our society?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Yeah, I think that's it - I'm not sure how long you can sentence a young offender here, but I do remember that in a group home I worked in, we had some kids who were already 18 still doing time for crimes they'd committed as minors. They just rewrote the legislation in Canada (formerly Young Offenders' Act, not sure if it's changed), I think the max used to be 4 or 6 years. Anyone know what the deal is in the US (or is it a state by state thing)? Still, that seems to be dictated by what the public perceives to be a just punishment, not by the circumstances of the crime or the ability of the offender. I mean, aren't judges bound by the law to impose certain minimum sentences, so they're not given any leeway to be less harsh on kids charged as adults (i.e. while they may only get a maximum sentence of 5/6 years as juveniles, judges must enforce minimum penalties for certain offences, there's no "in between" - so with a murder conviction, the judge probably had to enforce a life sentence)? Wow, run-on sentence.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

i know that this is a really flamboyant issue; but, as a high school student (and therefore an expert on "safe-school" policies....) i would just like to vent one of my main frustrations with these new rules on school violence. the general rule in most high schools nowadays is -- you do anything wrong, your expelled, the cops are called. this rule spans the gamut from shooting someone, to smoking on campus, to fighting off of school grounds (because news of the fight will make classmates feel "unsafe" in some school districts students can be expelled for fighting within a specific radius of the school), to jokingly threatening to "smack someone" for saying or doing something offensive or just plain silly. there was just a kid at my school who was expelled because he was making a video (for a class) about all the recent episodes of local "bomb scares" in my home town. the school said that he could have frightened students with his film and inspired students to recreate acts of violence from other schools....sorry, but we do see the news everynight. while getting kicked out of school seemed bad enough, my school called the cops and said that my friend was a threat to the school when he wouldn't leave. he was arrested, he spent almost a week in jail untill he was released on $9,500. bail. i think that this whole thing is ridiculous. there are gangs in my school, noticable ones, there are drug dealers, abused children, an incredibly high drop-out rate....no one seems to be learning anything. people should be punished accordingly, any child that kills another child needs a lot of therapy, anyone who knowingly commits murder should be put away. but please, kids get in fights, they always have, they always will. we can't ignor the big things because were trying to fix everything. so....thanks....that was just something that i thought really sucked about my school. i don't like going to school and not knowing if another one of my friends is going to get hauled off to jail.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Amelia Rae, I think we need to listen to kids more. Thanks for your input :). I know of some over reactions too. Responses need to be based on rational rather than reactivity. IMO, based on individual cases and not one blanket punishment. Adults just get really, really scared when they think about something bad happening to their kids (or their kids doing something bad). We love ya guys a lot.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

Amelia Rae - I agree with you. Zero tolerance policies in schools, while they may be effective in getting rid of some school 'violence' - have also helped inflate violent crime stats among youth and therefore fueled more concern. In my day (which wasn't *that* long ago, I'm 30 now), if you got in a fight with another student (just fists), you got hauled to the office and got detention or suspended. Today you'd be arrested for assault, which would also be counted as a violent offence. Just one of the reasons crime stats can be so deceiving.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

This thread became very long in a very short time. I made my opinion into an entry on my site: http://www.mikeleung.c om/2001/03_17.html.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

Oh!!!!!!!! i thought the question was gonna be "would you choose kids, or life in prison" i've heard nothing of this boy...so i'll go with what i thought the question was gonna be and choose life in prison...i'd get free cable. And now i'll throw my actuall 2 cents in now:) i think if a child is brutall enough to commit a crime where a life sentence can be administerd then they deserve it...murder is murder...but circumstaces are a big issue. I don't know anything about this particular case. i think if a child finds a gun and picks it up and fires it and kills, then life is a bit harsh (parents fault for leaving it lying around...they should get jail time not the child) And if you really think about it 12 yr olds are ALOT different from when i was 12 and i'm only 22. 12 yr olds now have sex, have babies...they can obviously premeditate something and be responsible for their actions. A slap on the wrist and going to juvenile hall until they're 21 (drinking age) is just enough to let them get really angry and the get out(and drunk)and kill more ppl...but it's just me and i'm rambling.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

Ok ok...after reading everyones (which i should of done before anyways) I still haven't changed my mind about his sentence (and i did know the case i just didn't know his name)I think his sentence was deserved. Kinda of bouncing back to what i said about pregnacy. If 12 yr's old have sex they know (they do know) that sex has consequences, one of those being a baby (duh) So why wouldn't a 12 yr old beating the crap out a little girl (more then likely screaming in agony until she blacked out from the pain, and internal injuries)not realize that what he was doing could lead to death? After reading alot of the posts here i see many people think because he's 12 he didn't realize what the consequences would be...WHO CARES if he didn't realize the consequences would be. if you touch fire you get burned,and won't do it again, if you murder, you go to jail where you never have the opportunity to do so again. Fair is fair. Justice would be nice for once. Considering the man that raped and murdered my aunt and left her in a local river, admitted to the crime and was convicted (rape, and premeditated 1st degree murder)to life and was realeased after 7 yrs for good behavior (what a f!@#$%g joke!) Good behavior my ass...but either way he's walking free, living his life while my aunt who had 2 beautiful children is in the ground. This boy may have a life sentence, but that doesn't mean jack! and that little girl is dead...Justice isn't served, it's given then lifted...for god's sake Manson has been on death row for for decades now...when are they gonna fry his ass huh? never i'm sure...so in short for everyone here who feels sorry for the boy little boy who has life...don't worry he'll be out soon. *sarcasm*--------i'm not normally this annoyed by a subject, but after i thought about it, it hit home a bit--------and everyone here has great opinions...BRAVO to all...everyone has good points...just had to get my own out :) thanks *climbs down off her soapbox*

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

Shan, when you say that in punishing a murder, it doesn't matter if the killer doesn't know right from wrong, and then say that the punishment of your aunt's killer was inappropriately light, it sounds like your sense of fairness on this issue comes more from a personal agenda, rather than any fairness that takes the accused's state of mind into consideration for any length of time. Justice in your aunt's murder is unresolved, so why should anyone take any special effort to make sure any other killer is being treated fairly? Why should his pain be any more special than yours?

