NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/22/elderly.assault.ap/index.html

Disgusting

heard about that.

anyways, I've been saying the world is going to hell for awhile now, but for different reasons.

Jesus mother of Mary!!

What is going on in the world?

Disgusting
And I thought the world couldnt get any worse . . .

'abused' the boys to obtain confessions?

Well, from a legal standpoint, that might not have been wise. Gives the lawyers wiggle-room to get the confessions thrown out.

From a moral standpoint, I hope the cops beat the shit out of the three punks.

Oh, don't get me wrong. they're children, and as such, the conditions that caused their criminal behavior can be corrected, and they can have a future. But sometimes, you just need to kick the crap out of people. *nods*

That kid is going places!

'I'm very hurt because my son was raised as a good boy,' she said outside court. She complained that police abused the boys to obtain confessions.

Why did this disgusting crime take place? Don't blame the media, don't blame the "MTV video game," don't even blame the lack of Bibles handed out at schools!

Because obviously this child's parent[s] are 100% at fault. Her 11-year-old tried to rape a GRANDMOTHER and all she does is harp about police "abuse"? *spits*

heard about that.

anyways, I've been saying the world is going to hell for awhile now, but for different reasons.

me too. what reasons have you got? :(

From a moral standpoint, I hope the cops beat the shit out of the three punks.

I'm sure you'd like to be one of those cops.


me too. what reasons have you got?

Mostly anything that has the word "Bush" or "conservative" or "Republican" or "religion" or "patriotism" or "moral" or "traditional values" or "sanctity" or "WMD" or "Iraq" or "constitutional amendment" in it.

wow an 11 year old that is all kinds of messed up

i start to recall the crackhead looking mother of the columbine kid complaining about how it was the schools and police's fault her kid did that

Well, from a legal standpoint, that might not have been wise. Gives the lawyers wiggle-room to get the confessions thrown out.
From a moral standpoint, I hope the cops beat the shit out of the three punks.

Because obviously this child's parent[s] are 100% at fault. Her 11-year-old tried to rape a GRANDMOTHER and all she does is harp about police "abuse"? *spits*
Because God forbid that the boys that are CHARGED, not convicted, could be innocent, and that the police actually did beat them up to get false confessions. Because we know that never happens. /sarcasm

Because God forbid that the boys that are CHARGED, not convicted, could be innocent, and that the police actually did beat them up to get false confessions. Because we know that never happens. /sarcasm
and it was the schools fault columbine got shot up

Do you think a 76 year old would lie about attempted rape and repeated burglaries? And do you think the mother necessarily told the truth regarding the police treatment of the boys? I think this is a sign we need a bit of cultural hindsight and perhaps some overview of our education system. You should teach us how stupid we are regarding sexual matters and why we should wait, not tell us how to go at it dammit. Schools should have more rigorously enforced discipline, longer hours, and better supervision to prevent such antics from happening, especially to help take some load off single and working parents. And perhaps constructive relationships should be fostered and cared for by inquisitive, active counseling, so that things like gangs of young boys raiding and raping are less likely to form.

Just another indicator of the growing undiscipline within the general public. If the Middle East gets wind of this, we are going to hell, a living hell.

Hmm.... let's see.... You have intercity Milwaukee, three tween chester-molesters, the main defendant is adopted probably was abandoned, and instead of apologizing to the old lady, the adoptive mother, who is obviously bad at parenting, yells at the police for "abuse"..... Sounds like libs to me.

Stuff like this reminds me of why we should fully adopt Singapore's lawbook as our own and throw out these stupid "police brutality" laws as well. If one is stupid enough to do something like this, then one deserves to be smacked in the head with a baton, tazed, and then bamboo whipped.

Just another indicator of the growing undiscipline within the general public. If the Middle East gets wind of this, we are going to hell, a living hell.

Hmm.... let's see.... You have intercity Milwaukee, three tween chester-molesters, the main defendant is adopted probably was abandoned, and instead of apologizing to the old lady, the adoptive mother, who is obviously bad at parenting, yells at the police for "abuse"..... Sounds like libs to me.

Stuff like this reminds me of why we should fully adopt Singapore's lawbook as our own and throw out these stupid "police brutality" laws as well. If one is stupid enough to do something like this, then one deserves to be smacked in the head with a baton, tazed, and then bamboo whipped.


BWAHAHAHAHHAAHHA!!! :D

You should teach us how stupid we are regarding sexual matters and why we should wait, not tell us how to go at it dammit. .
abstinence ed doesnt work, period

Just another indicator of the growing undiscipline within the general public. If the Middle East gets wind of this, we are going to hell, a living hell.

Hmm.... let's see.... You have intercity Milwaukee, three tween chester-molesters, the main defendant is adopted probably was abandoned, and instead of apologizing to the old lady, the adoptive mother, who is obviously bad at parenting, yells at the police for "abuse"..... Sounds like libs to me.
sounds like WHAT? what did you say there?

But a 76 year old? Ewww! That boy needs therapy!

Because obviously this child's parent[s] are 100% at fault. Her 11-year-old tried to rape a GRANDMOTHER and all she does is harp about police "abuse"? *spits*

How's your basic reading comprehension?

Shall we try reading what the article actually says?:


"The 11-year-old was charged in juvenile court with sexual assault and being a party to burglary and criminal trespassing. The other boys -- ages 11, 12 and 13 -- were charged with being a party to burglary and criminal trespassing.

In court Wednesday, the 11-year-old facing the less serious charges called out, "Hi, Mom" after spotting his adoptive mother.

"I'm very hurt because my son was raised as a good boy," she said outside court. She complained that police abused the boys to obtain confessions."

(text emboldened to help you follow it)

According to the article the mother is of the boy that was charged with being "party to burglary and criminal trespassing".

...the sad fact is, he will get charged as a juvy and slip through the system, get back out into society where he will (almost inevetibly) commit some similar crime at some point in the future.

Normally I'm all for giving people a chance, but this little misfit deserves castration and a lobotomy at the very least. Preferrably after putting him in a maximum security prison with some hardened adult criminals, who can illustrate by example why what he tried to do to that woman was wrong.

If anything like that happened to my grandmother, I'd hunt down all of the involved and castrate them myself...

...the main defendant is adopted probably was abandoned, and instead of apologizing to the old lady, the adoptive mother, who is obviously bad at parenting, yells at the police for "abuse"..... Sounds like libs to me.

Nope, wrong 11 year old according to that article: she is not the mother of the main defendent.

Stuff like this reminds me of why we should fully adopt Singapore's lawbook as our own and throw out these stupid "police brutality" laws as well.

Stuff like this reminds me of how people should actually read texts sufficiently closely to understand them before going off on a rant.

damn thats sick

But a 76 year old? Ewww! That boy needs therapy!

Yeah... why isn't he raping someone closer to his age like a normal kid? :rolleyes:

and people think i'm sick

*runs to head and vomits*
*returns*
some one should teach them boys a lesson they wont forget

Yeah... why isn't he raping someone closer to his age like a normal kid? :rolleyes:

It's not a black and white issue, you know. There's regular deviant, and there's What the fuck!?

Normally I'm all for giving people a chance, but this little misfit deserves castration and a lobotomy at the very least. Preferrably after putting him in a maximum security prison with some hardened adult criminals, who can illustrate by example why what he tried to do to that woman was wrong.

Wow, you want hardened criminals to rape an 11 year old boy? You're sick.

If anything like that happened to my grandmother, I'd hunt down all of the involved and castrate them myself...

You would like that, wouldn't you?

If anything like that happened to my grandmother, I'd hunt down all of the involved and castrate them myself...


And this will instantly turn them into well-adjusted members of society without major psychological disfunction?

and it was the schools fault columbine got shot up I'm afraid that your comment has nothing to do with what I said. THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Do you think a 76 year old would lie about attempted rape and repeated burglaries? And do you think the mother necessarily told the truth regarding the police treatment of the boys? It doesn't really matter what I think (and to answer your question, I don't think anyting about that, because of the following reason.) THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Even more to the point, the newspapers rarely present anything with absolute accuracy. The actual facts of the case (even without going into what might or might not have actually happened) might be totally different than the newspaper summary. Normally I'm all for giving people a chance, but this little misfit deserves castration and a lobotomy at the very least. Yeah right, you sound very convincing. /sarcasm And again for emphasis: THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

And this will instantly turn them into well-adjusted members of society without major psychological disfunction?
Nope. Actually, my first instinct would be to kill them, but for my own sake (in terms of what sentence I would get if caught), I would religate it to castration.

Not claiming any sort of moral high ground here - just stating an honest fact.

I'm afraid that your comment has nothing to do with what I said. THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
thata hell ofa stretch by the old lady and the police to get together a false accusation of attempted rape and get them to admit to it. and you are misisng my point, just because the mother says so doesnt make it true, the crackwhore whos kid shot up columbine blamed it on everyone but herself and her kid.

