NationStates Jolt Archive

Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081003/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_zoo;_ylt=Arljg2MRS2bpVeo5xJp.WusuQE4F

So if the kid is 10 years old he goes to juvie jail and the parents cant be sued but if hes 9 then the parents can be sued?

Though you do have to wonder at their security if a seven year old can break in.

I say we toss little "Timmy" to the crocs.

first time i've heard about it

Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081003/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_zoo;_ylt=Arljg2MRS2bpVeo5xJp.WusuQE4F

So if the kid is 10 years old he goes to juvie jail and the parents cant be sued but if hes 9 then the parents can be sued?

I'm confused. What are they being sued for? Did he feed the croc animals that belonged to the zoo or just random wild animals?

Does he burn things and wet his bed?

I'm confused. What are they being sued for? Did he feed the croc animals that belonged to the zoo or just random wild animals?

He bludgeoned several rare animals to death, and threw several more to the crocodiles. Animals that will be very difficult for the zoo to replace.

Reminds me of this onion story:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wealthy_teen_nearly_experiences


How is this kid going to learn anything if they just punish the parents? I mean obviously, if he's this messed up at 7 then something is wrong in that house. The state either needs to scare this kid straight or investigate the parents and take custody of the child if necessary, preferably the latter.

A turtle, four western blue tongue lizards, two bearded dragons, two thorny devil lizards and a 1.8 metre (5.9ft) adult female Spencer's goanna were fed or led into the jaws of a 3 metre, 200kg (440lb) saltwater crocodile named "Terry."

The kid was clearly inspired by Steve Irwin.

I'm surprised the croc didn't munch him up along with the other animals.

He bludgeoned several rare animals to death, and threw several more to the crocodiles. Animals that will be very difficult for the zoo to replace.

In that case, then definitely. If he damaged zoo property, the parents should pay for it.

In that case, then definitely. If he damaged zoo property, the parents should pay for it.

It's rather difficult to put a price on such things.

Hmm... Perhaps they should make him play "Hungry hungry hippos..." :p

Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081003/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_zoo;_ylt=Arljg2MRS2bpVeo5xJp.WusuQE4F

So if the kid is 10 years old he goes to juvie jail and the parents cant be sued but if hes 9 then the parents can be sued?

We're gonna need another Timmy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwVA698Hx2g).

I'm confused. What are they being sued for? Did he feed the croc animals that belonged to the zoo or just random wild animals?

From the wording, it sounds like his parents would be sued for negligence as they were supposed to be in care and control of the child while this went on.

I have no doubt they could also be charged under child protection legislation, as it was mentioned the child easily could have become lunch himself.

It's rather difficult to put a price on such things.

Which is what the lawsuit is for, right?

Which is what the lawsuit is for, right?

Putting a price on things.

Pretty much.

That's actually a lawsuit I can agree with.

The fact a 7-year-old can wreak so much havoc in such a short time, it's unbelievable.

Clearly he hasn't met very many seven year olds. ;)

Clearly he hasn't met very many seven year olds. ;)

I think i'm talking to one. :)

I think i'm talking to one. :)

*pushes you into mud and scampers off*

*pushes you into mud and scampers off*

I'm telling mummy!

*Cries and runs off*

Clearly he hasn't met very many seven year olds. ;)

We feed them to the crocodiles, but they just keep showing up...

Since this kid has no qualms about deliberately ending the lives of animals for no other purpose than his personal entertainment, I think it's not too bold to assume that the child is deranged. At the very least the authorities should keep track of him for the rest of his life, because cruelty against animals is just the first step.

Since this kid has no qualms about deliberately ending the lives of animals for no other purpose than his personal entertainment, I think it's not too bold to assume that the child is deranged. At the very least the authorities should keep track of him for the rest of his life, because cruelty against animals is just the first step.

and yet...when I propose the same thing about other criminals.....I get blasted for hating individual's right to freedom.

stupid double standards.

Since this kid has no qualms about deliberately ending the lives of animals for no other purpose than his personal entertainment, I think it's not too bold to assume that the child is deranged. At the very least the authorities should keep track of him for the rest of his life, because cruelty against animals is just the first step.

Tongue in cheek, I hope. *shudders*

Since this kid has no qualms about deliberately ending the lives of animals for no other purpose than his personal entertainment, I think it's not too bold to assume that the child is deranged. At the very least the authorities should keep track of him for the rest of his life, because cruelty against animals is just the first step.

I wouldn't go as far as to say deranged. I mean, to us, as adults (or young adults) this seems like a cruel and horrible act that signals mental instability. But for a child (7 years old is what... grade 2?) wouldn't it be logical? Crocodiles eat animals, let's feed the crocodile. In my experience, children love getting close to animals and feeding them (think petting zoo).

The beating death of the other reptiles is less easilly explained by reason. It's sick and lacks purpose, but probably boils down to no more than curiosity. There is of course, the possiblity that he did it for the thrill of causing pain and ending life, but I think if that were a common possible option, then children would be held accountable at a younger age than 10.

Not that I think he houldn't recieve some form of counselling... but automatically labelling him as deranged is a little extreme and premature.

Since this kid has no qualms about deliberately ending the lives of animals for no other purpose than his personal entertainment, I think it's not too bold to assume that the child is deranged. At the very least the authorities should keep track of him for the rest of his life, because cruelty against animals is just the first step.

and your evidentiary support for the claim of "7 year old who does stupid things will become violent criminal" is.....?