The problem with that kind of fairness is that I picture a murderer carrying an attitude similar to that one. He sees his suffering as enormous, so in his mind, the suffering he created for your family can be excused. Of course, he is deluded, and you are not, but still, the more he sees that you are like him, the less wrong he is in his mind for killing your aunt. If you really want to punish the man who killed your aunt, work to destroy the myth he has of himself. He's the misunderstood hero in the story of his own life. If you destroy his myth, it won't matter if he's in prison, or walks around free. Aren't you in a prison, knowing he only served a few years for taking away everything your aunt was going to be? I recommend avoiding perpetrating his myth of himself by not adopting on any of his values or hate. We hurt people like him by creating hope, and showing mercy to those mercy will make a difference, and so distance ourselves from their kind, who have neither hope nor mercy.

Best wishes,

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

I wasn't saying that if he doesn't know the consequences he should still be punished (if it seemed that way sorry, i'm not the best with words) i was saying that he knew what he was doing...how can you not realize (unless your a complete moron) that beating a child (or anyone)until it's coverd in puke and blood (and i'm pretty damn sure unconsious as well) that they won't die, or be permanetly damaged forever? This boy wasn't stupid. I believe the little jerk knew what he was doing and needs to be punished, and a juvenile center would just be a slap on the wrist...but most of all what i'm saying is WHO CARES that he got life. He'll be in a juvenile center until he's 21 before he goes to prison, and when he's 21 (if not sooner) he'll be let out, apprently only drug dealers and rapists stay in jail for the full terms. Murder in this country if just a slap on the wrist...if anything this boy getting life, is just getting a slap on the wrist and have to be in Juvie for a few yrs...and when he gets out he'll realize next time (hopefully), that YES killing a person is bad, and shouldn't be done, and he will be let out. His life sentence is going to let him out as an adult ( hopefully rehabilitated ) and it's going to take what he has left of his childhood away, because he took another childs life away. But he'll walk out like all the others. the life sentence here isn't going to be forever...it's like a 100% thing. If my aunts killing walked away with 7yrs after a life sentance was given, this boy may be out in 2 yrs...who knows, all i know is this child just got smacked upside his stupid little head with the hand of reality, and IF (and i think he knew) he didn't know the consequences he sure as hell does know. and i think thats a good thing. I reallu don't think showing mercy to this boy is going to let him know what he did was wrong...Mercy would just let him realize that he can litterally get away with murder... If this child that was killed was your child...would you think it fair to put them away for a few yrs of therepy? When the man that killed my aunt (and this was when i was 11 or 12) was let out do you REALLY think he was better? Not a week after he was let out (i was 18-19 only 22 now so i remember) there was an article in the paper...he got out went to a bar and severly beat 2 ppl. Yeah those 7 yrs where well spent...if thats serving time then this justice system is very very screwed ( i think we can ALL agree on that ) My aunts killer was given mercy, he was given his life back, and he showed his gratitued by hospitalizing 2 ppl. Mercy isn't what this child needs...he needs reality...i'm don't think he should put to death, but the few yrs he spends in jail will be that reality...and it will only be a few. ( is it just me or am i repeating myself? lol ) BAH! i'm going to go watch SNL...take care everyone. Stay safe...i like "talking" with you guys :)

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

If this child that was killed was your child...would you think it fair to put them away for a few yrs of therepy?

Since I've been asked: If one of my children killed another one of my children, I would definitely choose therapy. And no, I wouldn't think losing one or both children was fair. If I had a child that was killed by someone else's child, I imagine I would want to do the wrong thing, and hunt down my child's killer. And if I called it fair to relive my child's death by becoming a killer myself, that would be wrong too.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

putting a child away for killing another child isn't becomming a killer...I never suggested we go out and Flog the boy ourselves. Just cuz he's 12 doesn't dismiss what he did...if he were 13,14 or even 15 ppl would still be saying he was wrongly punished...and if they didn't it's contradiction, cuz he still wouldn't be an adult...and to say a 13-15 yr old knows better then to kill is insane. so does a 12 year old. (he realized what he was doing) He could of stopped beating her when she first screamed, but did he? NO he brutally beat the life out of her, he didn't shoot he once and kill her (thats too fast to stop or take back) he beat her for 5 min! (it could of been stopped)...and not to sound like a broken record, but life for him will only be a few yrs. In short he got what he deserved.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

I'll reiterate. If you think anyone should go to prison, knowing that they will probably be released early, then you aren't paying attention to the posts and to my post about my work in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. There is *not* rehabilitation in prison. People come out worse. We used to have a cartoon at work that had two inmates talking. It said, "sure I believe in rehabilitaion. I've been rehabilitated 19 times." Just curious if anyone happens to know this kid's IQ. It was brought up earlier. Another point I agree with is that rehabilitation should, in no uncertain nor euphemistical terms, teach them that they are crap and horrible for what they have done. Criminals have absolutely no sense of personal responsibility. A great volumous work on the subject is called "The Criminal Personality".