Normally I'm all for giving people a chance, but this little misfit deserves castration and a lobotomy at the very least. Preferrably after putting him in a maximum security prison with some hardened adult criminals, who can illustrate by example why what he tried to do to that woman was wrong.Wow, you want hardened criminals to rape an 11 year old boy? You're sick.This particular boy? Yes.
If anything like that happened to my grandmother, I'd hunt down all of the involved and castrate them myself...You would like that, wouldn't you?
Yes.

Both answers conditional on the context of my original comments.

What, if your grandmother was the victim of an attempted rape, I suppose you'd take the offenders out for champagne and a seafood dinner?

Nope. Actually, my first instinct would be to kill them, but for my own sake (in terms of what sentence I would get if caught), I would religate it to castration.

Personally I blame your parents.



Wow, you want hardened criminals to rape an 11 year old boy?

This particular boy? Yes.

Ah, so now you advocate the rape of 11 year old children as a form of justice?

Normally I'm all for giving people a chance, but this little misfit deserves castration and a lobotomy at the very least.Yeah right, you sound very convincing. /sarcasm And again for emphasis: THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.I don't need to be convincing - if you feel like doing a search, you will find my opinions on criminal rehabilitation and capital punishment DOCUMENTED on this forum ;)

But point taken about about innocent until proven guilty. I add the caveat "if he is guilty" to my above statement. :)

New Furbaria, you have advocated killing (but shied away from it), castration, lobotomy and anal (presumably, possibly oral) rape as punishments for a child.


Would you be willing to carry out the rape in the interests of what you believe to be justice?

Personally I blame your parents.LOL - you're obviously trying to get a rise out of me. ;) What next..."yo mamma" jokes? :pAh, so now you advocate the rape of 11 year old children as a form of justice?In this particular case or in general? In general, of course not. In this case...hmm...maybe...or could it be that I was making an exaggerated statement? ;)

The funny thing is normally get called a lefty and pinko at these forums. Call for the torture of one eleven year old alleged attempted rapist, all of a sudden I'm some kind of right wing monster! :p

Simmer down civil libertatrians, I'm not the enemy! :)

New Furbaria, you have advocated killing (but shied away from it), castration, lobotomy and anal (presumably, possibly oral) rape as punishments for a child.


Would you be willing to carry out the rape in the interests of what you believe to be justice?

See above...;)

thata hell ofa stretch by the old lady and the police to get together a false accusation of attempted rape and get them to admit to it. and you are misisng my point, just because the mother says so doesnt make it true, the crackwhore whos kid shot up columbine blamed it on everyone but herself and her kid. That's a hell of a stretch that a team of 11 year olds raped a grandmother. And you're missing my point, just because the newpaper article says that there are charges against someone doesn't mean they're guilty; The Exonerated showed it pretty well when everyone and their dog believed that the defendent was guilty (and was therefore convicted) despite the fact that the police kept him awake for eighteen hours and then lied to obtain what they passed off as a confession.

But then again, you clearly didn't read my post with any sort of comprehension. THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Also, your lack of actual knowledge about the Columbine shootings is impressive.

This particular boy? Yes.

Yes.

Both answers conditional on the context of my original comments.

Screw context, you're just friggen creepy.

What, if your grandmother was the victim of an attempted rape, I suppose you'd take the offenders out for champagne and a seafood dinner?

What do you think I would do?

Perhaps it would be best that I didn't meet up with the criminal.

Perhaps it would be best that I let the justice system (however flawed) take care of that.

Vengeance is the most natural of human reactions, the mark of a civilized society is that we don't base our justice system on it!

What if everyone wanted their share in vengeance?

Someone shoplifts, then he gets beaten up by the store-owner! Would you defend the store-owner? (actually, I get the feeling you would)

Anyways, you base your opinions on emotion, and while that is expected, we can't let society be run that way.

In this case...hmm...maybe...or could it be that I was making an exaggerated statement? ;)

I don't know: you tell me - either you do advocate the rape of children, or you consider it a fitting subject for humour.

The funny thing is normally get called a lefty and pinko at these forums. Call for the torture of one eleven year old alleged attempted rapist, all of a sudden I'm some kind of right wing monster! :p

Point out to me where anyone called you anything of the sort.

Am I the only one suddenly reminded of The Destructors?

Whilst I am the first to normally jump in the child's defence and exclaim that jailing juvinile offenders serves no purpose as it does not make the victem feel justice as sentences are short, it does not rehabilitate the offender and it generally turns children into hardened criminals.

However, in this case no leniency should be shown. This is a malicous and vile crime. These were not the actions of children, these were the actions of people who knew full well what they were doing. The prior robberies indicate this was not a spur of the moment crime and that these children are infact destined for a life of crime. This is not a case where it would serve any purpose to attempt to seek a rehabilitve sentence, this must be about justice and sending a zero tolerence message to the youth of today.

This may get alot of backs agaisnt the wall, but I am a Liberal and a proud spokeperson for juvenile rehabilitation. But this crime is specific and must be dealt with as such. It is not about moral outrage, it is about protecting the community. Right now the best place for those youths is jail.

Whilst I am the first to normally jump in the child's defence and exclaim that jailing juvinile offenders serves no purpose as it does not make the victem feel justice as sentences are short, it does not rehabilitate the offender and it generally turns children into hardened criminals.

However, in this case no leniency should be shown. This is a malicous and vile crime. These were not the actions of children, these were the actions of people who knew full well what they were doing. The prior robberies indicate this was not a spur of the moment crime and that these children are infact destined for a life of crime. This is not a case where it would serve any purpose to attempt to seek a rehabilitve sentence, this must be about justice and sending a zero tolerence message to the youth of today.

This may get alot of backs agaisnt the wall, but I am a Liberal and a proud spokeperson for juvenile rehabilitation. But this crime is specific and must be dealt with as such. It is not about moral outrage, it is about protecting the community. Right now the best place for those youths is jail.


Do you know for a fact those youths would commit crimes again?

Just throwing questions out...

All too often we become so smug in our self-assured beliefs that we, as the moral crowd, know what to do with the immoral crowd, whether that is jail them, kill them, torture them, rape them, who knows?

It does not surprise me in the least.

People are capable of all sorts of things

However, in this case no leniency should be shown. This is a malicous and vile crime. These were not the actions of children, these were the actions of people who knew full well what they were doing.


Despite the fact that they are children?


The prior robberies indicate this was not a spur of the moment crime and that these children are infact destined for a life of crime.

The fact that they had carried out robberies in the past does not indicate that they planned to carry out a rape: otherwise we should charge all those that carry out repeated robberies on the grounds that they are conspiring to commit rape. Your conclusion - that they are destined to a life of crime - does not follow from your first erroneus claim.

... these children ...

Hey look - you admitted yourself - they are children.

Right now the best place for those youths is jail.

Adult jail or juvenile facilities? I would think that until they are actually found guilty or innocent, the best place for them is probably wherever the US currently houses other such children facing criminal charges...

Oh, FFS...yes, muahahahaha! I am evil! There, I can be the bogeyman you want to paint me as. Happy? I'm off to twirl my moustache in a menacing manner now.:rolleyes:

-----

OK, to address your issues:

On the topic of fitting punishment for the kid in this particualr case - IMHO, 11 years old is old enough to know basic wrong from right. I'm not talking legally, mind you, I am talking about in my opinion.

Has this kid had a tough upbrining which may have mentally scarred him? Maybe. Well guess what? Everyone has a sad story - the vast majority of them don't attempt to rape senior citizens. Either this kid is insane, or evil. If he knew it was wrong and decided to do it anyway, evil. What really sickens me is that three(?) other kids kept watch for him - I hope they didn't know what he was attempting to do, and though it was simply a burglary.

Give him his day in court to assess guilty or not guilty - my main problem is that even if he is found guilty, he will slip through the cracks in the system due to his age. At the very, very least this kid needs LONG term physciatric institutionalisation and obsevration before ever being released into society - and even then, should be closely monitored and on probation for many years to come, and be given a "chemical castration" (can't think of the proper name of the drug, sorry) injection every week for (basically) the rest of his life...

If it is ruled (by qualified experts) that he has no clinical reason (i.e. identifiable and provable mental illness) for what he attempted, I say he be tried as an adult, should serve his sentence until 18 is a max-security juvenile detention centre; then on the day of his 18th birthday, go into a federal penetentiary. If he gets raped in there, I won't shed any tears.

-----

Now, on to the second topic - what if it had been my grandmother? I would do exactly what I said - track them down and castrate every one. And they should thank their lucky stars that I wouldn't just slaughter them like livestock. I am not trying to justify this as the right thing to do, morally or legally - I am simply stating this is would what most likely happen if it was my family involved. i.e. I am not trying to lead by example or justify my potential actions to anyone.

Besides which, until something like this happens to your family, noone can really predict how they would react, myself included.

-----

I hope this has cleared a few points up - sometimes it is hard to express in text what you can convey verbally.

If you still want to think I am an asshole for my opinions, so be it...to be honest, I'm not going to lose any sleep over my popularity rating on this forum. ;)

You're really stuck on castration aren't you?