Since this kid has no qualms about deliberately ending the lives of animals for no other purpose than his personal entertainment, I think it's not too bold to assume that the child is deranged. At the very least the authorities should keep track of him for the rest of his life, because cruelty against animals is just the first step.


Yep, many brilliant CEO of very major companies, started with torturing animals in their childhood.

Lock the child, before another B. Gates is entering the world!

and your evidentiary support for the claim of "7 year old who does stupid things will become violent criminal" is.....?

Quite a few serial killers started their 'career' in their youth with the mutilation and/or killing of animals. Over time they worked their way up in the food chain. The reference in the title of this thread is not just vanity.

Tongue in cheek, I hope. *shudders*

I wouldn't go as far as to say deranged. I mean, to us, as adults (or young adults) this seems like a cruel and horrible act that signals mental instability. But for a child (7 years old is what... grade 2?) wouldn't it be logical? Crocodiles eat animals, let's feed the crocodile. In my experience, children love getting close to animals and feeding them (think petting zoo).

The beating death of the other reptiles is less easilly explained by reason. It's sick and lacks purpose, but probably boils down to no more than curiosity. There is of course, the possiblity that he did it for the thrill of causing pain and ending life, but I think if that were a common possible option, then children would be held accountable at a younger age than 10.

Not that I think he houldn't recieve some form of counselling... but automatically labelling him as deranged is a little extreme and premature.

and your evidentiary support for the claim of "7 year old who does stupid things will become violent criminal" is.....?

and yet...when I propose the same thing about other criminals.....I get blasted for hating individual's right to freedom.

stupid double standards.
Pulled the 'poor put on me' trigger a little too soon, eh champ?

How is this kid going to learn anything if they just punish the parents?
If I had caused my parents to pay for all that damage, my father would have beaten 9 kinds of Hell out of me. Five or six years later, I'd probably be allowed out of the house provided I had at least two members of my family with me.
Shit travels downhill, and I'm sure that's what the people suing the parents are counting on.

Yeah, it looks like this time it is I who gets to sing the blues. Mind you, I knew this was coming. Many people have a blind spot when it comes to horrible things done by minors. More than a few kids are perfectly capable of performing heinous acts and they do know the difference between good and evil. We're not talking about a toddler here.

Nonsense,

The generation of my dad was much more cruel to animals than we do. What he, his brothers and friends (and almost the entire generation of country boys) were doing, would currently be seen as cruelty to animals.

Blowing up frogs, crushing tadpoles with their feet, eel throwing, nailing birds and rabbits, etc…

Most of those guys became lawyer, architect, business owner, etc… and committed no crimes or didn’t show any sociopathic behavior.

Timmy is probably a little *sshole, but it’s certainly not sure that he will become a serial killer or something.

That was a pretty goddamn sadistic generation, then!

That was a pretty goddamn sadistic generation, then!

Yep. And if your dad was a country boy as well then odds are high that you may add him at the list too.

In their views, at that time, it wasn't sadistic. It is sadistic according our current standards.

Quite a few serial killers started their 'career' in their youth with the mutilation and/or killing of animals. Over time they worked their way up in the food chain. The reference in the title of this thread is not just vanity.

and a lot of people killed animals without becoming serial killers. Some of them in fact are vice presidents.

Hehe,

As a kid I was also intrigued how it looked like, lions or crocodiles eating living animals.

And look now, I’m posting on Nationstates !!!

So in 2016 or something, little Timmy will enter the board as Crocodile Timmy.

and a lot of people killed animals without becoming serial killers. Some of them in fact are vice presidents.

Bad example. A vice president who shot a man in the face.

Blowing up frogs, crushing tadpoles with their feet, eel throwing, nailing birds and rabbits, etc…

Most of those guys became lawyers,[...] and committed no crimes or didn’t show any sociopathic behavior.
Didn't they? See the bolded part.

Bad example. A vice president who shot a man in the face.

His face looked like a bird. *nod*

His face looked like a bird. *nod*

Thank god it wasn't deer season!

Bad example. A vice president who shot a man in the face.

The man was wearing Weapons of Mass Destruction !!!

and a lot of people killed animals without becoming serial killers. Some of them in fact are vice presidents.

Hey, the lawyer he shot was a human being, not an animal. Even though most lawyers are blood sucking leeches. ;)

*gets lawyer to protect him against any "slander" type lawsuits*

The funniest part is that he apologized to the Vice-President!

The funniest part is that he apologized to the Vice-President!

Jedi mind trick?

The funniest part is that he apologized to the Vice-President!

It was in his best interest to do so. Double-barreled shotgun. :tongue:

Jedi mind trick?

Fear.

Fear.

Please...all you have to do is expose Cheney to hardcore, interracial, gay, transsexual porn and he'd have another heart attack.

Please...all you have to do is expose Cheney to hardcore, interracial, gay, transsexual porn and he'd have another heart attack.

You have to have a heart to have an attack. :p

You have to have a heart to have an attack. :p

Then what happened to him before then? He entered into Holy Grounds?

Hmm... I'd normally have a clever comeback here, but right now i'm just sick with worry for someone close to me, so i'll get back to you.

Then what happened to him before then? He entered into Holy Grounds?

The withered husk started to smell so they removed it and put in one of those car air fresheners so he'd always smell like pine trees. *nod*

Nonsense,

The generation of my dad was much more cruel to animals than we do. What he, his brothers and friends (and almost the entire generation of country boys) were doing, would currently be seen as cruelty to animals.
But there's the difference: In your Dad's generation, it was commonplace and thus seen, and accepted, as normal behaviour. That's why they grew up normal - they weren't at any time displaying behaviour that was viewed with repugnance or outrage by Society.