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

My posts have much sarcasm in them and may be strange to read as i know how i'm saying it, but i wasn't saying it's good he'll get in a few yrs, i think the kid should stay there. As i pointed out in my preivious post when i stated what the man that killed my aunt did when he got out. I think it it's a life sentence there should be no getting off on good behavior...I'm just saying with the way the system works he'll be out in a few yrs...there really is no such thing as justice even though they claim there is. and rehabiltation is a joke.But i do agree if they are to rehabilitated then telling them they are worthless slime (even though i feel they are) is just feeding into their low self esteem (and possibly anger) I think this child is insane...as far as IQ if he's slow or not when someone is spewing vomit and blood you know to stop (Geez it's 6:30 am and i still haven't slept lol 48hrs, i'm addicted to this page)*sigh* this really is a great bored, and obviously no one hear is going to come to an agreement lol...sure is fun though :)

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

First off let me state an opinion here. Mike L. , You are full of shit. You have no concept of how people think. Pale, don't ever take my not answering a question as a tumble weed blowing in the wind. I haven't changed my opinions in this matter. I am a big proponent of counseling for people who have committed a crime and are serving punishment in jail. But I believe in counseling once. You don't take the hint, tough shit pal. You had your chance. But I beleive in punishment as a deterent. Why do most people not kill someone else when they feel they have been wronged? Fear of punishment. Not because of any belief that killing is wrong. But because they fear punishment. A big guy cuts you off on the play ground, you don't severly chastise him for it because you know he'll beat your brains out. Blue, at what age do you become responsible for your actions in society? Pale, why should I not try him according to my(most of societies)standards? If it's looked at from the perpetrators viewpoint, then most crimes would go unpunished. Or am I reading this wrong? You ask if he knew "how" wrong it was to kill her. What difference would that make? It was wrong to kill her. It was wrong to beat her. I don't care if he knew how wrong it was. It was wrong. He knew it was wrong. I want to send a clear message to everyone that this will not be tolerated at any age. No he didn't think about her life or her parents life or his parents nor his own life 20 years down the road. Few do think ahead when or before committing a crime. If we did there would be much less crime. But punishment is warranted. He recieved a fair trial. he was tried by a jury of his peers. Had he been tried in juvenal court, he would not have been tried by a jury but by a judge. He(his mother and defense team) was offered a plea bargain. They didn't take it because they felt a jury would be sympathetic and not convict him. Obviously the jury, after listening to the evidence, felt the crime warranted the punishment he received. When you sit on a jury, you are instructed in what the punishments are for different outcomes. They have the choices that the courts give them whether 1st or second degree murder or manslaughter. If they had felt that it wasn't 1st degree murder, they could have found him not guilty and the courts would have had the option to retry him on lesser counts or let him go free or remand him to a mental hospital or any number of things. We weren't privy to the court proceedings, but in light of the juries findings, I would think that the jury felt as they voted. And remember that in this country, it has to be a unanimous vote by all twelve jury members to convict or you are free to go. Pale, your ascertion that both victim and perpetrator are harmed has no merit unless you also beleive that the perpetrator harmed themselves by perpetrating the crime in the first place. Society didn't harm Tate's victim, Tate harmed her and in so doing lost his chances at a normal life. And yes, just like the majority of people in this world, I beleive in retribution and punishment. Go to Zimbabwe or Iran and commit a crime. Then if you can, come back and tell us the consequences. Pale, go back and read my disertation on TV , kids, and responsibility. If you don't see my point thenm you are the myopic one. I beleive Mallory because having just sheparded two boys through their teen years, I know they are capable of being and are fully aware of their actions. They were when they were 12 and they are now. When they did something wrong, they would lie through their teeth so to speak, to keep from getting punished. And no they weren't beat or verbally abused, they had privilages suspended or were sent to their rooms for a given amount of time. The same with my daughter who is ten years and another marriage sooner. Blue, you seem to favor reduced or no punishment for a perpetrators crimes. You seem to feel that a person has reduced responsibilty for a crime. You, like myself, feel that treatment and counseling should be given instead of punishment. That this is one of the few countries that have retributive punishment for crimes. Are you willing to pay for it? Are you willing to trust the perpetrator that when they are set free that they will not commit another serious crime? I'm not. I don't feel that the criminal encarceration in this country is very good either, but I don't trust in a psycologists judgement either. Richard Davis(the man who killed Polly Klaas) was judged to be rehabilitated and released shortly before he killed her. Pale, you are way out of touch with reality about the working of the human mind. Take the driveby shooter as an example. Do they warrant counseling? Would they benefit from counseling? I don't feel they would. I know through experience and familiarity that they don't give a shit about their victims. So if they don't give a rats ass about their victims, then why would you think they would be rehabilitated by counseling? Drunk drivers? I have no sympathy. Drug impairment when driving. Again, no sympaty. A woman, or man, beaten over a long period of time by a spouse, tried for murder. Why did they stay after the first beating? I haven't been in the position. Girls? Let's hear your thoughts please. After a few years though I would have to say it's an excuse. We just had a triple murder here in SD. Seems a woman shot her husband and two young kids because of arguments and marrital difficulties. She's in serious condition. Do her problems justify her actions? Pale, how culpible is she? How responsible for her actions is she? Does it matter what her motivations were when she shot her husband of 10 years and 6 and 8 year old kids? What should her punishment be? What should she do to allieviate his parents suffering? His siblings? How many years should she be counselled that what she did was wrong? Should she be punished or merely rehabilitated? I don't know what her mindset was when she killed. Should I care? Pale, have you ever had someone close to you killed by another? Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? I took a very unscientific survey yesterday down at the beach. I found ten europeans of various ages and ten Americans of various ages. I kept it to ten Americans because I wanted the same numbers. I felt it fair. The question was " how would you feel if someone in your family was murdered" and "would you want them punished"? To paraphrase their answers. Terrible. And I think they should spend the rest of their lives in jail or I think they should be hanged. Remember that this was very unscientific but I did refrain from prompting them. After I asked them the questions, we talked. Europeans beleive that America is a violent society and we have driveby shootings everywhere. They feel we are to permissive with our children and to permissive in our TV programming. Interesting. The Americans felt the same way. They felt drugs were to prevalent and TV programming too permissive. 7 Americans felt the death penalty was appropriate in murder cases and 3 felt life in prison was appropriate for drunk drivers who killed someone in an auto accident. 2 Europeans, 1 French and the other Swiss, felt the death penalty was ok for a violent murder, and 3 europeans felt 20 (15, 20 20,)years was appropriate for drunk drivers who caused a death in an accident. Interestingly enough, all felt society was gwtting increasingly violent but had no answers. In some moslem countries the family gets to pick the punishment according to the crime. Is that fair? Victimless crimes. With over a billion dollars in medical care for smokers when they are old that usually comes from someones pockets, should society ask that cigarettes be banned? There is overwhelming evidence that smoking accelerates heart disease. What should we do about this victimless crime? Remember, I smoked for 30 years. Drug use. Not you smoking a fatty but national drug use in general. Victimless crime? Not!!! Billions of dollars are lost in property, productivity, and health related costs and thousands of lives are lost through violent crimes and tens of thousands of lives are lost through overdoses and disease each year due to drugs. Victimless crime? Tens of thousands of children are losing love, nurturing, care, and education from drug use in this country every day. Victimless crime? What other victimless crimes are there? Our lawmakers don't debate and then pass laws about personal behavior for the hell of it. What may appear to you as a law against what you perceive to be a victimless crime usually has some reason to be passed. You may not like it but there is some overwhelming reason for the law being passed. I'm bushed. I'll be baaaack! James