On the topic of fitting punishment for the kid in this particualr case - IMHO, 11 years old is old enough to know basic wrong from right.

That's funny, because none of the world's philosophers (many of whom have been over the age of 11) have been able to determine to the complete satisfaction of others wrong from right.

If it is ruled (by qualified experts) that he has no clinical reason (i.e. identifiable and provable mental illness) for what he attempted, I say he be tried as an adult, should serve his sentence until 18 is a max-security juvenile detention centre; then on the day of his 18th birthday, go into a federal penetentiary. If he gets raped in there, I won't shed any tears.

If I follow your reasoning here:

- the child did such a terrible crime that he obviously is of adult responsibility
- thus he should be tried as an adult

- those other children who committed lesser crimes obviously aren't of adult responsibility
- thus they should be tried as children


The nature of the crime tells us absolutely nothing about whether the child was of adult responsibility, if anything it can be argued that the very fact that he commited such a hideous act makes it more likely that he was not of adult responsibility.

They clearly deserve the worst possible treatment imaginable. How about cutting off their genitals, ripping open their stomaches and leaving them to bleed dry? Ok so I am opposing death penalty of any form, but rape and such were grounds I've seen earlier from death penalty promoters.

They clearly deserve the worst possible treatment imaginable. How about cutting off their genitals, ripping open their stomaches and leaving them to bleed dry? Ok so I am opposing death penalty of any form, but rape and such were grounds I've seen earlier from death penalty promoters.

So you advocate the castration, disembowelment and bleeding of children who were charged only with being "party to burglary and criminal trespassing"?

Do you know for a fact those youths would commit crimes again?

Just throwing questions out...

All too often we become so smug in our self-assured beliefs that we, as the moral crowd, know what to do with the immoral crowd, whether that is jail them, kill them, torture them, rape them, who knows?
Noone can definitively predict the future. But what I can say is that the youths concerned displayed an escalating scale of offences and that the cheif offender crossed a moral line that cannot be forgotten. The matter is quite clear, he has crossed a point of no return and has exhibted previous behavour that would lead me to believe that his crimes will escalate and that is too big a risk to society.

Also, I do not ever advocate corporal or catpital punishment. I am not reccomended we seek vengence, but rather protect society from a dangerous individual, at least for the near future.

You're really stuck on castration aren't you?Only for theoretical rapists of of my loved ones...

But what I can say is that the youths concerned displayed an escalating scale of offences ...

Not according to that article they didn't - robberies happened in the past and they were finally charged with being "party to burglary and criminal trespassing" - there is no evidence that their offences escalated.

Only for theoretical rapists of of my loved ones...

What are you advocating now: actual castration for theoretical rapists, theoretical castration for theoretical rapists, or actual castration for actual rapists?

BWO, if you are going to snip out and post fragments of my quotes that changes much of their context without the rest of the accompanying text, don't expect me to bother replying. Just a heads-up for you. ;)

What are you advocating now: actual castration for theoretical rapists, theoretical castration for theoretical rapists, or actual castration for actual rapists?

You're misunderstanding on purpose now...

I am not advocating castration of any sort. Go back and read the original post that he quoted me from.

(P.S. My post directly above was not in answer to this quote, but earlier ones).

Despite the fact that they are children?




The fact that they had carried out robberies in the past does not indicate that they planned to carry out a rape: otherwise we should charge all those that carry out repeated robberies on the grounds that they are conspiring to commit rape. Your conclusion - that they are destined to a life of crime - does not follow from your first erroneus claim.



Hey look - you admitted yourself - they are children.



Adult jail or juvenile facilities? I would think that until they are actually found guilty or innocent, the best place for them is probably wherever the US currently houses other such children facing criminal charges...
Yes they are children, however the law recognises that over the age to 10 an offender has reasonable control of their faculties to be responsable for a crime. Just because the average child does not commit such horrid acts does not mean that these children lacked the capacity to understand full well what they were doing. They may be children in you eyes, however they are children who possesed the will the intent and knowledge to commit acts of a truly appauling nature, of which they are capable of definatively knowing are wrong.

Not according to that article they didn't - robberies happened in the past and they were finally charged with being "party to burglary and criminal trespassing" - there is no evidence that their offences escalated.
However the article also mentions that they attempted to rape the elderly woman, which indicates they escalated from their previous offences of robbery (pardon, theift).

I say...just throw the kid in jail for life and screw anyone who says otherwise.

For God's sake! This is an 11-year-old who has SEXUALLY ASSAULTED a grandmother! He's either very mentally disturbed or as evil as the Devil himself! I'd beat him raw if I had my way, with my father's belt, to boot.

Do you think a 76 year old would lie about attempted rape and repeated burglaries? And do you think the mother necessarily told the truth regarding the police treatment of the boys? I think this is a sign we need a bit of cultural hindsight and perhaps some overview of our education system. You should teach us how stupid we are regarding sexual matters and why we should wait, not tell us how to go at it dammit. Schools should have more rigorously enforced discipline, longer hours, and better supervision to prevent such antics from happening, especially to help take some load off single and working parents. And perhaps constructive relationships should be fostered and cared for by inquisitive, active counseling, so that things like gangs of young boys raiding and raping are less likely to form.
That there is some Class A Bulls#!t. The parents of these children didn't parent. They ought to be made to stand in the docket along with the kids sine their inaction makes them perps. Had these kids been nurtured, looked after and, when needed, set straight from the get go they would not have been so malformed at 11 years of age.

The failure of the parents, especially the mothers here, was the failure to form a loving healthy bond and image of women to their children. Without that even a 6 year old a child has nothing to transfer to other adult caregivers and it would run counter to their real world experience at home when offered. It cannot be made compulsory before such an event. It is only afterwards when the child becomes a ward of the state that the state has the right to intercede beyond the obviated parential approval.

Rape is not about sex. Rape is about the violent expression of rage and the impetuous of inflating a deflated ego. All the sex education in the world wouldn't make pre-teens predators. If anything sex education offsets the malformed opinions and information available in the schoolyards and streets. You can bet that he learned to use the condom to prevent DNA evidence from being found. This poor attempt may well have been taught by an older rapist. One who may well have been raping all, some or one these three.

Yes they are children, however the law recognises that over the age to 10 an offender has reasonable control of their faculties to be responsable for a crime.


Is it the case that in the USA the age of criminal responsibilty is 10 years old? Googling for this isn't coming up with anything conclusive.

And yes, I'm sad, but not surprised that the world's going to hell. Looking forward to the Biblical Judgements in Revelations.

And yes, I'm sad, but not surprised that the world's going to hell. Looking forward to the Biblical Judgements in Revelations.

You're reading the Bible and can't wait to get to the end, eh?

That there is some Class A Bulls#!t. The parents of these children didn't parent. They ought to be made to stand in the docket along with the kids sine their inaction makes them perps. Had these kids been nurtured, looked after and, when needed, set straight from the get go they would not have been so malformed at 11 years of age.

That seems like a lot of assumptions to make on the basis of all the information provided in the link - that one of the children has an adoptive mother.

Do you extend this attitude to rapes carried out by individuals over the age of minority - that the blame comes down on to the parents?

Whilst I am the first to normally jump in the child's defence and exclaim that jailing juvinile offenders serves no purpose as it does not make the victem feel justice as sentences are short, it does not rehabilitate the offender and it generally turns children into hardened criminals.

However, in this case no leniency should be shown. This is a malicous and vile crime. These were not the actions of children, these were the actions of people who knew full well what they were doing. The prior robberies indicate this was not a spur of the moment crime and that these children are infact destined for a life of crime. This is not a case where it would serve any purpose to attempt to seek a rehabilitve sentence, this must be about justice and sending a zero tolerence message to the youth of today.

This may get alot of backs agaisnt the wall, but I am a Liberal and a proud spokeperson for juvenile rehabilitation. But this crime is specific and must be dealt with as such. It is not about moral outrage, it is about protecting the community. Right now the best place for those youths is jail.


Well said.

Is it the case that in the USA the age of criminal responsibilty is 10 years old? Googling for this isn't coming up with anything conclusive.
I believe so, I can say it is definately in Australia, however my source for the belief it is in the US also is from Law & Order.

However the article also mentions that they attempted to rape the elderly woman, which indicates they escalated from their previous offences of robbery (pardon, theift).

No, it says that two of the four attempted rape - "The woman said the 11-year-old put on a condom and tried to rape her, followed by a second boy." As to why only one was charged with sexual assault remains unclear.

For God's sake! This is an 11-year-old who has SEXUALLY ASSAULTED a grandmother! He's either very mentally disturbed or as evil as the Devil himself! I'd beat him raw if I had my way, with my father's belt, to boot.

How will this resolve the situation if the child is very mentally disturbed as opposed to 'evil'?

You're reading the Bible and can't wait to get to the end, eh?
I just find myself wishing the judgments would begin so we can get on with eternal peace with the big guy.