Now of course, these behaviours are viewed as abnormal. We've had the last couple of generations of people educating us against blowing up frogs etc and instilling in us the idea that such actions are abhorrent.

This kid has not done something a bit beyond what is considered normal child behaviour (when compared to 40 years ago), he has displayed extremely abnormal behaviour as viewed under today's society's guidelines. This indicates that there's something not quite right there and the chance of him growing abnormal is a lot higher than had he been born 40 years earlier.

The FBI studied many serial killers when they were putting together their behavioural sciences division. During hteir research, they found that the vast majority of serial killers did three things as boys, one of which was cruelty to animals.

The other two are bed-wetting and arson.

Most kids indulge in one of these three. Some even do two of these things. Very few do all three. I fdon't know if all boys who do all three should be watched for the rest of their lives, but there is data supporting such an argument.

Don't sue the parents; sue the Blackwater (or whatever) "security". Remember, we're not talking about James Bond or anyone, but a SEVEN-YEAR OLD KID. If they can't even keep a kid out, why the hell are they still employed?

and a lot of people killed animals without becoming serial killers. Some of them in fact are vice presidents.

And some of them failed to finish the animals off, went on to become important political figures while the animal bided its time, then when the time was right for maximum effect, ambushed the wrongdoer when they least expected it.
Jimmy Carter Rabiit, if my humour is poor enough that the reference is missed.

Does he burn things and wet his bed?

They couldn't be so lucky. He just bludgeons lizards and feeds other animals to the crocs. Nice kid.

I don't know what punishment would really be fair, but I'd hope the parents at least have the decency to tell the kid's teacher not to let him alone with the class gerbil.

7 is young -- still time to grow a set of morals. No guarantee that he will, but it's to early to assume that he won't.

Reminds me of this onion story:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wealthy_teen_nearly_experiences


How is this kid going to learn anything if they just punish the parents? I mean obviously, if he's this messed up at 7 then something is wrong in that house. The state either needs to scare this kid straight or investigate the parents and take custody of the child if necessary, preferably the latter.

How do you know its the parents fault? their are other factors in a kid's life besides home life, and some people are just born with sever mental issues, right? But hey, lets rush to pass judgement, facts be damned.:mad:

The FBI studied many serial killers when they were putting together their behavioural sciences division. During hteir research, they found that the vast majority of serial killers did three things as boys, one of which was cruelty to animals.

The other two are bed-wetting and arson.

Most kids indulge in one of these three. Some even do two of these things. Very few do all three. I fdon't know if all boys who do all three should be watched for the rest of their lives, but there is data supporting such an argument.

So we have a statistic that says most serial killers do all three. Does the reverse hold true, that most who do all three become serial killers?

If I had caused my parents to pay for all that damage, my father would have beaten 9 kinds of Hell out of me. Five or six years later, I'd probably be allowed out of the house provided I had at least two members of my family with me.
Shit travels downhill, and I'm sure that's what the people suing the parents are counting on.

If I pulled something like that when I was seven, I STILL wouldn't be able to sit down (and I'm 34 now). I remember having to stand in the corner just for dropping my grandmother's weiner dog into the snow during the blizzard of '78 (I was 4 at the time). I was just playing with the dog, and had no intention of hurting him (and IIRC, he quite enjoyed playing in all that snow).

In their views, at that time, it wasn't sadistic. It is sadistic according our current standards.

If you delight in the suffering of living creatures while said living creatures didn't volunteer themselves to be subjects of torment, it's nothing more but a criminal act. The books of Marquis de Sade have not been forbidden literature for over a dozen decades because they were such an excellent example for humanity's finest specimens to follow, hm?

And yes, I know what I'm talking about. I own a relevant part of the works of D.A.F. de Sade.

He fed various reptiles to the alligators. doesn't seem that bad. Is there really that much difference to the things i fed Ant piles (normally crickets, and beetles)

Though you do have to wonder at their security if a seven year old can break in.

Australia, the home of "Crocodile" Dundee and Steve Irwin, concerned about zoo security?

He fed various reptiles to the alligators. doesn't seem that bad. Is there really that much difference to the things i fed Ant piles (normally crickets, and beetles)

It's probably a matter of scale. Also I'm pretty sure those crickets and beetles didn't belong to somebody, right? Those reptiles were property.

It's probably a matter of scale. Also I'm pretty sure those crickets and beetles didn't belong to somebody, right? Those reptiles were property.

PETA will now splash blood on you.

They won't. PETA is remarkably absent in the Old World.

They won't. PETA is remarkably absent in the Old World.

Probably because a large chunk of the old world animal kingdom consists of animals and insects that are physically dangerous, toxic, or both. PETA activists don't survive long in the Old World to become a factor.

As for the child's punishment, I would say indentured hard labor until the costs of property destroyed is paid back for seems like a good proposal. I have always suspected that crimes of whim would be a lot less appealing to most if people had to sweat a good many years to pay the cost of their crimes.

Probably because a large chunk of the old world animal kingdom consists of animals and insects that are physically dangerous, toxic, or both. PETA activists don't survive long in the Old World to become a factor.

As for the child's punishment, I would say indentured hard labor until the costs of property destroyed is paid back for seems like a good proposal. I have always suspected that crimes of whim would be a lot less appealing to most if people had to sweat a good many years to pay the cost of their crimes.