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

James, yes, the man who killed Polly Klaas should have been executed. What should every tobacco executive, who grows wealthy in their campaign to kill 200,000 people a year (which is a lot more than get killed in drive-by shootings), get? Tell me, since you are not full of shit, and know what is fair.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

Steppin back in.

Paul, regarding punishment as a deterrent - it doesn't work on true criminals, 'cause they aren't thinking about getting caught. I'd also argue that the only reason we aren't out there raping and pillaging isn't that we're afraid of punishment; most of us do know right from wrong and would have a crisis of conscience over accidentally stealing a chocolate bar, let alone murdering someone. One oft cited example of the lack of deterrence in punishment in Canada is the fact that our murder rate actually went *down* when we abolished the death penalty.

Also, for every one case where a 'rehabilitated' ex-con reoffends horribly, there are thousands of guys (and they are usually guys, especially in the federal systems) who don't - contrary to what the media would have you believe. Yeah, rehab doesn't really exist on any meaningful scale, at least not within prison walls, but unless you're going to throw each and every violent person behind bars for life, you'd better not dismiss it out of hand.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

Paul? Where the hell did that name come from - I meant James! Also (had to time to catch something else in your post) a few years ago a bunch of women who were serving time in the federal prison in Canada (used to be only one - good ol' P4W) were let go. They were all abused women who'd killed their husbands. I'm not sure if they actually changed their convictions or just let them out because they obviously posed no danger to society. Not sure about how I feel on this one - personally I've been in one abusive relationship (lasted about 2 years and then he stalked me for about a year after that - charming guy), and I can tell you that you can lose your personality - of course, I never considered *killing* the guy (although he did spend some time in the psych ward, thanks to my prompting), but I was lucky to have supportive folks around me and it wasn't a marital relationship.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

Well, Kate, remember that James considers it tacky for women to put up with men treating them poorly.

James, I'm used to your posts being stupid and offensive, but I'd prefer it if you kept them on the short side, okay?

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

Eh, Mike, your argument is flawed. Polly Klaas was an innocent girl who was taken against her will. People who contract cancer from first- hand smoke choose to smoke cigarettes. I'm not saying tobacco companies are innocent, but please. These two situations are not even in the same ballpark.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

The differences you cite are true, yet the two examples are in the same ballpark. Polly Klaas's parents thought she was safe, when in fact she wasn't. Tobacco companies bury the true facts regarding the safety of their product, when in fact cigarettes are chemically altered with ammonia and other dangerous chemicals and carcinogens to boost the nicotine addiction. Go to any hospital in the country, and compare the number of beds occupied by smoking-related sickness, and victims of the kind of violent crime that keeps the back of James's hand on his forehead. I'm sorry if anyone is a victim of the kind of predator you seem to worry about, but don't kid yourself into thinking you're just out to save lives, if shutting down your local 7-Eleven will save more lives than spending $9 million to fry a killer. Please. You'll save more lives if you join the marines.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

And how dumb are the people who claim they didn't know that smoking is dangerous? Come ooooooon.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Well, Mike, I gotta say that your comparison is a bit like apples and oranges - you'd be better off comparing the tobacco industry to drug lords - both prey on the addictions of their customers (which is low and nasty, but not quite the same as brutally killing someone), it's just that the tobacco industry is allowed to do it legally. I think you make a good point however, in that the odds of being killed by a violent offender are low in comparison to those of dying from the results of a drug pedalled by unscrupulous businessmen. Hell, the odds of being killed by a violent offender (especially a stranger) are astronomically low compared to being killed by your car, heart disease (thank you cigarettes), stroke etc. Contrary to what the media would have you believe there aren't more violent people nowadays - atleast not on a percentage basis (obviously population growth will account for a rise in the number of criminals also), the percentage of folks who are criminal is a relatively static number, and the number of dangerously violent criminals is a small chunk of this percentage.