How will this resolve the situation if the child is very mentally disturbed as opposed to 'evil'?
In that case, lock him up in a mental institution for life.

I just find myself wishing the judgments would begin so we can get on with eternal peace with the big guy.

Aren't we in for a thousand years of tribulations first, or did I sleep through them?

No, it says that two of the four attempted rape - "The woman said the 11-year-old put on a condom and tried to rape her, followed by a second boy." As to why only one was charged with sexual assault remains unclear.
Two of the four, hence they. Tried to rape, hence attempted to rape. My arguement stands, they had previously attempted thieft and have since stepped up to attemtped sexual assault.

Is it the case that in the USA the age of criminal responsibilty is 10 years old? Googling for this isn't coming up with anything conclusive.
You'll find it varies by state. The guilt of the act is the first part of the judgement. Beside and slightly behind it will be the consideration of the individuals capacity and the conditions surrounding the events in question.

In that case, lock him up in a mental institution for life.

Even if he manages to overcome his mental disturbances to the complete satisfaction of psychiatric staff after some period of time?

Even if he manages to overcome his mental disturbances to the complete satisfaction of psychiatric staff after some period of time?
In the unlikely event he does, then he should be closely monitored for life.

and we're in for 7 years of tribulations.

Two of the four, hence they. Tried to rape, hence attempted to rape. My arguement stands, they had previously attempted thieft and have since stepped up to attemtped sexual assault.

So your earlier statements do not apply to the other two then?


As I noted earlier, the issue of why only one was charged with sexual assault if two tried to rape the woman remains somewhat unclear. It would seem that the police either cannot identify one of the would-be rapists, or something unexplained is going on...

Aren't we in for a thousand years of tribulations first, or did I sleep through them?

Meh. Maybe a thousand, maybe five. Depends on who you ask.

I've always found it funny that some Christians think they can figure out when the end is considering this verse: "You will know neither the day nor the hour..."

In the unlikely event he does, then he should be closely monitored for life.

Okay, that just brings us back to the question of what happens if he is just inherently 'evil'?

I find it kind of strange that if he did a horrible act and didn't know what he was doing, then he is insane, while if he did know what he was doing, then he is sane. It always seems kind of backwards to me... it allows that it is a sane thing to rape septagenarians.

Whether or not those boys are guilty, this sort of thing has happened throughout history. There are reports all over the place of infant and geriatric rape, because people are f-ed up. It wouldn't surprise me if they were guilty.

The world has gone straight to hell a long time ago.

So your earlier statements do not apply to the other two then?


As I noted earlier, the issue of why only one was charged with sexual assault if two tried to rape the woman remains somewhat unclear. It would seem that the police either cannot identify one of the would-be rapists, or something unexplained is going on...
No, the other two offenders are probally capable of rehabilitation. I see no reason to use the full force of the law upon them.

I suspect a deal was required in order to obtain testimony against the alleged rapist.

That's funny, because none of the world's philosophers (many of whom have been over the age of 11) have been able to determine to the complete satisfaction of others wrong from right.

He said basic not complete. You should really stop to read the whole submission sometime.

I've always found it funny that some Christians think they can figure out when the end is considering this verse: "You will know neither the day nor the hour..."

That reminds me of the story of the prisoner who is told that as punishment for his crimes he is to be hung sometime in the next week, and that the exact day will come as a surprise to him. The prisoner works out that he will either be hung on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. He can't be hung on the Sunday, because then it wouldn't be a surprise to him, because it is the last available day when he could get hung. Thus he can't be hung on Sunday. If that is the case, then he can't be hung on Saturday either, because it is the new last available day when he could be, and so it wouldn't be a surprise to him. Thus he can't be hung on Saturday. Similarly, for Friday, then Thursday, then Wednesday, then Tuesday, then Monday - the prisoner rejoices, because he can't be hung by surprise on any of the days of the week! The next day there is a knock on the door and to his complete surprise he is taken away and hung...

That seems like a lot of assumptions to make on the basis of all the information provided in the link - that one of the children has an adoptive mother.

Do you extend this attitude to rapes carried out by individuals over the age of minority - that the blame comes down on to the parents?
The comment was in response to a larger comment posed. You are off on a tangent by trying to apply what I said to a larger and decidedly different population.

With regard to the children in this case I was not commenting on all factors. I was noting that at 11 years of age parential supervision, nurture, and discipline are key factors in a child ability to have a disposition toward let alone nvolvement in criminal behavior.

The presumptive fact that one of the perps has an adoptive mother as opposed to a biological one is irrelevent. That he has an adult who is responsible to act as a parent is basis enough to investigate her and if appropriate, responsible care was not given the child then she should be charged as an accessory.

If convicted, then the extent of her culpability should determine her sentence. Those who take on the responsibility for raising a child have taken on responsibility. What is the meaning of responsibility if not that one is to be held accountable to perform a set of responsibilities?

The comment was in response to a larger comment posed. You are off on a tangent by trying to apply what I said to a larger and decidedly different population.

Well, I was asking because otherwise it seems like there is some magical point where the parents are absolved of any responsibility that they might (or might not) have when their offspring reaches the age of 18.


The presumptive fact that one of the perps has an adoptive mother as opposed to a biological one is irrelevent.

I agree, on the basis of the information available to us - I was just pointing out the sparsity of the information, I was not making an adoptive/birth mother distinction.

That he has an adult who is responsible to act as a parent is basis enough to investigate her and if appropriate, responsible care was not given the child then she should be charged as an accessory.

If convicted, then the extent of her culpability should determine her sentence. Those who take on the responsibility for raising a child have taken on responsibility. What is the meaning of responsibility if not that one is to be held accountable to perform a set of responsibilities?

Am I right then in assuming that you believe that any child who is brought up by sufficiently responsible parents would be incapable of commiting such criminal acts?


EDIT: I realised I hadn't answered your question - it depends whether the responsibility is to educate the young in morality to the best of your ability, or to the extent that they are unable to do serious wrong.

He said basic not complete. You should really stop to read the whole submission sometime.

It was an allusion to a very similar line of argument in Anthony Burgess's novel A Clockwork Orange which is centred on the questions of right and wrong framed in the context of juvenile criminals and rapists, wherein a comment is made that we condemn criminals for not knowing right from wrong, but at the same time accept that philosophers don't.

That reminds me of the story of the prisoner who is told that as punishment for his crimes he is to be hung sometime in the next week, and that the exact day will come as a surprise to him. The prisoner works out that he will either be hung on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. He can't be hung on the Sunday, because then it wouldn't be a surprise to him, because it is the last available day when he could get hung. Thus he can't be hung on Sunday. If that is the case, then he can't be hung on Saturday either, because it is the new last available day when he could be, and so it wouldn't be a surprise to him. Thus he can't be hung on Saturday. Similarly, for Firday, then Thursday, then Wednesday, then Tuesday, then Monday - the prisoner rejoices, because he can't be hung by surprise on any of the days of the week! The next day there is a knock on the door and he is taken away and hung...

Ah, yes. The joys of foreknowledge are many. ;)

What are you advocating now: actual castration for theoretical rapists, theoretical castration for theoretical rapists, or actual castration for actual rapists?
OK, to try and clear this up, let me quote myself from an earlier post (relevant part bolded):
Now, on to the second topic - what if it had been my grandmother? I would do exactly what I said - track them down and castrate every one. And they should thank their lucky stars that I wouldn't just slaughter them like livestock. I am not trying to justify this as the right thing to do, morally or legally - I am simply stating this is would what most likely happen if it was my family involved. i.e. I am not trying to lead by example or justify my potential actions to anyone.

Besides which, until something like this happens to your family, noone can really predict how they would react, myself included.
So to answer your question: hypothetical castration against hypothetical rapists.

I know it gets tricky with this forum cropping quotes within quotes, makes it hard to follow who said what at times.

-----

Anyway, I have a question of my own for you, BWO (and Cholodo):

I keep hearing you poohoo other people's ideas of what should happen to these kids - what do you believe should happen (assuming they are guilty)? (Sorry if you've already answered this and I missed it...)

Anyway, I have a question of my own for you, BWO (and Cholodo):

I keep hearing you poohoo other people's ideas of what should happen to these kids - what do you believe should happen (assuming they are guilty)? (Sorry if you've already answered this and I missed it...)

Well, I believe they should be treated the same as any other 11 year old in the USA who has been charged sexual assault: that's what justice is supposedly all about - equality before it.

The children should be examined by psychologists and psychiatrists to see if they are suffering from mental disturbance or disfunction, and some investigation of their homelife should take place.

If they are found to be guilty, then I am guessing that they would be sent to some kind of juvenile facility where they would stay until they are about age 16, and have received some kind of education within that facility. I would guess that this might be te age which they are elligible for release.

