Would your opinion change though if you found out the boy had also been sexual abused? If the boy was suffering some mental illness like schizophrenia that can be controlled with drugs? If this was somesort of completely abberant act I might agree with you but I would like to hear some more.
You don't think the kidnapping, raping, leaving for dead a 6 year old is an aberrant act? I'm starting to think some people will just defend anything.
who's defending what? again, the only way you can make a point in these discussions is to say someone is defending rape or home invasions, when no one is doing that, and its really irritating that you pull the same crap in every thread. if you can't actually make a legitimate counter point to someone elses actual point then just refrain from joining in. geez, the act is old.
its one thing to chime in with the stupid ass jokes but its another thing to actually claim that other people are defending rape. just like your ignorant jokes that's not funny.
He just said the act was not aberrant, moron. What is irritating is people like you constantly complain about criminals being treated unfairly. This person should be locked up for the rest of their life, period. What he did to this child is absolutely and completely unacceptable.
It's a lot more logical then raping 6 years old and leaving them for dead. But we know what you are more concerned about.
When I read the story, my initial reaction was "60 years? Not enough..." Then I thought, "He's just a kid...a super terrible effed up one...but maybe in 30 years he should be eligible for parole if he has truly reformed." And then I realized that even if he had reformed...by then his life will probably be too effed up to even have a chance at a normal life. So frick it then. Might as well just put the kid down. What kind of life is that? I think the death penalty would be more humane than having a kid grow up in prison for 60 years.
Yes, yes it would. Is 60 years for sodomy fair? Is a murderer being acquitted fair? No. That's our system.
for an adult if these judges want to change the law to try these kids as adults thats fine. if they want to change the rules for minors for harsher punishments, that's fine. but you can't declare a 13 year old an adult so you can get revenge for the public. thirteen isn't even high school age. that's what i have the problem with.
The sodomy is the least the offenses. He kidnapped the girl and beat her to an inch of her life and left her for dead. He actually thought he had killed her. She couldn't walk and crawled 200 yards where she was found barley conscious. There is no debate here.
Certain crimes like first degree murder (the most obvious one) can't be committed by minors...juveniles have to be tried as adults...I think sodomy may fall under that category...someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
i've read what the kid did on another site. he's still thirteen, i'm not saying let him out at age 21, I don't even know if he should be let out if you can prove he's already too mentally disturbed to function in society. but we have laws for minors, and to get around them you have to declare a thirteen year old isn't a minor, at least the way i'm reading this.
Judges adjust this age taking into account the severity of a crime -- the summary of events appears to warrant charging this minor as an adult.
how does the crime change a kid into an adult. the whole purpose of trying minors as minors is because minors aren't adults and don't know understand the consequences of actions like adults. the kid is still a kid, maybe I don't understand the law.
kids 16 and up all the time, which I don't completely agree with, but its a lot more understandable than a 13 year old. do you think a thirteen year old is an adult?