It doesn't make it any less horrifying when someone murders/mames/rapes, though. A good comparison in this vein is a plane crash - you know it's rare, you know that air travel is relatively safe, but those crashes result in a huge loss of life and public confidence.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Well, Mike, I gotta say that your comparison is a bit like apples and oranges - you'd be better off comparing the tobacco industry to drug lords - both prey on the addictions of their customers (which is low and nasty, but not quite the same as brutally killing someone), it's just that the tobacco industry is allowed to do it legally.

If the law doesn't even know right from wrong, how smart would James and lilipili be to rely on Lionel Tate to know right from wrong? (Come ooooooon.)

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Uh, I emphasized the word smart in the last post because I wasn't sure of the my word choice. Not because I think lilipili is particularly dumb.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Uh, thanks. I think.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Why!? Because I have a differing opinion than yours? James

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

To what are you asking why, James? Why are you holding the back of your hand against your forehead over low-ranking causes of death in the US, or why are you so eager for retribution against Lionel Tate, when white killers are growing rich over 200,000 deaths a year? Help me out here, you know, since you're not full of shit.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Victims of murder have no choice. Victims of cigarettes have a choice. Pretty simple really. James

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

I think the whole crime/kids killing kids etc. has developed over time due to the degeneration of our legal and penal systems.

There was a point in time when prison wasn't an option. You kill someone and you get hung by the neck until dead. But that is cruel... we can't do that.

So we started putting them into prisons. Cold dark damp dirty places that most people wouldn't like to be in. But that is cruel... we can't do that.

We build new prisons to house them in. Warm well lit dry clean places with cable tv and central air conditioning. Kinda like a hotel but you aren't allowed to leave and you don't have to pay the bill either.

The softer we become in regards to the criminals the more and more crime there is.

Therefore........

I beleive that prompt public executions is the answer. I do mean public.... every channel on the TV and radio has no choice but to carry it live.

The whole "Now Johnny, I know you killed him but we can plea bargin it down and with time off for good behavior , you can walk out in two years" is all bullshit.

The approach of "Now Johnny, See the man hanging there kicking and dying? If you do that you'll die too, just like that." has a better chance of leaving a lasting impression of "I don't want that to happen to me".

Oh, I know your saying HEY you might hang an innocent man. The prisons are full of innocent men, just ask any of them.

I am talking about the beyond a shadow of doubt killers , rapists, etc. The ones that walk into a school and start blasting. You know who they are and you know they did it. Or Manson's group, or Bundy, or insert your favorite serial killer/bomber name here....

String 'em up!!! MAKE EVERYONE WATCH !!!!

Pretty? No.

Fun to watch? No.

Likely to slap a bunch of people across the face and make them realize that they better not fuck up? YES!

Sorry if this offends or pisses anyone off but it is my opinion.

I have an 8 year old and a 3 year old. I don't want either one of them to be on the evening news as the culprit or as the victim.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

And Pale, just how many murders do you guess are committed in the US every year? How many are killed(murdered) by drunk drivers every year? How many addicts die of overdoses every year? How many times have you written your congressman or senator about your views on big tobbacco and it's clout in the government? How many times have you gone to a YMCA or been a Big Brother to a fatherless kid? You could have made a difference in a kids life. But you seem to have the answer to slowing the violent crime rate here. What have you done to reduce it? Have you ever worked with gangs? Have you ever helped an ex-felon get a job? How much do you pay in taxes a year? How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to counsel perpetrators of violent acts instead of jail them? Would you want a violent offender living next door to you and your kids? Do you have kids? Do you know anyone with a six inch scar from a knife wound running across their back because someone wanted something that didn't belong to them? Ask Milla if any of the creeps that keep breaking into her car are worth spending money on for counseling and if that counseling will deter them from commiting anymore car thefts than just incarcerating them? When I hear liberal philosophical discussions I wonder how much of life the philosopher has really been involved in. Oh damn, a sentence ending in a preposition. Oh well. Well? James

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

James, thanks for clarifying to what you were asking why. Do victims of drunk drivers have a choice? You and yours are more likely to get killed in a car accident. Why aren't you swooning to put drunk drivers in jail for life? Tell me, since you aren't full of shit.

The softer we become in regards to the criminals the more and more crime there is.

No. There is actually less and less crime. Here's another guy who wants to hang the back of his hand on his forehead over shit he'll likely die from after he dies in a car crash 15 times. Sorry if pointing out that your opinion is based on a lie pisses you off.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

And Mike. Go to a hospital emergency room and spend a few hours any Friday or Saturday night and count the number of people who come in with gunshot and knife wounds, bleeding profusely from wounds produced from blunt force trauma(beatings outside bars, wives and kids beat by dad), car accidents caused by drunk drivers(killing over 50,000 people a year). Compare these numbers to the beds taken up by smoking related causes. You'ld be amazed at how mis-informed you are. And as much as I detest the tobbacco industry(remember I smoked those stinking things for 30 years of my own accord) most people die in their 70"s regardless of whether they smoked or not. In this day and age, most people die of either heart attacks or cancer some caused by smoking but most caused by bad diets and heredity. In the seventies I worked for a non-prof helping felons transition between prison and outside. I hired some for my construction bussiness. Most didn't take advantage of the help. They went right back in after less than a year. Most for alcohol and drug offenses. Most had access to drug and alcohol treatment programs. It's a shame. And a waste. But true. You should check out the statistics. Go sit in court for a few days and see what society is really like. Better yet, work a rape and battered women hotline. Or volunteer for senior help services. Or go to the inner city and work with the kids so they don't end up like Master Tate. James