Do I think this would work? That depends on what you believe the function of the prison system to be. They are certainly unlikely to have found themselves happier in the facility than outside it, and so it has probably worked if you believe the aim to be punishment. Are they likely to have learnt society's accepted norms of what is right and wrong? Probably no more than if they had stayed outside of an institution where they are going to mix with other young offenders. Are they likely to commit similar crimes again when they are released? Probably not sexual assaults, but quite possibly they will be quite skilled in the methodology of petty crime and small time larceny after mixing with other inmates.


All of this is based on massive suppostion given the few facts available from the report.

Well, I was asking because otherwise it seems like there is some magical point where the parents are absolved of any responsibility that they might (or might not) have when their offspring reaches the age of 18.

Legally yes. This takes place at the attainment of majority (18 in NYS) by the perp. Morally? That is a separate issue



The presumptive fact that one of the perps has an adoptive mother as opposed to a biological one is irrelevent.

I agree, on the basis of the information available to us - I was just pointing out the sparsity of the information, I was not making an adoptive/birth mother distinction.
Then I misunderstood you. Apologies.



That he has an adult who is responsible to act as a parent is basis enough to investigate her and if appropriate, responsible care was not given the child then she should be charged as an accessory.

If convicted, then the extent of her culpability should determine her sentence. Those who take on the responsibility for raising a child have taken on responsibility. What is the meaning of responsibility if not that one is to be held accountable to perform a set of responsibilities?

Am I right then in assuming that you believe that any child who is brought up by sufficiently responsible parents would be incapable of commiting such criminal acts?

Not at all. For example, some sociopaths exist despite the best of home circumstances while other are driven over that edge by home conditions. Therefore an investigation into the matter is called for.

EDIT: I realised I hadn't answered your question - it depends whether the responsibility is to educate the young in morality to the best of your ability, or to the extent that they are unable to do serious wrong.

Correct on the former. Regarding the latter, Children are capable but depending on the event may or may not be held legally accountable. If a 3 year old takes a candy bar from the check out is it theft? No, but it requires parential correction. If the child is 9 and takes it, it is theft.

Can an 11 year old child be held accountablee for robbery, rape and/or murder? Yes.

For example, some sociopaths exist despite the best of home circumstances while other are driven over that edge by home conditions. Therefore an investigation into the matter is called for.

Previously:

That there is some Class A Bulls#!t. The parents of these children didn't parent. They ought to be made to stand in the docket along with the kids sine their inaction makes them perps. Had these kids been nurtured, looked after and, when needed, set straight from the get go they would not have been so malformed at 11 years of age.

It seems you have modified your position somewhat - and no longer stand by your initial judgement of the parents, instead saying that they may responsible for their children having turned out the way they did.

It was an allusion to a very similar line of argument in Anthony Burgess's novel A Clockwork Orange which is centred on the questions of right and wrong framed in the context of juvenile criminals and rapists, wherein a comment is made that we condemn criminals for not knowing right from wrong, but at the same time accept that philosophers don't.
Criminality addresses the lack of adhereance to society's accepted rules of conduct.

Right/Wrong, Good/Evil etc. deal with morality or eternal/universal truths.

They are two separate things that overlap. It is only confusing and seemingly contradictory if they are seen as the same thing.

Criminality addresses the lack of adhereance to society's accepted rules of conduct.

Right/Wrong, Good/Evil etc. deal with morality or eternal/universal truths.

They are two separate things that overlap. It is only confusing and seemingly contradictory if they are seen as the same thing.

However, the discussion from other posters focused not on whether the children knew that they should* adhere to society's accepted rules of conduct, but whether they knew right from wrong.


*To open up another can of worms: the adherence to society's norms/rules of conduct is taught as something we should do - as something that is right rather than wrong. Contrast this with the attitude that just accepts crime and the legal system as a kind of economy - "do the crime, pay the time"...

That there is some Class A Bulls#!t. The parents of these children didn't parent. They ought to be made to stand in the docket along with the kids sine their inaction makes them perps. Had these kids been nurtured, looked after and, when needed, set straight from the get go they would not have been so malformed at 11 years of age.

Previously:

It seems you have modified your position somewhat - and no longer stand by your initial judgement of the parents, instead saying that they may responsible for their children having turned out the way they did.

Back from the theoritical to the particulars of the case at hand - no. They should stand in the docket and be made to answer for the actions of their charges. If exeronated, then so be it. But if not, they should be punished with the full weight of the law.

To find a single individual pathologically affected is one thing. To find three acting in concert suggests parential neglect of their basic responsibilities. I still call for the investigation of the parents and believe that, in all likelihood, they are culpable. If culpable then they should be charged as accessories.

See it clearer now?

Back from the theoritical to the particulars of the case at hand - no. They should stand in the docket and be made to answer for the actions of their charges. If exeronated, then so be it. But if not, they should be punished with the full weight of the law.

I see how this corresponds with you claim that there should be an investigation, but I take issue with your claim:

The parents of these children didn't parent.

- which seems somewhat of a prejudgement prior to the investigation.

To find a single individual pathologically affected is one thing. To find three acting in concert suggests parential neglect of their basic responsibilities. I still call for the investigation of the parents and believe that, in all likelihood, they are culpable. If culpable then they should be charged as accessories.

See it clearer now?

Well, as I see it we have four boys - ages 11, 11, 12 & 13.


Only two of them are brothers (one of the 11 year olds & the 13 year old), so it seems like I'm either misunderstanding your claim about "three acting in concert" or you are reading relations into the story which aren't there.

However, the discussion from other posters focused not on whether the children knew that they should* adhere to society's accepted rules of conduct, but whether they knew right from wrong.


*To open up another can of worms: the adherence to society's norms/rules of conduct is taught as something we should do - as something that is right rather than wrong. Contrast this with the attitude that just accepts crime and the legal system as a kind of economy - "do the crime, pay the time"...

How one perceives adhereance to the law may well depend on who the instructor was/is. On a very basic toddler level mothers may well teach that hitting one's playmate is wrong. Hopefully, (ever the fool here with that) as one grows into pre-adolescence and beyond, the understanding grows into accepting the social contract that is society's rule of order and doesn't assault every person they find disagreeable.

It can be metaphoriclly expressed in economic terms. But the ultimate effect is a loss of freedom and opportunity to experience life within the society they have offended.

Certainly the range of attitudes is as varied as the range of individuals. One might feel that inhaling pot is their prerogative and none of the governments concern. Another might feel that way about smoking cigarettes in a public place. There is no accounting for the range of attitudes. Without doubt, ill considered laws stir disobedience which, in some individuals, extends to all laws. The real argument is, which laws are demanded and which are an unwarranted intrusion.

I see how this corresponds with you claim that there should be an investigation, but I take issue with your claim:



- which seems somewhat of a prejudgement prior to the investigation.



Well, as I see it we have four boys - ages 11, 11, 12 & 13.


Only two of them are brothers (one of the 11 year olds & the 13 year old), so it seems like I'm either misunderstanding your claim about "three acting in concert" or you are reading relations into the story which aren't there.
I had read an earlier report that said 3 boys were involved. But whichever it is 3 or 4 is irrelevent to the discussion. (I have this nit on my back. Help a guy out will ya?)

Investigation aside, the parents will not be held criminally accountable. However, yes. It was an emotional outburst. A well surmised one, but emotional none the less.

It is similar to the outbursts I have when high schoolers commit atrocities while on psychiatric meds known to stir mania in a decent percentage of patients and doctors and pharmacological companies are not held accountable for their share of the blame. But that is another thread for another time.

ED: I'll add that the pathological basis is quite rare while the incidence of parential neglect is, unfortunately, quite common. The DSM-IV estimates that 3% of men and 1% of women have some form of antisocial personality disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

Off to bed. I'll look for your comments tomorrow. Be well!

ED: I'll add that the pathological basis is quite rare while the incidence of parential neglect is, unfortunately, quite common. The DSM-IV estimates that 3% of men and 1% of women have some form of antisocial personality disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

Off to bed. I'll look for your comments tomorrow. Be well!
lol.. after reading that site about APD, I would have to say that the % is substantially higher than 3% for males.

I mean, go to your friendly neighborhood skateboard park.
Do those skateboarders exhibit:
Failure to conform to social norms or lawful behaviors (grunge look, skateboarding in areas unlawful)?
Deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying (are there adolescents who havent lied at least a few times?)?
Reckless disregard for safety (have you seen the tricks that they try?)?

I mean all this tongue in cheek.

This is completely repugnant. How can this topic have started controversy on the thread as to the little bastard's rights? What about the old lady's right to feel safe in her home, and live out the rest of her years happily and in peace? I cannot believe what society has become - (a) for something as sickening as this to happen at all and (b) for sticking up for criminals - oh, sorry, offenders - and ignoring the basic rights of their victims.