Forced labour for 8 year olds. That's a lovely direction to take the Justice system:rolleyes:.

This reminds me of the thread about that kid who tried to burn his Grandmother. Given the flame war that turned into, I'm a little nervous.

Forced labour for 8 year olds. That's a lovely direction to take the Justice system:rolleyes:.


There's no magical barrier that keeps someone from understanding what they've done or why it's wrong just because they happen to be a little older.

Maybe you'll argue that pair of British juveniles who forced a 4 year old to ingest paint, stoned the kid to death, and then left his corpse to be run over by trains, didn't have the slightest idea that what they did might be wrong too.

Intent is all that matters. You don't get a free pass in my eyes just because you're a little younger. If you commit a crime deliberately, then you're ready to face the consequences of crime. Ignorance is no defense.


This reminds me of the thread about that kid who tried to burn his Grandmother. Given the flame war that turned into, I'm a little nervous.

It's all fun and games when children are involved, even when they murder, to some people's eyes it seems.

I would support immediate death penalties, without appeal, if, and only if, the justice system is incapable of charging the wrong person.

They won't. PETA is remarkably absent in the Old World.

Thats good but from what I been told by relatives in the US Navy they do have Green Peace, who are about as bright. Anyone who gets in front of massive warship ie. an Carrier and expect it to stop to avoid hitting their little boat isn't all there.

As for the kid's destructive little rampage it sounds like he needs some serious help and to be kept under tight control. Of course if he's lets say an functioning sociopath, it wouldn't do any good but he'd fit right in the american business world.

People should keep an eye on this kid during his developmental years. School counselors and teachers should keep their eyes and ears open. His parents should be checked up on by CPS (actuallythe Aussie equivalent) and such. Yeah, it's important to see how he develops.

Oh, and his parents should definitely be sued.

It's probably a matter of scale. Also I'm pretty sure those crickets and beetles didn't belong to somebody, right? Those reptiles were property.

Iw as refering to the he is a evil future killer remarks. The boy should be forced to volunteer at the zoo for 1-3 years doing the shit jobs.

Here we go again...

There's no magical barrier that keeps someone from understanding what they've done or why it's wrong just because they happen to be a little older.

Can an 8 year old be assumed to understand the consequences of that kind of thing?

Maybe you'll argue that pair of British juveniles who forced a 4 year old to ingest paint, stoned the kid to death, and then left his corpse to be run over by trains, didn't have the slightest idea that what they did might be wrong too.

So now we enter strawman territory, eh?

One, that's a much more sever case. Two, you haven't said how old these "juveniles" were. Three, I wasn't talking about that case. But by all means change the topic to bolster your argument.

Intent is all that matters. You don't get a free pass in my eyes just because you're a little younger. If you commit a crime deliberately, then you're ready to face the consequences of crime. Ignorance is no defense.

Leaving aside the possibility that this kid didn't understand what he was doing, if intent is all that matters, then isn't ignorance, in fact, a defense?

It's all fun and games when children are involved, even when they murder, to some people's eyes it seems.

This isn't a murder case. Nor do I approve of this child's behavior. He probably has some mental issues, and should probably be treated accordingly.

You may not intend to strawman in every sentence, but in that case perhaps you should be more carefully, mkay?

I would support immediate death penalties, without appeal, if, and only if, the justice system is incapable of charging the wrong person.

That's a nice little hypothetical, but one with no bearing on the topic at hand.

Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081003/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_zoo;_ylt=Arljg2MRS2bpVeo5xJp.WusuQE4F

So if the kid is 10 years old he goes to juvie jail and the parents cant be sued but if hes 9 then the parents can be sued?

WHO IS this "7 year old soon to be Serial Murderer"? Only ZOD has the power to terminate the life of any creature!

This "7 year old soon to be Serial Murderer" shall be eye-lasered for his insolence before he has a chance to become this "Serial Murderer" you speak of!

Listen carefully, humans: None of you are allowed to end the life of another human being; that power is reserved for ME alone, your rightful ruler, General ZOD!

The only exception is if that human being is physically preventing you from KNEELING BEFORE ZOD! Then you may end his/her life, but after this you must immediately resume kneeling!

And as for this "zoo" you speak of, the reason this "7 year old soon to be Serial Murderer" broke into it is because it was constructed by other weak humans like yourselves. I, on the other hand, am powerful enough to build a zoo so secure that no living creature - except myself, of course - can get in, not even the son of Jor-El!

Can an 8 year old be assumed to understand the consequences of that kind of thing?


If he can formulate intent to steal or cause injury, he can understand consequence.


One, that's a much more sever case. Two, you haven't said how old these "juveniles" were.


Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both ten year olds. The victim, James Bulger was two years old, not four, my mistake. As for severity, so what? A crime is a crime. And theft and destruction of property not belonging to you IS a crime.


Leaving aside the possibility that this kid didn't understand what he was doing, if intent is all that matters, then isn't ignorance, in fact, a defense?


Ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking the law either. Intent to break the law, even if you do not know it is a law, is still prosecutable.


This isn't a murder case. Nor do I approve of this child's behavior. He probably has some mental issues, and should probably be treated accordingly.


So put him in a psych ward, but make him sweat out the cost of his damage too.

Insanity's no excuse.

If he can formulate intent to steal or cause injury, he can understand consequence.

So, if he thinks that hitting you in the head with a hammer will make you see birdies and then you'll be ok again in a few minutes he understands the consequences of hitting you in the head with a hammer?

Ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking the law either. Intent to break the law, even if you do not know it is a law, is still prosecutable.

If you don't know it's a law then how can you have intent to break it?

If you don't know it's a law then how can you have intent to break it?

Depends on what kind of "intent" is being required by the law. If the law requires intent to break the law (which is very rare) then ignorance of the law is a defense. However in the vast amount of circumstances, you don't need to know your intended act is illegal, you merely needed to intend to do it.

So, if he thinks that hitting you in the head with a hammer will make you see birdies and then you'll be ok again in a few minutes he understands the consequences of hitting you in the head with a hammer?
In that case he doesn't intend to do injury. The statement you were responding to was: if he intends to do injury, he knows what consequences are.

If you don't know it's a law then how can you have intent to break it?Badly phrased, but the meaning is: if you intend to, say, walk a camel across the street; and there is unbeknownst to you a silly law in that town against walking a camel across the street, then you have intended to do that thing which the law forbids.

In that case he doesn't intend to do injury. The statement you were responding to was: if he intends to do injury, he knows what consequences are.
Badly phrased, but the meaning is: if you intend to, say, walk a camel across the street; and there is unbeknownst to you a silly law in that town against walking a camel across the street, then you have intended to do that thing which the law forbids.

now there ARE some criminal statutes that do require actual knowledge that your conduct was illegal, and intent to do what you knew was a criminal act.

I've only encountered this in certain financial and banking situations however.

So, if he thinks that hitting you in the head with a hammer will make you see birdies and then you'll be ok again in a few minutes he understands the consequences of hitting you in the head with a hammer?


Tmutarakhan answers the question.


If you don't know it's a law then how can you have intent to break it?

Neo Art and Tmutarakhan have answered this.

For example, you may not know it's against the law to murder someone, but if you cave in someone's skull with a lead pipe, expect to spend long years behind bars, or swing from a gibbet with a hemp necktie.

If he can formulate intent to steal or cause injury, he can understand consequence.

Your argument amounts to saying that if someone intentionally committed an act, they must understand the consequences. By that logic, their is no such thing as ignorence or insanity.


Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both ten year olds. The victim, James Bulger was two years old, not four, my mistake. As for severity, so what? A crime is a crime. And theft and destruction of property not belonging to you IS a crime.

Yes, I know its a crime. But your attitude is simplistic. "A crime is a crime" is not a very strong possission. It sounds like your saying that every situation should be treated identically, regardless of the circumstances.

As for your suggestion that "a crime is a crime" regardless of severity, that's just so laughably wrong on every level. By that logic, petty theft is equivalent to rape and murder. "As for severity, so what? A crime is a crime." Once, that kind of attitude sent poor and desperate people to the gallows for trying to survive, before humanity as a whole had developed much of a concept of human rights.

People with your attitudes make me sick. You base your concept of justice on retribution, on revenge, rather than on logic, compassion, or the public good. I suspect you need to start thinking with your brain instead of your balls.

Ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking the law either. Intent to break the law, even if you do not know it is a law, is still prosecutable.

Yes, its prosecutable. Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "intent". However, individual circumstances need to be taken into account. You have to take these things on a case by case basis, to an extent.

So put him in a psych ward, but make him sweat out the cost of his damage too.

Your willingness, even self-righteous eagerness, to inflict painful labour as punishment on a disturbed child is sickening to me on every level.

Insanity's no excuse.

So ethically, you'd have no problem with executing a child or a retard, if your were sure they were guilty?

In that case he doesn't intend to do injury. The statement you were responding to was: if he intends to do injury, he knows what consequences are.

Edit: Too lazy to do this at 2 in the morning. Every instance of the word "gator" should be mentally replaced by the word "croc" when you read this

This requires you to KNOW what he intended when he hit you in the head with the hammer (or in this case started feeding animals to the gator). People have this tendency to assume someone (even a child) intends harm when they do these things.

For all we know feeding the gator wasn't about hurting the animals, he could have thought the gator looked hungry and thought of it as "helping the poor gator". Hell, he could have thought that you could pull them back out of him like marbles in "Hungry Hungry Hippos" (a lot of fiction for children, "Little Red Riding Hood" for example, contain scenes where a living creature is pulled back out of the stomach of an animal or monster who ate it). My point is that the poster is assuming that the child knew the consequences of what he was doing based (as far as I can tell anyway) only on the fact that the child did it.

Your argument amounts to saying that if someone intentionally committed an act, they must understand the consequences. By that logic, their is no such thing as ignorence or insanity.


They either understand the consequences, or be made to understand the consequences. I have no problem with either.


Yes, I know its a crime. But your attitude is simplistic. "A crime is a crime" is not a very strong possission. It sounds like your saying that every situation should be treated identically, regardless of the circumstances.


"But your honor, my daughter's sick, that's why it's alright for me to kill and steal"

Pfft.

An argument of mitigating circumstances might work if it can be proven that the crimes committed were directly at the behest of someone else or if done so to prevent greater crimes, although that doesn't mean you'll wwalk off untouched.


As for your suggestion that "a crime is a crime" regardless of severity, that's just so laughably wrong on every level. By that logic, petty theft is equivalent to rape and murder.


Logical flaw there. Both are crimes, but not equally severe. Both must be punished, but in accordance to the cost of harm done.

You'll note I didn't specify for the criminal in the Op to hang, but work off his crime with hard labor.


