Posted on 10/14/2014 5:22:31 AM PDT by Bettyprob
LOL, doesn't work. Your definitions contradict each other. Turn it around - what if the kid had sex with an adult, and then indicated the same level of clarity about sex that he is about murder. Would the DA shrug and say, "well, intent was clear so he acted as an adult so there are no statutory rape charges? Hell no - he would say rather that no amount of clarity could establish adult intent by definition.
Same here. Charging as an adult is a farce. Either get rid of the juvenile laws, or obey them. But a ten year old is out of bounds and the prosecutor is acting shamefully, not to mention illegally. The kid's lawyer should have this thrown out for lack of statutory authority.
Even at the tender year of 10, I of COURSE knew what death was. And of COURSE as a human being knew that KILLING someone was wrong.
Having said that, this kid shouldn't be tried as an adult, but he should be watched, very closely.
See if he delights in torturing animals, sets fires, wets his bed, etc.
BTW, whenever an adult dies under suspicious circumstances, who is suspect #1? The spouse. Until proven otherwise.
And to add to that, who benefited?
If the spouse benefits, put EXTRA investigation on them.
He looks white - Tristen Kurilla is name Scranton news source (WNEP) is reporting.
Good grief, mental problems with a history of violence - don’t leave him alone with babies, animals, or old people. DUH.
Sounds like this child had no father, the mother wanted to wash her hands of any responsibility for raising a boy to be a man, and the grandfather may have had some motive for wanting the old lady dead, like a forged life insurance policy; either that, or he delayed calling 911 so he could think of what to do because his blood had killed someone on his watch. Or, he killed him and is sandbagging the kid. What a tragedy for the boy. But he must be tried and sentenced, if it is determined that he really was the killer.
I have never heard about bedwetting as an indicator of anything except certain allergies. One of the gentlest men I ever knew had been a bedwetter as a child; but as an adult was extremely genial and only took out his physical strength on tennis balls. Can you link or explain the tie-in to violence?
Should read "he killed her." Sorry about that.
From Wikipedia:
The triad links cruelty to animals, obsession with fire setting, and persistent bedwetting past a certain age, to violent behaviors, particularly homicidal behavior and sexually predatory behavior.
I was being facetious in my comment.
This theory has been controversial, and I don't think it is universally accepted.
What is a “real” juvenile? Thats the thing that is the problem with this logic. You are saying that the decision on whether or not someone is old enough to be charged as an adult is not based on a legal statute, its based on the opinion of a district attorney, who is working on behalf of the Plaintiff. Juvenile is about age, and shouldn’t be arbitrary.
Look, we no longer have an objective legal code, everything is based on a subjective opinion of power elites.
In Philadelphia sentencing guidelines only apply to White people because due to social justice, Blacks have already paid the price for their crimes and now deserve some slack. So now, most gang shootings in Philadephia are done by under 18 youth, who will get probation.
Now, I know this murder was not inhiladelphia, but the same rules apply, Whites get the book thrown at them. the kid will still get out when he turns 21 or shortly thereafter. The same thing happens here in WA State.
Thanks for your reply. Had never heard of that before.
It’s not supposed to work objectively. The legal system is controlled by Post modernist Statists, who interpret the law as a means of social justice.
It is indeed used for the purpose you stated. But it is also used in a country of fundamentally free people who have the power to force it to be used objectively.
Being a free people, however, they also have the power not to force it to be used objectively.
The problem has never been tyranny. It's always been people who choose tyranny over freedom for the promised comforts of indemnification, versus guaranteed difficulties that come with personal responsibility. Ironically the guaranteed difficulties lead to peace and prosperity, while the promised comforts lead to misery and death. That's why evil preys on the spiritually immature so successfully.
I often wonder whether the American system is doomed to fail not because it acknowledges God-given freedom, but because there are simply too few spiritually mature people to value that freedom. Instead, more and more Americans are choosing to use their freedom in order to destroy it, like liberals voting for ever more slavery in the name of what they call peace. That's why Lincoln called it "The Great Experiment."
The Statists control all the law schools. That is the problem, right there.
People have been known to study the law themselves.
However in that self-study lawyers (a longstanding American legal tradition that has included presidents and judges) is now banned by statute from actually practicing law or legal representation in court, you are correct.
It’s quite the monopoly, and serves to hide many secrets from the general public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.