Right now the best place for those youths is jail.They are inncoent until proven guilty, ergo, the best place now for them is court, to determine their guilt or lack thereof.
They clearly deserve the worst possible treatment imaginable. How about cutting off their genitals, ripping open their stomaches and leaving them to bleed dry? Ok so I am opposing death penalty of any form, but rape and such were grounds I've seen earlier from death penalty promoters.That's right, you're opposed to killing them, but you do want to torture them to death. I say...just throw the kid in jail for life and screw anyone who says otherwise.
For God's sake! This is an 11-year-old who has SEXUALLY ASSAULTED a grandmother! He's either very mentally disturbed or as evil as the Devil himself! I'd beat him raw if I had my way, with my father's belt, to boot.You seem to equate being charged with being guilty. They are innocent until proven guilty.Whether or not those boys are guilty...Thank God someone realized that.
This is completely repugnant. How can this topic have started controversy on the thread as to the little bastard's rights? What about the old lady's right to feel safe in her home, and live out the rest of her years happily and in peace? I cannot believe what society has become - (a) for something as sickening as this to happen at all and (b) for sticking up for criminals - oh, sorry, offenders - and ignoring the basic rights of their victims.THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, dumbass.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/22/elderly.assault.ap/index.html

Disgusting


"We are on a road to nowhere, lalalala"

THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, dumbass.

Even so, the boy's reputation will be shot to hell. Nobody will want to go near him. No one will want to even see him. He will be alone for the rest of his life, however short or long it will be. If he goes off scot-free or even with a light sentence, there's something horribly wrong with the justice system.

Thats just disgusting :mad:

The world has officially gone to hell

Well ... as long as it's official ... :)

I'm afraid that your comment has nothing to do with what I said. THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. It doesn't really matter what I think (and to answer your question, I don't think anyting about that, because of the following reason.) THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Even more to the point, the newspapers rarely present anything with absolute accuracy. The actual facts of the case (even without going into what might or might not have actually happened) might be totally different than the newspaper summary. Yeah right, you sound very convincing. /sarcasm And again for emphasis: THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

so.....you think kids that even illegedly rape an old woman and broke into her house should be treated as innocents?
when they prove those kids didnt do it, then ill be nice about it. until then, theyre sick little punks and need some sort of punishment.

Just another indicator of the growing undiscipline within the general public. If the Middle East gets wind of this, we are going to hell, a living hell.

Hmm.... let's see.... You have intercity Milwaukee, three tween chester-molesters, the main defendant is adopted probably was abandoned, and instead of apologizing to the old lady, the adoptive mother, who is obviously bad at parenting, yells at the police for "abuse"..... Sounds like libs to me.

Stuff like this reminds me of why we should fully adopt Singapore's lawbook as our own and throw out these stupid "police brutality" laws as well. If one is stupid enough to do something like this, then one deserves to be smacked in the head with a baton, tazed, and then bamboo whipped.

We have.. Believe me we have.. and we've been laughing about it all night long at the cafe.

*chuckle* The breakdown of Western society is no longer a Middle-Eastern dream... It is a reality more evident now than ever.

so.....you think kids that even illegedly rape an old woman and broke into her house should be treated as innocents?

So if I were to accuse you here and now of breaking into an old woman's house and then attempting to rape her, you believe that you shouldn't be treated as an innocent?

Okay, I'll do so: you broke into an old woman's house and then attempted to rape her.*

How should you be treated now?



when they prove those kids didnt do it, then ill be nice about it. until then, theyre sick little punks and need some sort of punishment.

You do realise that the legal system doesn't work that way: the onus is not on proving that someone didn't commit a crime, it is on proving that they did - thus the phrase "innocent until proven guilty".

How do you plan to undo the punishment should their names be cleared?

___________
* Note that this is a thought experiment rather than a flame, but imagine if I had actually made that allegation - how should you be treated?

*chuckle* The breakdown of Western society is no longer a Middle-Eastern dream... It is a reality more evident now than ever.

You say this as if this is the first time such an incident has taken place, which is patently untrue, or are you refering to other evidence?

Nah.. this is not the first time something like this happens, I'm sure.. I never said that.

The "Western breakdown" rants are becoming increasingly common in the Middle East.. There are many reasons for that. Will start another thread when I have the time.

The "Western breakdown" rants are becoming increasingly common in the Middle East.. There are many reasons for that. Will start another thread when I have the time.

As a resident in the "Western World" it would be nice to imagine there was some point where it weren't broke, but as both you and I know that was never the case...

I''d say that this is more proof (as if we needed more) of why major crimes shouldn't have a juvy option. Cases of forced sex crimes (as opposed to flashing or looking at porn), death, or severe injury should warrant the same penalty, whatever the age/race/metal condition of the perpetrater and/or victim happens to be.

I''d say that this is more proof (as if we needed more) of why major crimes shouldn't have a juvy option. Cases of forced sex crimes (as opposed to flashing or looking at porn), death, or severe injury should warrant the same penalty, whatever the age/race/metal condition of the perpetrater and/or victim happens to be.

Surely the only thing that it is proof of is that a certain 11 year old has enough evidence against him that the police consider it a sufficient to charge him with sexual assault? The fact that a sexual assault may or may not have taken place tells us nothing about jurisprudence.

Surely the only thing that it is proof of is that a certain 11 year old has enough evidence against him that the police consider it a sufficient to charge him with sexual assault? The penalty should he or anyone else be found guilty is an entirely separate mattter, no?
I wasn't really being specific to the case at hand, but it seems (based on the article) as if the case is pretty much open and shut. Still, i think the idea of having juvenile punishments for crimes (sexual asault, murder, severe injury) that are adult is assinine. I'm not any less dead if the man holding the knife lodged through my trachea was 5 years old or 50; A woman is no less raped whether the prong in question was attached to a 11 year old boy; and a person is no less maimed even the person who ran them down with a car was only 14.

:headbang: indeed the world is a crazy place

So if I were to accuse you here and now of breaking into an old woman's house and then attempting to rape her, you believe that you shouldn't be treated as an innocent?

You are an idiot, plain and simple. The example you give does not relate at all to the situation we have here. For instance, you are not a respected 76 year old woman. Thus, if someone at, say, the age of 20 accused me of such a crime, it would be different because I could see them lying about it. It happens all the time. However, a senior citizen is not likely at all to lie about such a thing. Now, to answer the other half of you point.

If my grandmother told me that an 11 year old tried to rape her, I would kill him. I would not wait until some corrupt lawyer defended him in court. Our judicial system is not about who is right, its about who has more money. Therefore, I would go find that kid, take him out in the woods, beat his ass unconscious, and shoot him. You can say what you want, but liberal fools like you are what has allowed our oh so tolerant country to get to this point. No, we shouldn't be allowed to smack our kids. No, OJ didn't do it. No, pedophilia is ok. Well, now we are reaping exactly what we have sown. We fucked ourselves, and this is what happens. Enjoy.

"I'm very hurt because my son was raised as a good boy," she said outside court. She complained that police abused the boys to obtain confessions

When that "abused to get confessions" thing came up, I knew the mother was an idiot. She should have "abused" him a lot more than any police, anyway...

You are an idiot, plain and simple.

Thanks for that.


The example you give does not relate at all to the situation we have here. For instance, you are not a respected 76 year old woman.

To the best of your knowledge.

Do we have any evidence from the article that the woman was 'respected'?

Thus, if someone at, say, the age of 20 accused me of such a crime, it would be different because I could see them lying about it. It happens all the time. However, a senior citizen is not likely at all to lie about such a thing.

Why should a person's tendency to lie vary with their age?

If my grandmother told me that an 11 year old tried to rape her, I would kill him.

Would you carry out any fact checking of any kind before doing so, or would your grandmother's word be enough? - without wanting to impugn your grandmother's honour or facilities, but she could be suffering from the onset of any number of medical or mental conditions which cause her to lose her grasp on reality. Similarly, she may have become deeply confused and disturbed, if we imagine a situation similar to the one under discussion here, leading to her confusing one child with another.

So you advocate lone individuals carrying out acts of vigilanteism as a much more efficient manner of deciding guilt and punishment than the established legal system?


I would not wait until some corrupt lawyer defended him in court.

Are you claiming that all lawyers that take on defense cases where there are accusations of sexual assault are corrupt, or merely implying it?

Our judicial system is not about who is right, its about who has more money.

I am not going to argue that the legal system is unaffected by the resources available to those taking part in trials, but to declare that money is the primary determining factor in the result in the majority of cases seems somewhat wide of the mark to me.

Therefore, I would go find that kid, take him out in the woods, beat his ass unconscious, and shoot him.

Would you then hand yourself in to the police and confess to killing him, or would you then conceal the act?

You can say what you want, but liberal fools like you are what has allowed our oh so tolerant country to get to this point.

So, I am a liberal fool because I assert that leaving the determination of guilt in this instance to the 200+ year tradition of the American legal system? Whereas one who is not a liberal fool is one who is prepared to beat unconscious and then shoot dead an 11 year old?

When that "abused to get confessions" thing came up, I knew the mother was an idiot. She should have "abused" him a lot more than any police, anyway...
I thnk youll find out that happened.

Besides all the horror of this event I would like to point out that they broke into her house before. She reported it to the police and they didnt do anything. While the kids involved obviously have the blame, so do the police that didnt do anything to prevent it.