"As for severity, so what? A crime is a crime." Once, that kind of attitude sent poor and desperate people to the gallows for trying to survive, before humanity as a whole had developed much of a concept of human rights.

Crimes are breach of law, and punishable in accordance to the law. If economic, political and societal conditions creates situations which increase instances of crime, then society is the problem, not the law.


People with your attitudes make me sick.


I expect things like negative consequences would.


You base your concept of justice on retribution, on revenge, rather than on logic, compassion, or the public good.


Hard labor will teach John Q perpetrator the cost of his actions, and will return the cost of damage to the public. Retribution and revenge would probably involve things like terror and pain. Useful sometimes, but not practical.


I suspect you need to start thinking with your brain instead of your balls.


A charge commonly leveled when one doesn't have an argument.


Yes, its prosecutable. Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "intent". However, individual circumstances need to be taken into account. You have to take these things on a case by case basis, to an extent.


Like? All crimes must have penalties, or there is no disincentive to commit more crimes.


Your willingness, even self-righteous eagerness, to inflict painful labour as punishment on a disturbed child is sickening to me on every level.


Your willingness to assign the status of "disturbed" without any backing data is a bit telling of your agenda...

That being said, if you think hard labor is painful, you must have been born with a pretty big silver spoon in your mouth. The real world is knocking, try answering that door sometimes.


So ethically, you'd have no problem with executing a child or a retard, if your were sure they were guilty?

Guilty of a crime with intent warranting execution, yes. Criminals are either rehabilitated for reintroduction to society, or they are permanently removed from the gene pool.

My point is that the poster is assuming that the child knew the consequences of what he was doing based (as far as I can tell anyway) only on the fact that the child did it.

If he does not know the consequences beforehand, then now is the time to make him know.

Did he take things not belonging to him? By the article, yes. Did he willfully destroy them? Yes. He fed them to the crocodile as well as beat one to death.

Hard labor will teach John Q perpetrator the cost of his actions, and will return the cost of damage to the public.

Doesn't this mean that there will be a disparity between how the weak and strong are punished? Say you and I commit a crime together, and are sentenced to hard labour based on the cost of damage we have done. And say you could repay this cost with one day's hard labour, but it would take me two. The same sentence punishes me more because I am weaker.

Conversely, say our sentence is given in number of hours. Being weaker, I will get less done in those hours. I will not totally pay off the damage I have done, but you will. The same sentence punishes me less because I am weaker.

Doesn't this mean that there will be a disparity between how the weak and strong are punished? Say you and I commit a crime together, and are sentenced to hard labour based on the cost of damage we have done. And say you could repay this cost with one day's hard labour, but it would take me two. The same sentence punishes me more because I am weaker.

Conversely, say our sentence is given in number of hours. Being weaker, I will get less done in those hours. I will not totally pay off the damage I have done, but you will. The same sentence punishes me less because I am weaker.

And this is different from jail time (but not life) for older, thereby with less time to live, criminals how?

The very basics of the justice system is not only to serve as a preventive system (which it generally doesn't do very well, but that's an enforcement issue), but also as a means of recouping the debt to society incurred. Rather than X number of years behind bars, in which society supports you (oh the irony), you pay off your debt to society literally.

And no, I wouldn't allow existing assets or finances to pay off that debt. Mind you, this is for crimes, not misdemeanors.

Its not that children lack intent, they simply dont have the proper ability to appreciate consequences for thier actions beyond a slap on the fanny or a time out.

For example,i had a younger cousin who was 7 and i was probably 10. I made a deal with him that he could watch what he wanted to on TV for that half hour cartoon but then i got to watch what i wanted to for the next year. Because a 7 year old has no real concept of how long a year is, he of course readily agreed. Because children are unable to realize the long term consequences of thier decisions, they make poor ones.

I feel sorry for the animals. This 'Timmy' should be jailed.

I feel sorry for the animals. This 'Timmy' should be jailed.

Meh look at it this way, the kid probably put the animals out of their misery. All the animals are in prison too and they havnt been charged with any crime at all.

Zoos are barbaric places to begin with.

Meh look at it this way, the kid probably put the animals out of their misery. All the animals are in prison too and they havnt been charged with any crime at all.

Zoos are barbaric places to begin with.

Why, sir, I challenge to a duel! *slaps with white glove* We will meet at dawn tomorrow to seetle this like gentlemen!

Well, seiously, zoos save species.

Well, seiously, zoos save species.

Yea but only the species people are willing to pay money to see behind bars. But i dont want to hijack my own thread lol.

and yet...when I propose the same thing about other criminals.....I get blasted for hating individual's right to freedom.

stupid double standards.

Why limit it just for criminals, do it to everybody!

The boy should be forced to volunteer at the zoo for 1-3 years doing the shit jobs.

I've seen that movie. The kid sets the killer whale free.

They either understand the consequences, or be made to understand the consequences. I have no problem with either.

Can you explain what you mean by "made to understand the consequences"?


"But your honor, my daughter's sick, that's why it's alright for me to kill and steal"

Pfft.

An argument of mitigating circumstances might work if it can be proven that the crimes committed were directly at the behest of someone else or if done so to prevent greater crimes, although that doesn't mean you'll wwalk off untouched.

If a man stole a loaf of bread because he was starving, I suppose you'd want him thrown in jail? And if someone shot Hitler, I suppose you would want to punish them since committing a crime "to prevent greater crimes... doesn't mean you'll walk off untouched." Granted, my examples are somewhat cliche, but they still illustrate the fundemental point.

