I just can't understand 13-year-olds going to prison for murder. I don't get it. I'll never get it, particularly when the guy who supposedly egged them on after sexually molesting them gets off scot free. What in the hell is going on? <i>Boys' Verdict Sparks Debate in Fla. By BILL KACZOR, Associated Press Writer PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - Jurors who tried two baby-faced boys on charges of killing their father with a baseball bat were aghast to learn that another panel had acquitted an adult accused in the case. But their conclusion that the boys only helped and didn't swing the bat stunned the prosecutor who presented both cases. Alex and Derek King, ages 13 and 14, were spared a life term when a jury found them guilty Friday of second-degree murder without a weapon. The boys face 22 years to life without parole, but the judge is free to go below the minimum when they are sentenced Oct. 17. If they had been convicted of first-degree murder as charged, their only option was life sentences without parole. Their convictions have rekindled talk about changing a Florida law that allowed them to be tried as adults. In a separate trial, convicted child molester Ricky Chavis, 40, was accused of committing the crime by himself. He was acquitted and the verdict was sealed until after the boys' trial. Assistant State Attorney David Rimmer, who prosecuted both trials, said he thought the panel in the boys' case had ignored the allegation they wielded the bat and simply gave the boys a "jury pardon" by convicting them of the lesser offense. The jurors "know good and well he was killed with a weapon," Rimmer said. "That's a jury pardon. That's OK, I don't have a problem with that." The jury forewoman said that wasn't the case, that the panel believed neither boy swung the bat but rather that Chavis carried out the slaying. The jurors did not know that Chavis already had been acquitted in his separate trial. Their decision to convict the boys of second-degree murder was based on their belief that Alex and Derek opened the door to let the killer into the house, forewoman Lynn Schwarz told the Pensacola News Journal. That reasoning stunned Rimmer. "I didn't think that at all," Rimmer said. Rimmer had avoided asking the Chavis jury for a conviction, saying the only reason the case came to trial was that the boys had lied, either when they told police they killed their father or to the jurors when they said Chavis did. He said it was up to the Chavis jury to decide which was the lie and added: "I don't have a dog in this fight." Of the jurors' reasoning in the boys' trial, he said: "I thought perhaps he encouraged them to do it, but I never felt Chavis was there." Alex and Derek had testified that they opened the door and that they then went out to Chavis' car, but no physical evidence was introduced at their trial showing that chavis had been in the house. Schwarz said the jurors thought the boys' recorded confessions were forced, rehearsed and unbelievable. Schwarz said the King jurors were aghast when they heard Chavis had been acquitted. "I was so shocked, I just couldn't believe it," said Schwarz, 52. She said the other jury "saw a different presentation and a different interpretation. It's too bad they couldn't have all been tried together. That might have been a fairer trial." The Rev. Thomas Masters, a leading opponent of prosecuting children as adults and death sentences for juveniles, said he thought the jury was sending a message to change the law. "There's no way in the world you can receive a fair trial in an adult arena where you're looked upon as an adult when you have the mind of a child," said Masters, a pastor at New Macedonia Baptist Church in Riviera Beach. Masters became involved in the issue when one of his teenage congregation members was charged with murder as an adult. Nathaniel Brazill ( news - web sites) was 13 in May 2000 when he killed Lake Worth teacher Barry Grunow, claiming the gun went off accidentally. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 28 years in prison. Florida law gives prosecutors only two choices when children are charged with major crimes such as murder. They can be prosecuted as juveniles or adults, with nothing in between. Gov. Jeb Bush acknowledges being uncomfortable with some prosecutions of children as adults. "I do think prosecutors ought to have the flexibility to determine the jurisdiction, whether it's juvenile or adult," Bush said. State Sen. Skip Campbell sponsored a bill earlier this year to create a middle ground, giving juveniles who are sentenced to life for first-degree murder a chance for parole after turning 21. "We're not trying to be namby-pamby with everything, but at the same time we're trying to recognize that punishments should not be so harsh," Campbell said. Campbell's bill never received a hearing in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee chaired by state Sen. Victor Crist ( news, bio, voting record), author of the present law. Crist said he might consider some changes, but not giving juveniles with mandatory life sentences a chance at parole. "At 12 or 13 they are old enough to know better," Crist said. "If they have the potential to kill at that age, then that potential to kill will be even greater at an older age."</i>
I don't understand the whole "children tried as adults" thing anyway. They are kids, no matter what they did.