I also would like to point out that the kid put on a condom. I think that is probably unusual.

If my grandmother told me that an 11 year old tried to rape her, I would kill him. I would not wait until some corrupt lawyer defended him in court. Our judicial system is not about who is right, its about who has more money. Therefore, I would go find that kid, take him out in the woods, beat his ass unconscious, and shoot him. You can say what you want, but liberal fools like you are what has allowed our oh so tolerant country to get to this point. No, we shouldn't be allowed to smack our kids. No, OJ didn't do it. No, pedophilia is ok. Well, now we are reaping exactly what we have sown. We fucked ourselves, and this is what happens. Enjoy.
I suppose that I, as a person in favor of someone actually being offered a chance to defend themselves against an accuation, am a liberal fool. The OJ trial was simply proof that people should be given IQ tests before they are allowed to become jurors.

he OJ trial was simply proof that people should be given IQ tests before they are allowed to become jurors.

I'll just throw in the fact here that the jury was comprised of two college graduates, nine high school graduates, and one without diploma. I was going to make some comments about this, but it would just lead into the murky territory of "what does IQ measure". Suffice to say that on the basis of the educational achievements listed it would be unfair to label the jury as educationally subnormal: whether they would qualify as smart enough (or of high enough IQ) for Hajekistan is a different matter.

Is the fact that the jury was comprised of two college graduates, nine high school graduates, and one without diploma not a sufficient? Would the case have been awarded differently if it weren't for the one individual who carries no award of educational/intellectual competence?
Since when does being a high school graduate proof you as intelligent? Most people are high school graduates. The fact is, the people were stupid and were blinded by OJ's star status. His high priced lawyers convinced the jurors that poor ickle OJ was being unfairly targetted by a conspiracy.

so.....you think kids that even illegedly rape an old woman and broke into her house should be treated as innocents?
when they prove those kids didnt do it, then ill be nice about it. until then, theyre sick little punks and need some sort of punishment.You honestly have absolutely no idea how our legal system works.You are an idiot, plain and simple. The example you give does not relate at all to the situation we have here. For instance, you are not a respected 76 year old woman. Thus, if someone at, say, the age of 20 accused me of such a crime, it would be different because I could see them lying about it. It happens all the time. However, a senior citizen is not likely at all to lie about such a thing. Now, to answer the other half of you point.

If my grandmother told me that an 11 year old tried to rape her, I would kill him. I would not wait until some corrupt lawyer defended him in court. Our judicial system is not about who is right, its about who has more money. Therefore, I would go find that kid, take him out in the woods, beat his ass unconscious, and shoot him. You can say what you want, but liberal fools like you are what has allowed our oh so tolerant country to get to this point. No, we shouldn't be allowed to smack our kids. No, OJ didn't do it. No, pedophilia is ok. Well, now we are reaping exactly what we have sown. We fucked ourselves, and this is what happens. Enjoy.The same goes for you. The United States' criminal judicial system is based on the fact that I can't pull accusations out of my ass and make you prove you're innocent. If you think that's "liberal foolishness" then go live in a nice, conservative dictatorship.

Since when does being a high school graduate proof you as intelligent? Most people are high school graduates. The fact is, the people were stupid and were blinded by OJ's star status. His high priced lawyers convinced the jurors that poor ickle OJ was being unfairly targetted by a conspiracy.

See edited version of my post which I made before I saw your response.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7103481&postcount=121

See edited version of my post which I made before I saw your response.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7103481&postcount=121
Exactly! Hajekistan's standards are very exhausting. Hajekistan, in fact, insists that everyone Hajekistan speaks too know how to say "damn" in at least three languages and understand the basic concepts of Calculus. Hajekistan also refers to Hajekistan in the third person becuase Hajekistan loves seeing Hajekistan's name in print.

so.....you think kids that even illegedly rape an old woman and broke into her house should be treated as innocents?
when they prove those kids didnt do it, then ill be nice about it. until then, theyre sick little punks and need some sort of punishment.

Oh that's nice... GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

BTW are you trying to say "allegedly" or "illegally"? Because it's pretty hard to legally rape someone. Of you meant "allegedly" then, well, yeah... anyone who is merely alleged to have commited any crime should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, or at least until indited.

And as for OJ... is it possible for it to find room in your head that OJ did it AND that the police doctored evidence? It certainly is, but when a jury is given doctored evidence by the prosecution, their only honest choice is to find reasonable doubt. It is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and when the police have clearly created "evidence", that's pretty hard to do.

Assuming that the allegations of the old lady are true, doesn't the fact that these kids have terrorised her before, and the fact that one kid brought a condom along and was preparing to use it show premeditation? It's not like it was a first time breakin that somehow got out of hand - at least one of these kids went into her house with the intention of raping her. I get the impression that these kids knew this lady was vulnerable and were preying on the fact.

Naturally, give them a day in court to prove innocence or guilit. You cannot just accept the word of this lady as gospel, but you also cannot dismiss it out of hand.

Sometimes I think that some civil libertarians, in their zeal to preserve the rights of the accused, forget about the rights of victims. Everyone's rights and liberties need to be protected - including a senior citizen's right to live out her twilight years without being terrorised by a gang of juvenile thugs.

I know BWO has answered this, but the others wanting to attack those condeming these kids have been very silent on the issue: if these kids are found guilty, what do you believe should happen to them?

heard about that.

anyways, I've been saying the world is going to hell for awhile now, but for different reasons.
Yeah, me too

And as for OJ... is it possible for it to find room in your head that OJ did it AND that the police doctored evidence? It certainly is, but when a jury is given doctored evidence by the prosecution, their only honest choice is to find reasonable doubt. It is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and when the police have clearly created "evidence", that's pretty hard to do.
How exactly was the evidenced "doctored", eh?
You are admitting that the jury let an obviously guilty man off on a crack-brained conspiracy theory?

I know BWO has answered this, but the others wanting to attack those condeming these kids have been very silent on the issue: if these kids are found guilty, what do you believe should happen to them?Although various people on the boards have promoted highly cruel and unusual punishments, the only sentence that makes sense is a lot of jail time. Although, I have to ask you: what's the "issue" of how they should be punished? If they're found guilty, the judge will sentence them. He's not going to do something unconstitutionally cruel like castration, and the charges against the kids aren't going to be enough to warrant the death penalty.

"I'm very hurt because my son was raised as a good boy," she said outside court. She complained that police abused the boys to obtain confessions.
If this is the result of being brought up right, I'm damn glad my parents raised me seriously f**ked up, cause I'd never consider being part of something this sick.

How exactly was the evidenced "doctored", eh?
You are admitting that the jury let an obviously guilty man off on a crack-brained conspiracy theory?

1) ~5 ml of the blood that OJ gave for comparisson was unaccounted for by the laboratory. This blood had been placed in a test-tube that contained a chemical preservative. This volume of blood was roughly the same as the amount of OJ's blood that was allegedly found at the scene. That blood was found to already contain the same preservative.

2) according to the prosecution's theory of the case, OJ was both a Master criminal and a total clutz. Somehow he made the weapon and almost all of the clothing that he used during the murders disappear entirely. However although he got rid of his blood-soaked shoes (and pants and shirt and knife, etc.) he for some reason kept his blood-soaked socks and "hid" them under his bed. However it has been shown that various articles of clothing evidence was "stored" in a single evidence tray, in which the clothing of Nicole and Ron were tossed in one big heap, any fluids on them mingling. With such unprofessional evidence-handling methods, how can we know that any of the clothing evidence is uncontaminated?

3) he also, having totally disposed of weapon, shoes, pants, etc., left a single glove at the scene, after which he attempted to hide the second glove in the dead of night under some leaves behind a room in his guest house that he knew to be occupied, on his own property. Whatever plan he designed to get rid of everything else (except for his socks, yet somehow not his shoes) worked flawlessly. Why did he choose to put the glove there? Well... the glove was "found" there by the same detective who found the first glove at the crime scene, "all by itself". According to him he was led to the glove after interviewing a known cocaine abuser inside the latter's living space without any witnesses.

4) that same detective, an outspoken racist who is on tape saying that when he sees a black man with a white woman he feels a violent rage, and who was not, after participating with many others in the crime scene investigation, assigned to the case, is the one who "spotted" the incredibly few blood droplets in OJ's truck. He did this after he had found "one" glove at the crime scene and before he "found" the second behind the guest house, and before making any contact with anybody inside the Simpson house.

5) the gloves did not fit. Even if you take into account swelling allegedly caused by withdrawel from a diuretic, they didn't even come close to fitting.



What I am saying is that the jury saw a not-so-crack-brained conspiracy theory and decided that the very real possibility of a frame-up, even if he actually was guilty, made it impossible to not have reasonable doubt.



But perhaps you believe that all cops are real law-men? I am sorry to have to break this to you, but some of them are simply criminals with badges. God help the law-men. Unfortunately even those cops who would like to be honest often have to worry about getting shot in the back, Frank Serpico style.