Logical flaw there. Both are crimes, but not equally severe. Both must be punished, but in accordance to the cost of harm done.

But that's not what you said. Your words were "As for severity, so what? A crime is a crime."

You'll note I didn't specify for the criminal in the Op to hang, but work off his crime with hard labor.

So what? You've still contradicted yourself. And you've still admitted that hypothetically you'd have no problem with the concept of executing a child.

Crimes are breach of law, and punishable in accordance to the law. If economic, political and societal conditions creates situations which increase instances of crime, then society is the problem, not the law.

More simplistic one-dimensional arguments from the tough guy.

If society creates crime, then society is at fault. But if the law is concerned with revenge and deterance over rehabilitation, then that is an instance of society causing more crime. You think treating disturbed kids like hardened adult felons is going to lessen their criminal tendencies?

I expect things like negative consequences would.

And so you resort to ad hominums.

Hard labor will teach John Q perpetrator the cost of his actions, and will return the cost of damage to the public. Retribution and revenge would probably involve things like terror and pain. Useful sometimes, but not practical.

Hard labour is better than torture or execution, and in the case of adult offenders, it's often better than just tossing them in prisons. But hard labour should be used carefully, if at all, with disturbed children.

A charge commonly leveled when one doesn't have an argument.

Perhaps the charge was unfair. You obviously have a well thought out possission, though a morally bankrupt one.

Like? All crimes must have penalties, or there is no disincentive to commit more crimes.

More one dimensional thinking that deals with only one side of the problem.

Your willingness to assign the status of "disturbed" without any backing data is a bit telling of your agenda...

What agenda is that? Really, I want to hear your baseless assumptions about my beliefs and character.

As for disturbed, I'd say that that's fairly self-evident, unless you think this kid's behavior is normal?

That being said, if you think hard labor is painful, you must have been born with a pretty big silver spoon in your mouth. The real world is knocking, try answering that door sometimes.

Perhaps I spoke hastily their. However, the word "hard" suggests that the labour will be pretty damn nasty.

In any case, this is yet another ad hominum attack.

Guilty of a crime with intent warranting execution, yes. Criminals are either rehabilitated for reintroduction to society, or they are permanently removed from the gene pool.

So hypothetically you would see nothing wrong with executing a child or a mentally disabled person? That's fucked up.

How is this kid going to learn anything if they just punish the parents? I mean obviously, if he's this messed up at 7 then something is wrong in that house. The state either needs to scare this kid straight or investigate the parents and take custody of the child if necessary, preferably the latter.

I think we can be pretty sure that the kid will be punished by his parents. If state action were required to teach seven-year-olds right from wrong, I imagine most of us would not have turned out as well as we did.

The solution? Fire. And lots of it.

Its not that children lack intent, they simply dont have the proper ability to appreciate consequences for thier actions beyond a slap on the fanny or a time out.

For example,i had a younger cousin who was 7 and i was probably 10. I made a deal with him that he could watch what he wanted to on TV for that half hour cartoon but then i got to watch what i wanted to for the next year. Because a 7 year old has no real concept of how long a year is, he of course readily agreed. Because children are unable to realize the long term consequences of thier decisions, they make poor ones.

And you don't think your cousin learned the consequences of his agreement through the following year?

Meh look at it this way, the kid probably put the animals out of their misery. All the animals are in prison too and they havnt been charged with any crime at all.

Zoos are barbaric places to begin with.

Depends on the type of zoo and animals stocked. Some do a fairly good job of replicating the natural habitat, and are just about the only thing keeping certain species from extinction.

I suppose we could just kick the animals out and let natural selection deal with them instead. You would be happier with that no?

Can you explain what you mean by "made to understand the consequences"?


By living through the consequences. Experience is the best teacher.


If a man stole a loaf of bread because he was starving, I suppose you'd want him thrown in jail?


If a man shot and killed someone because he wanted to rob his victim to feed himself, I suppose you'd want him to walk off scott free?

The robbing hood argument does not work on me. Mr Bread robber would still be punished, but for the equivalent cost of his crimes.


And if someone shot Hitler, I suppose you would want to punish them since committing a crime "to prevent greater crimes... doesn't mean you'll walk off untouched." Granted, my examples are somewhat cliche, but they still illustrate the fundemental point.

Hardly. Shooting Hitler before he did anything would still be a crime unless you and the judge and jury have prescience, which nobody has.

Shooting Hitler while he was doing nasty shit on the other hand, could work in that argument. But that usually gets you charged with assassination of a head of state, still a crime.

Self defense however, is a reasonable enough argument.

But if you happen to be a soldier from another country doing the shooting, then it's an act of war.


But that's not what you said. Your words were "As for severity, so what? A crime is a crime."

And all crimes must be punished. In accordance to damage caused.

Did I once say that all crimes have only one punishment? No. That's your attribution, not mine. I don't for example, think that executing the perp here would be suitable, though I do believe the death penalty should be a valid penalty for some crimes.


So what? You've still contradicted yourself. And you've still admitted that hypothetically you'd have no problem with the concept of executing a child.

More simplistic one-dimensional arguments from the tough guy.


I find it quite ironic that you accuse me of one-dimensional arguments when you can't even wrap yourself around the concept of punishments for all crimes but in accordance to damage caused.

Usually the sign of someone lacking in mental agility, and lacking quite a bit at that, since it's not a very complex concept.


If society creates crime, then society is at fault. But if the law is concerned with revenge and deterance over rehabilitation, then that is an instance of society causing more crime.