I'm not certain how I feel about the kids-in-prison thing, but did you hear some of the kids' testimony? They were extremely dispatched, talking about individual blows to their stepfather, including mention of brains, etc.
They should be tried as adults, and Chavis should have been sentenced as well. Jeff, I really don't understand your logic sometimes. Age doesn't matter at all. Let it be your child one day or your wife one day, I bet then you'll whistle another tune, instead of the PC garbage you continue to spew on the board. If you don't, then something is haywire in your brain. Go tell the parents of the murdered children at Jonesboro that those were just misguided youths who blew their child's guts on the ground, see if you don't pick yourself up off the pavement. Or tell them that you know the way to reform those kids. That a time out or understanding or better parenting is needed. That'll help ease the pain. Obviously, jail isn't the answer to you. It can't be. It isn't the their fault that they decided to kill viciously. Never. Well, Jeff, I'm sure glad people like you weren't on the jury; that's one less chance I got of having my head blown off.
Jeff-- Just because somebody is 13 does not mean that they can't have the requisite intent to commit murder. Were these particular kids horribly damaged due to years of abuse? Absolutely. Does this excuse their actions and give them carte blanche? No. Their testimony clearly shows that they knew what they were doing and their motive for doing so. They killed him because they were afraid he wouldn't let them go live with Chavez, have sex with him and smoke pot. They did the crime and now they will be in juvi until age 18, at which time they will be transferred to adult prison. There are a couple of things that really bother me about this case: 1. The prosecutor brought 2 cases which were totally inconsistent with one another. At one moment they tell the jury that person A did it. Then they tell another jury that persons B and C did it. Which is it? The prosecution vouches for the accuracy of their case. This is the type of thing which is fodder for appeal. 2. Per the boy's testimony, he was having sex with Chavez. Why isn't he charged with child molestation? THEN you can have all guilty parties go to prison. Those are the 2 things that I don't get about this case. The whole damned thing is disturbing.
The only charges I heard read in the indictment were 2nd degree murder and arson, just like the boys. I'd like to see him charged with child molestation, given that we have evidence that he had sex with the 12 year old.
I just do not see putting these kids in jail for the rest of there life. The sentence is 22 years to life although the judge can shorten it at his discretion. The kids obviously have problems and should get help but I dont see what good putting them in jail until there 35-40 years of age will do.
Couldn't you really say that about anybody, regardless of age? For example, a 35 year old guy commits the same crime, you could say that there's no good in putting him in jail until he is 60. On some level this comes down to whther or not an individual believes in punishing crime with imprisonment.
Refman - No I would not. Once you reach a mature level and understand right from wrong then you should be held accounatable to the courts for your actions. These 2 are kids and I dont believe they could possibly know right from wrong at this age. Do I think they need some serious help, you bet I do, but I would hope society isnt ready to give up on them.
So when you were 13 you didn't know that bashing your Dad's head in with a bat was wrong? They KNEW they did something wrong or else they wouldn't have concocted a story to get Chavez off, assuming that people would give them a free pass because they were of a tender age. It sounds really premeditated. A 13 year old KNOWS that killing somebody is wrong. It doesn't take long for a child to gain the ability to conceptualize such a thing.
What you call "PC garbage" I call my personal beliefs. I don't care if you like them or not because I didn't acquire them for popularity and they aren't up for debate. I could call what you say, "moralistic, self-righteous, narrow-minded baloney" but that wouldn't make me feel any better. On second thought...
One of the guys I work with here is a guy I go to church with (actually 2 are, but this one in particular is who i'm talking about!!)...he does a ton of juvenile justice ministry...it is absolutely heartbreaking to see how long kids are incarcerated for offenses...how they are really going through the entire developmental and maturation periods in their lives while institutionalized. It just seems there has to be a better way. I'm not so sure with these kids in particular...I don't know.
my 2 cents: i believe that children should be tried as adults in felony instances. They should be just as responsible for their actions as anyone else. If you're mature enough to commit a felony, you're mature enough to receive a severe punishment for your actions.
I'm not willing to carry it that far. I'm not willing to send a 6 year old up the river for life. What I believe the issue to be is whether the kid is of a sufficient age to conceptualize right from wrong and the gravamen of their conduct. In the case at hand, there is no question that 13 years old is plenty old to understand the concept of death and to know that killing is wrong.
Did you notice the way the boys were acting during the trials....didn't seem to have any remorse in killing their father. Like I said before: This is one F***ED up case...