Or perhaps you believe they should have overlooked the evidence of a frame-up because OJ was "probably" guilty anyway? He probably was, but the government has to prove it, and they did not. The LAPD is so damned corrupt that it only really works, guilty or innocent, when the defendent is too poor to hire a private attorney.

Although various people on the boards have promoted highly cruel and unusual punishments, the only sentence that makes sense is a lot of jail time. Although, I have to ask you: what's the "issue" of how they should be punished? If they're found guilty, the judge will sentence them. He's not going to do something unconstitutionally cruel like castration, and the charges against the kids aren't going to be enough to warrant the death penalty.So, basically you are saying the judicial system, particularly in regards to violent juvenile sexual offenders, is 100% effective, and should not be questioned?

Most of the outrage, I believe, is because people know these kids (in particular the alleged/attempted rapist) are quite likely to slip through the cracks in the system, and be back on the street, totally unrehabilitated and quite possibly made even more hardened by their jail time, at an age where they can readily offend again. i.e. people are concerned he will get the proverbial slap on the wrist. Of course the courts will never administer castration or other such cruel and unusual punishment, but IMHO, an offence of this nature calls for not only a lengthy term of imprisonment, but a strict regimen of psychiatric treatment, a lifetime of reporting to a parole officer, and administration of a weekly(?) "chemical castration" injection.

Civil liberties are all fine and well (and essential in a civilised society), but would YOU like to be the person who at some point in the future has to explain to some other senior citizen why she was raped in her own home by someone whom society should have already been protected against?

My main point is that, if he is found guilty, the emphasis should be on protecting society from him, rather than pandering to his rights, real or imagined.

Disgusting

I agree.

I read the title, spit my soda all over the monitor, and didn't even want to read the rest.

The mental image is so unbearable I'm about to go outside and hang myself.*vomit*

lol.. after reading that site about APD, I would have to say that the % is substantially higher than 3% for males.

I mean, go to your friendly neighborhood skateboard park.
Do those skateboarders exhibit:
Failure to conform to social norms or lawful behaviors (grunge look, skateboarding in areas unlawful)?
Deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying (are there adolescents who havent lied at least a few times?)?
Reckless disregard for safety (have you seen the tricks that they try?)?

I mean all this tongue in cheek.

That is good. I suspect you know better. If not then you'll need more than a link. Take psych. 101 followed by Ab Psych. Then ask for a link.

Lots of Stuff
Actually, the claim wasn't that he manufactured the weapon. They had a witness that claimed to have sold the murder weapon to OJ, but chose not to use it when the stupid fuck ran to the National Enquirer before going to the police.
Simpson got off because high priced proffesional liar Johnnie Cochran convinced the jury that the whole thing was a product of racism. That somehow the entire LAPD hated blacks and was out to get an obviously innocent man who only wanted to be left alone with his disguise kit, passport over $8,000 in cash, and his Bronco at to drive at insanely high speeds and nearly get into accidents. The jury was stupid enough to fall for Cochran's manipulation, exaggeration, and race baiting.
Unless, of course, the entire universe was out to get the poor ickle millionaire and manufactured calls to 911, fiber evidence, hair evidence, shoe prints, and then ussed mind control rays to force OJ to act suspiciously. All that on top of creating blood evidence, witnesses, gloves, and an unexplained cut upon OJ's hand.

Actually, the claim wasn't that he manufactured the weapon. They had a witness that claimed to have sold the murder weapon to OJ, but chose not to use it when the stupid fuck ran to the National Enquirer before going to the police.
Simpson got off because high priced proffesional liar Johnnie Cochran convinced the jury that the whole thing was a product of racism. That somehow the entire LAPD hated blacks and was out to get an obviously innocent man who only wanted to be left alone with his disguise kit, passport over $8,000 in cash, and his Bronco at to drive at insanely high speeds and nearly get into accidents. The jury was stupid enough to fall for Cochran's manipulation, exaggeration, and race baiting.
Unless, of course, the entire universe was out to get the poor ickle millionaire and manufactured calls to 911, fiber evidence, hair evidence, shoe prints, and then ussed mind control rays to force OJ to act suspiciously. All that on top of creating blood evidence, witnesses, gloves, and an unexplained cut upon OJ's hand.



Try a little reading comprehension next time...

OK I will spell it out for you: T-A-I-N-T-E-D.

The blood the cops "found" at the murder scene that matched OJ's was TAINTED with the very same preservative that was added to the donation that he gave, and was of roughly the same volume of the amount of that sample that the lab "couldn't account for".

Therefore...

The case of the prosecution was tainted.

Perhaps such an incongruity could simply be overlooked, and the rest of the evidence could be enough to eliminate reasonable doubt, but...

The glove allegedly found on the suspect's property, and the blood drops allegedly found in his vehicle, were found by a detective who was not assigned to the case and did not have any kind of warrent, bypassing constitutional safeguards on the legal pretexts of being directed to the glove by a witness, of whose interview there were no witnesses, and of spotting the blood droplets "in plain sight" from outside the vehicle. Both legitimate pretexts, but somewhat strained by the fact that the detective in question was acting on his own initiative when he surely knew that other detectives were on their way.

Therefor:

The prosecution's case was both tainted and based on unorthodox police procedure.

But maybe the detective was just particularly zealous, acting on his gut instincts, and after all, under the circumstances there were perfectly legal exceptions to Fourth Amendment restrictions, but...

The detective can be heard in an interview, prior to this case, telling the film student interviewing him that seeing a black man with a white woman fills him with a murderous rage. Thus, having not been assigned to the case, he inserted himself in an investigation of the death of a white woman whose black ex-husband was the primary suspect, a situation he previously admitted having a strong bias against those involved with.

Therefor:

The prosecution's case was very much tainted by the unorthodox procedures followed by a detective who has admitted to attitudes and strong emotional responses that make him extremely motivated towards the presupposition of the suspect's guilt, in addition to being tainted by the laboratory preservatives found in the defendent's blood "evidence" that was "found" at the crime scene. The latter evidence lays the groundwork for the argument that at the very least one incident of evidence tampering took place, which makes it easier to believe that an environment of contempt for lawful police procedures existed in which the aformentioned detective could have followed the urgings of his racist nature and planted further "evidence" such as the second glove and the blood droplets in the vehicle.

This does not even touch on the worthlessness of the bloody socks vis a vis evidence of extremely substandard evidence handling procedures at the crime lab in terms of the handling of clothing evidence, as well as the aformentioned missing blood sample volume. Nor does it go into just how very bad a fit the gloves were, nor to question how someone who had the means and ingenuity to totally eliminate the weapon, his shoes and most of the rest of his murder-clothes could be dumb enough to take his bloody socks back to his bedroom and hide one of the two gloves, after leaving the other at the crime scene, under some leaves behind his guest's room.

OK let's look at some of your evidence of guilt: $8000? That's a lot of money to me, but OJ was a star, even if a fading one. A passport? I have a passport - everyone should. I also carry it with me, which may be wierd, but if I were a jet-setter it wouldn't be so. Dangerous high-speed chase? That was actually the event that coined the term "low-speed chase". Disguise kit? New one on me... can you elaborate?

Guy they wanted to put on the stand but didn't? FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. How is that important? This was about the alleged stupidity of the jury, wasn't it? So what the prosecution did NOT use is totally irrelevent.

OJ was a spousal abuser and such people often have problems letting go. The prosecution had motive, but everything else was totally tainted or mere coincidence.

Get this: I am not arguing for OJ's innocence. I think he probably did it. But when the prosecution's case is tainted as badly as this one was, there is reasonable doubt. Does this prove there was a conspiracy? No. It merely means that it is reasonable to suppose that there might have been a conspiracy.

OJ would have been found guilty if he had not had a good lawyer. He would also probably have been found guilty if the cops had not pissed all over the prosecution's case. Prisons are full of people who, whether they did it or not, simply did not have a good enough lawyer to cut through the tainted cases that cops all over (no, not all cops) put up. OJ should thank the LAPD for "helping" the evidence against him, because this time it didn't work.

Or maybe they didn't. Coincidences sometimes work to free the guilty, not just imprison the innocent.

But the LAPD ... do you live in the USA? ... their reputation precedes them. Ask me? OJ did it, and the cops tried to frame him because they were used to getting it the easy way with black suspects.



PS: what's this about manufacturing a weapon? I want to know: where is the weapon, and since he seems to have been so excellent at hiding it, why aren't the socks and gloves with it?

This is sick!

Lots and lots of stuff
I can't even believe I am arguing this, so I won't. I'll simply say that the defenses case was ridiculous and played on the fears and ignorance of the jury. As far as the disguise kit
CourtTv (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html?sect=26) says he had it in his car.
Court Transcripts from the Civil Trial (http://simpson.walraven.org/p_wits.html) contain testimony from hsi housekeeper saying he possessesed one.
Anyway, I have more important things to do than argue about the intelligence level of juries, milk, for instance.