I'm quite glad you agree that society is the one at fault when it encourages crime.


You think treating disturbed kids like hardened adult felons is going to lessen their criminal tendencies?

And what makes you think this particular one is disturbed hmm? Oh, wait, he committed a crime, so he must be disturbed. There is no other explanation, nevermind that you're not a psychologist, you've never even met the criminal in question, and you have nothing but a news article to go on.

The "disturbed" argument is merely a feel good measure by those unwilling to even court the idea that age is no magical barrier from malice and criminal tendencies.


And so you resort to ad hominums.


Says the one who claims

"I suspect you need to start thinking with your brain instead of your balls."


Hard labour is better than torture or execution, and in the case of adult offenders, it's often better than just tossing them in prisons. But hard labour should be used carefully, if at all, with disturbed children.


I see no evidence that this one is disturbed anymore than you or I. I see malice, which has no age barrier.


Perhaps the charge was unfair. You obviously have a well thought out possission, though a morally bankrupt one.

Morals have no place in the justice system. The justice system cannot be allowed to have itself corrupted by compassion or morals, or it will become a mockery of the idea of a fair means of redressing crimes against society.


More one dimensional thinking that deals with only one side of the problem.


There is a crime, there must be punishment. If society has led to such crimes happening, then there must also be change in society. But society isn't in the discussion here.


What agenda is that? Really, I want to hear your baseless assumptions about my beliefs and character.

Poor word choice. Stance would fit better. I note you have absolutely no counter argument as to what sort of punishment would be appropriate for the perpetrator that would recompense damage caused much less rehabilitate the criminal, but you are quite willing to attack others with proposals to do so.

That does seem indicative of a blank check for crimes by the young.


As for disturbed, I'd say that that's fairly self-evident, unless you think this kid's behavior is normal?

Try willful malice. Or are you going to attribute every single adult criminal as "disturbed" as well? As I have said. There is no magical barrier of age when one learns to be malicious.


Perhaps I spoke hastily their. However, the word "hard" suggests that the labour will be pretty damn nasty.

Breaking rocks in a quarry, laying railroad tracks, working in the mines, have all been used as hard labor punishments for criminals throughout history. I see no reason why this shouldn't be applied much more vigorously today.


In any case, this is yet another ad hominum attack.


It has made you reconsider your fallacious position, thereby, it has done it's job.


So hypothetically you would see nothing wrong with executing a child or a mentally disabled person? That's fucked up.

As opposed to letting them loose on an unsuspecting society? As I have said, criminals should either be rehabilitated, or removed from the gene pool permanently. Middle ground dithering only lets them commit crimes again when no one is looking, and leads to things like the Port Arthur massacre (Australia, not China).

bet little Timmy got beat with a toaster oven when he got home.

And you don't think your cousin learned the consequences of his agreement through the following year?


So let me get this straight, your logic is, throw a small unknowing child in jail for a few years and boy will he ever learn about consequences then? Do you also stick childrens hands into a fire to teach them the consequences of being burned or do you waterboard them to teach them not to run near the pool? Is your method really the best way to teach?

So let me get this straight, your logic is, throw a small unknowing child in jail for a few years and boy will he ever learn about consequences then?


Who said anything about jail? Children however, do understand hard work.


Do you also stick childrens hands into a fire to teach them the consequences of being burned

Children who normally experiment with fire tend to teach themselves the consequences of it being out of control. They also tend to teach themselves that smoke inhalation is bad, usually through first hand experience.

Experience teaches hard lessons, but lessons you never forget if you survive them.

That being said, you do seem to be thinking that I find the normal methods of imparting knowledge of consequences, that being told of it well before they become actual factors, undesirable. I don't. But it doesn't always stick, so consequences experienced can take the place of words and reason.


Is your method really the best way to teach?

Let me put it this way. Shielding people from the consequences of their actions, no matter their age, stunts their mental growth and promotes irresponsibility.

We already see plenty of that happening in political office as well as the upper circles of finance.

did someone just advocate chain gangs for children?

Seriously?

What the fuck is wrong with some people?

Chain gangs build character. Come to think of it, they also say that about war. Some people tend to confuse character with psychological trauma, I guess.

And this is different from jail time (but not life) for older, thereby with less time to live, criminals how?

People can work out/pop crap tons of steroids and make their hard labour easier. They can't make themselves younger in anticipation of a long prison sentence.

did someone just advocate chain gangs for children?

Seriously?

What the fuck is wrong with some people?

Children who have committed criminal acts warranting the sentence of hard labor of course. Not necessarily chain gangs though, since such social networks tend to create a supportive atmosphere among the sentenced, lessening the impact of the rehabilitation. Although it occurs to me that there are also a number of other types of labor perhaps not as physically intensive as say, quarrying, but no less effective in imposing the values of hard work and impressing the societal debt they have incurred. Fieldwork for example, or perhaps public sanitation.

Why, what would you propose? Do not merely castigate my position, propose a working alternative. Moralizing is easy to do, but solves nothing.

People can work out/pop crap tons of steroids and make their hard labour easier. They can't make themselves younger in anticipation of a long prison sentence.

Working out is a natural consequence of hard labor. The presence of steroids in controlled environments however, is a problem with staffing and containment measures, not the actual sentence.

And people generally commit crimes on the reasoning that they won't get caught.

As for making themselves younger, of course not, but people can also take measures to increase their probability of a longer lifespan no?