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Mike, the government tells you that the murder rate for our society as a whole is down(but they don't tell you that the number of murders is actually larger) because the number of people as a base is larger. They don't tell you of the rise in violent acts, rape, burglaries in which the homeowner was home and threatened, the fact that the number of drunk driving fatalities is down not because there are fewer drunk drivers causing accidents but because of the number of drivers whose lives weren't ended due to increased safety of their vehicles. Anyone here work in family crisis intervention? What are the statistics for spousal abuse? Rising? Yeah. How many of these incidents are perpetrated by repeat offenders who have been sentenced to probation pending completion of anger management courses and marriage counseling? No Mike, I am not full of philosophical shit. I don't hold my hand to my forehead. And don't ever think that I don't abhor drunk drivers. Maybe you should reread the archives. You'll then find out what I think of drunk drivers and the tobbacco industry. By the way, how old are you and what's your life been like so far? Ever lived in the inner city? Ever been a dope dealer? Ever spent time in jail for a violent act? Ever been knifed by an employee? Ever known someone who has been murdered? Raped? Ever known a murderer? Rapist? Child molester? Didn't think so. How much do you pay in taxes a year? Are you involved in local government? Ever spend jail time fighting the government? Did you grow up in the politically turbulent sixties? James

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

You'ld be amazed at how mis-informed you are.

...most people die of either heart attacks or cancer some caused by smoking but most caused by bad diets and heredity.

You're right, I would be amazed, considering I got the bed ratio from a doctor. You heard it from James, folks. 50,000 drunk driving victims outnumber 200,000 cigarette fatalities. I'm sorry, lilpili, but you actually are the dumb one. James says smoking isn't dangerous.

most people die in their 70"s regardless of whether they smoked or not.

That's an average, Einstein. Remove smoking, and the average goes up 5 years. That adds about 15 years life to the average smoker.

Better yet, work a rape and battered women hotline. Or volunteer for senior help services.

#1 I volunteered 2 years in a rape-prevention class, and ten percent of my salary goes to my parents, so I don't even know what this bullshit is with you telling everyone how to spend their resources to make the world a better place, especially coming from you, who makes a special talent over worrying about the least likely ways people die. #2 elderly people happen to be the demographic with the lowest ratio of crime victims. And while up to a third of women are likely to be victims of sexual assault, they're most likely to be victims of people they know...

And don't ever think that I don't abhor drunk drivers. Maybe you should reread the archives. You'll then find out what I think of drunk drivers and the tobbacco industry.

Oh, shit James, I just can't keep up with your stupidtiy. Yeah, I'm sure you hate drunk drivers, but apparently not enough to go out of your way to rub a sick black kid's face into a life sentence. Ever lived in the inner city? Ever been a dope dealer? Ever spent time in jail for a violent act? Ever been knifed by an employee?

God damn, Dude, you ever hear of baby steps? Is this your brain trust to solve crime in America?

Ever known someone who has been murdered?

Actually no. I kind of think that makes my point, Cassandra.

Raped?

Yeah, Einstein. As I mentioned above, everyone knows someone who was raped. And it was probably someone they knew.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

I think you're the one who is misinformed here kid. When did I eversay smoking isn't dangerous? And you should look up the statistics for murder in this country. You're the one who is misinformed here kid. Rub Lionel Tates face in a murder charge and life sentence? Or what exactly are you saying here?Your statement makes no sense here. Go reread my thoughts on drunk drivers kid. No these make my point about your sheltered life pal. Where've you been all your life? Apparently not out amongst the world. I'm glad to hear you put your words into actions and worked a crisis hotline. Rape is rape pal, whether perpetrated by an aquaintance or stranger. Still rape. So what's your point? What do you do now to help the world? Or was that just a one night stand Alfie? Oh, and 10% of my salary goes to my employers social programs. And I still voluteer my time. Not in class but in my neighborhood. To help keep kids off the streets. I drive old folks around to their appointments and to the store. Let's see Einstein, add 5 years to a 70 year old smokers life and that equals 15 years more to their life span? Good math Mr Wizard. No I think you need to go back to school and get the facts straight. And get out of your comfort zone and volunteer at a work furlough program or at an honor camp. Teach some reading and life skills to youthful offenders. Get a taste of what the streets are like. Anything else kid? James

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Wow. Sure got quiet here. Just listen to those tumbleweeds roll. James

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

James, if you're volunteering all this time and money, what are you getting upset about? Are you not being thanked enough? If you do things you don't want to do, it isn't Lionel Tate's fault, and it certainly isn't my fault.

Oh, I did leave the rape issue open in the last post. I used to work for the government, which means I have no faith in the government putting away every predator at birth, like James wants done yesterday. I'm actually an advocate of teaching a kid to grab the belt of a guy who's chasing her, and sitting down, so his head cracks open on the ground, or training her to punch an attacker in the throat until she counts to 88, or that it only takes 3 lbs. of pressure to tear off a man's ear, or 15 lbs. to make his elbow bend in the direction it isn't supposed to bend. Maybe if we didn't set kids up to be victims, there would be less predators. Yeah, if you're a conservative who counts on the government to keep you safe, what else can you be except pissed?

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Wow. Sure got quiet here. Just listen to those tumbleweeds roll.

God damn it, James, get a watch. It's only been 15 minutes. I already told you I can't keep up with your stupidity. I'm actually sick with myself, like I've been slapping a retarded child in the ear. Good night.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Guys, can we please keep this civil? I realize you're both frustrated with each other's arguments but this is a really interesting discussion and I for one would hate to see it closed because it's degenerated into flame war.

Oh, and Mike, just to clarify my earlier posts, I wasn't advocating the death penalty (I really don't know whether I agree with it or not), I was just pointing out the flaw in your examples.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

James if you hit enter twice, you can make a new paragraph. Try it, you might like it.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Mike, don't be too upset. A retarded child would have gotten the hint after the first slap in the ear. I would know. James seems to enjoy being slapped around.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Oh, I would never shut down a forum because of a flame war. On the other hand, though, I AM considering closing this one because James wrote to me and suggested that I let the political topics "flow" instead of encouraging "talk of cute hamsters and shopping antique stores". I'm thinking of erasing all the topics and starting one called "James Mickelson tells you everything you need to know" and just letting the forum be that and nothing else.

(Note: the above paragraph, excepting the first sentence, was sarcasm.)

James, are you suggesting that you volunteer with battered women and at-risk youth? If so, do you ever tell the "gang kids" you're working with about your political values? Do you say, "I enjoy spending time with you and making your life better with my advice, but if you ever become mentally unstable enough to commit manslaughter, little twelve- year-old boy, I'm going to petition for you to be imprisoned with hardened adult criminals for the rest of your life"?

When the women would call the hotline, would you be there to answer the phone and say, "Your man ain't treating you right. I think it's tacky for you to put up with it. If you were MY wife, I'd send you flowers, honey. Come on down to the shelter and give this old surf dog a visit. I want you to live long enough to get kisses and to have babies and to look purty enough for men to send you flowers"?

Just curious.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

I sent lilipili and apology, and thanked her for being a good sport.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

What I have found interesting reading this thread is that the original question has had little discussion. We seem to be discussing how and if we should punish a violent offender instead of if a child of a certain age should be held to the same legal standards as an adult.

Think about it. If someone says, “No, I don’t think that a person of Tate’s age should be tried as an adult.” They are not saying, “I don’t think Tate should be punished for committing a heinous crime,” or even that he did not commit a horrific crime. They are not the same things. The question is at what age can a person be treated as an adult for their crimes? Does the severity of their crime change the age at which they are considered emotionally/mentally capable of being held to the same legal system that an adult is? If so, then why is it that a person of the same age cannot vote? Drive? Drink? We say that a 13 year old can not be expect to understand the importance of voting for a public officer but he is expected to understand that his actions will end the life of another and what ending that life really means to them and their families.

With the exception of flaming this has been a terrific discussion.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Yeah, Einstein. As I mentioned above, everyone knows someone who was raped. And it was probably someone they knew.

-- Mike (leungm@diarist.net), March 20, 2001.

I *sure* hope I missed something here Mike. Your above statement needs FACTS to back that up. Care to supply some?

To imply that it was someone they knew is far-fetched.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

Bubba, is that you????

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

I have no idea who 'bubba' is and fwiw, no i am not a bubba.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

"Does the severity of their crime change the age at which they are considered emotionally/mentally capable of being held to the same legal system that an adult is?"

Of course it does. Voting and driving are rights and privileges...you as a person have no 'rights' to commit crimes.

It's interesting, but no one in this discussion has mentioned the REAL culprit here.

Television. This kid learned all this bullshit because of television.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

Of course you have no right to commit a crime but voting and driving don't have age limits because you magically earn the right simply because you survived that long. The age limit is in place because society feels that someone younger then those legal limits is incapable of handling the responsibility to use those privileges. My point is, can the same legal system that says someone who is 13 cannot vote because they cannot understand the responsibility of voting also say that that person is responsible at the same legal level as an adult who we do think can handle responsibility?

I personally think that all of this can be avoided if they just update the juvenile justice system. The whole reason this is a debate is because the juvenile justice system was not built to handle such severe crimes. Meaning, there should be some contingency for very serious crimes committed by juveniles to have appropriate punishment. What that appropriate punishment is, I don’t know (which what was really being discussed earlier). Our justice system was not built to put a deed on trial but a person on trial for that deed. That isn’t the case in the court of public opinion anymore. People want to punish someone based on the deed with little to no thought of the person who was behind the deed and what their circumstances are. Laws like the one that allow a prosecutor to decide if a juvenile can be tried as an adult are passed by people who have forgotten what our legal system was designed for in the first place.

ps. I have really started to ramble these last few posts. Really, I am not always this long winded (when I type).

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

My brother is a deputy here where we live. He worked in Juvenile Court for many years. He also did viet-nam and was the ONLY survivor of his platoon. In truth, I believe they are improving the juvenile system.

My brother was in court overseeing a juvie trial along with a fellow deputy, when all at once, the offender grabbed the other dep's gun. He shot my brother. The bullet went into my brothers hand and to this day it remains there. This boy was 15. You can bet damn sure he is doing time, and lots of it.

I would never wish to see any of my son's go down on a life w/out parole charge. But, did anyone see the entire story behind the 12 yr old killing the little girl? My gosh, it was awful. Lacerated liver and numerous fractures. He imo, was NOT wrestling.

Now otoh, a typical insurance policy (homeowners) will cover acts of children 12 and under. IE, here is example, kid threw rock of balcony, striking car, viola, parents submit claim under liability portion of homeowner or renter policy and it gets paid. They consider a child too young to know the difference.

In the case of the 12 yr old murderer, imo, he should spend years in juvie facility till he is of age and then be re-evaluated to see if he needs to do adult time.

Imagine yourself in the little girls parents place, surely we would like justice.

We just had a case here where 3 youths shot a gas station attendant, she was just 17, point blank in the head. All have received life, all were under 18. To me, that IS justice. They KNEW what they were doing and that was inexcusable.

Again, its all about opinion, but I believe as Americans we should be very concerned. How about Columbine? Had those boys not of committed suicide, they should have received the death penalty, imo.

When we get into an area where juvie's are 12-15, it must be considered (imo) on a case by case basis.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

I *sure* hope I missed something here Mike. Your above statement needs FACTS to back that up. Care to supply some?

One in nine women are rape victims. I'm counting on you knowing a lot more than eight women.

To imply that it was someone they knew is far-fetched.

I find it more far-fetched that most rapists don't know anyone. The age and gender most vulnerable to violent crime are teenaged girls. Once they start growing boobs, and start saying, "Oh, my God!" to everything, they can no longer be conventionally protect. Predators (even if they don't see themselves that way) who want to meet these kids (if they aren't kids themselves) will find a way to meet them and get to know them. As far as I know, stranger rape is a very small slice of the rape pie.

And I didn't imply it. I stated it.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

Shelly, it looks like James remembered your tip on how to make paragraphs.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Wow...surprised this is still going.

Mike is correct about the rape thing. Not too many of us know someone who's been raped say, by being nabbed off the street at knife point, but by today's standards of date rape, coersion (sp) etc, a lot of women have been raped (probably more than stats suggest).

Re tv and violence - sigh - it has been shown that violence on tv will affect kids' behaviour, but usually only in kids who have the propensity towards violent behaviour regardless of outside influence. Kids raised 30 years ago got to see a lot of stuff that wouldn't make it onto the screen today (cops and robbers - anyone ever play that?) - and haven't turned into violent criminals. By what I've read, I gather that this Tate kid is at least mildly mentally disabled and has emotional problems (i.e. is a kid who shouldn't be exposed to violent tv). On the other hand, I actually had the following conversation with my 4 y/o son yesterday: {child playing with toy superheroes, one of which has a gun} Mom (trying to be socially conscious) - "you shouldn't be using the gun, they're dangerous things, why don't they play w/out it?" Son "mom, it's not a *real* gun, it's pretend, they can't get hurt this way".

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

I found out the other day that Tate tried to stab two different people while he was in jail during the trial. Now I can sort of understand why he was given such a hard sentence.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

For the record, my sister was raped in the Flats in Cleveland Ohio. Strange as it may be to you Mike, it was by a complete stranger. I wont go into lengthy detail.

Perhaps I was a bit closed minded? Perhaps. Date rapes are imo, those which you speak of. Bottom line is rape is rape.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Date rapes are "imo"? What does that stand for?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Mike, you don't know what us women go through, doing those things we like to do, like walking around without panties, and irrationally beating our husbands, who are only misunderstood heroes sending flowers to our abused sisters, and who can't possibly be stupid, especially if they tell you they've sold drugs, and spent time in jail, and been knifed by someone they were smart enough to hire... and known a real live rape victim! You know a man is truly heroic if he knows a rape victim! I say no philosophical shit in my men, nosiree! Are you talking about date rape? Is that what Kate called it? What's that? Wait, let me write that down. Dee- Aiy- Tee- Ee- Are- Aiy- Pee- Ee. I will take a poll among my women friends, of which I am one, and get back to you and Kate with the definitive woman's word on this thing you call date rape. Oh, please be patient with me, I'm just a silly woman who gets menstrual cramps, as we women are known to do. Of course, in my opinion, as one of us women, rape is rape.

James, I'm going to try and stop calling you names. In fact I'm sorry I did so in the first place. Just please don't kill anyone.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Gwen, imo = in my opinion.

I thought he was speaking of date rape. Wrong choice of words.

Ps, did you get my email, would you mind telling the above individual that I am not james? Thanks.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Between being really offended, and not believing anything I say, I recommend not believing anything I say

Okay Mike I get it. Those are your words off your site. My bad.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

No, new one, I didn't get your e-mail. However, if I do get it, and it does have a different e-mail address from James's, I will definitely call Mike immediately and tell him that you aren't James. This is how it will go:

Ring! Ring!
Mike: Hello?
Gwen: Mike, the results are in! It's not James!!
Mike: How do you know?
Gwen: Because new one has a different e-mail address.
Mike: What?! Are you certain? But... but... what if James somehow, some way, has TWO e-mail addresses?
Gwen: No... no... it couldn't be. He couldn't be that fiendishly clever!
Mike: Don't you, yourself, have several e-mail addresses?
Gwen: Why, yes I do. But no one would ever create more than one address for the purpose of trying to win an Internet forum argument. It's unheard of, I tell you!
Mike: You're right. New one must not be James. So, what's up with you? Anything going on in your life besides solving the mystery that is new one and James?
Gwen: Nope. Gotta go. Gotta run and make a list of all the ways new one and James are different. You know, Mike, if the two of them agree so strongly in their politics, then their opinions MUST be right.
Mike: You are right. I will change my opinions to reflect theirs and never disagree with them again.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Gwen you are paranoid, its not my fault your email did not work.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Well, now that the mystery is solved, I need to ask you one thing, Gwen. Did you get my email?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001