That sounds like a very good reason to try them as adults. This crime, at this age, strikes me as something that could well indicate that these girls are permanently and irretrievably broken. I would like an outcome where they have to be evaluated before release, rather than ever automatically being released.
I've read about this on several message boards. I see two major sides of the argument are "they planned this murder for months, they should be tried as adults" and "they are too young to truly understand the consequences of what they did, they shouldn't be tried as adults". I think age is a good determiner for a mass population in general. However, when something like this happens it is clear these two girls are not going along with the general population of 12 year olds so they need to be looked at individually. I wonder, what if they are given all the appropriate tests/evaluations/etc. and found to have the capacity to understand exactly what they did and the consequences of their actions? Should they be treated as adults then? I feel thinking they are 12 there is no way they could understand this is just as narrow minded as saying they tried to kill a girl they must be treated like adults. This needs to be decided after each girl has been evaluated and their specific mental/emotional capacities are determined.
^Absolutely. Convincing yourself unicorns are real, and perhaps believing in them even more deeply if a role model encourages you is all a reasonably common situation in children. However, that is a harmless and enjoyable activity. Stealing a knife and mum's purse, after conspiring for 6 months to kill a friend however, is a far cry from believing in unicorns. It is this transformation into murdering psychopaths, with no empathy (stabbing her 19 times!) that is inconsistent with what any normal child would do. Pretending that they were too young to know that what? They knew she will die, they wanted to kill her, they planned it and they tried to evade capture. What exactly didn't they 'understand' here? Time and again, beautiful people, women, children, get away lightly because the society is weak towards beauty as apparent innocence. Likewise, society is vicious to ugliness. This is reflected in attitudes towards sentencing. How can anyone with thinking brain even suggest these are 'just kids' and propose to unleash such people on the community reasonably soon (as trying them as juveniles would do), is just disconcerting.
While I agree, I also disagree. As I said earlier, where's your absolute cutoff? What if these girls were 6? 8? 10? Does The Bad Seed really exist? The murder of James Bulger may have been one such case. The murderers were two 10 yr olds. It's worth reading what the courts later found on appeal about the fairness of trying the boys as juveniles but in adult court: Appeal and Release At what age would you find the individual evaluation always falls on the side of juvenile? Most states use the age of 14 as that cutoff. The second issue here is the evaluation of the girls. There wasn't time for that evaluation between the stabbing and the filing of the charges. In addition, Wisconsin calls for a hearing to make that determination. @Robert_S provided the likely answer, the law calls for the default to be the girls charged as adults. The hearing to move back to juvenile court is likely still to follow. The press is jumping the gun not disclosing the fact this wasn't any more than a procedural decision.
Hve you considered the cut off shouldn't be about age and be more about the fact that they knew they were killing someone. Maybe the cutoff isnt about age maybe the cut off is how much they understood what they were doing. I think you are giving some children much less credit than they deserve when it comes to understanding an action like this. No twelve year old I've ever met doesn't understand the meaning of stabbing someone with a knife nineteen times.
My friend who isn't on this thread suggested they be charged as adults but allowed to earn parole. So they aren't in there the rest of their lives.
Obviously these are not normal children. I don't think anyone is saying they are. Not being 'normal' is not the criteria for a decision to try 12 yr olds as adults. In addition, you're presenting the same false dichotomy as the earlier post claiming charging them in juvenile court equated the crime to stealing candy. Convicted as juveniles they could still be held until the age of 25. That's 13 years and I'm guessing more than one adult convicted of premeditated attempted murder in Wisconsin spent 13 years or less in jail. Not sure this applies to Wisconsin but it's still relevant: Going back to the actual state law: The criteria for transferring back to juvenile court includes the nature of the crime but also other criteria (some criteria are paraphrased): 1. The child's personality, maturity, etc. "2. The prior record of the juvenile" 3. The nature of the crime 4. Whether the juvenile or adult facilities for incarceration better suit the situation "5. The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court if the juvenile was allegedly associated in the offense with persons who will be charged with a crime in adult court." The point, you can't just declare if it was premeditated and violent, ergo that's all we need to know. And do we know both girls were equally culpable? Did they both do the stabbing? Was one the leader and the other a follower?
The New York Times makes the interesting point that the children may not have understood their constitutional rights enough to waive them as they gave their confessions. Considering that everything we know about the case was information they gave, their trial might be very interesting without it.
Do all three girls get participation ribbons, or just the two that carried out the pre-meditated murder?* *Yes, I know the victim survived, but if you plan out a murder for several months and fail, I consider it to still be murder and you're just not very good at it.
The problem is, if these girls could plot something like this for months without anyone getting suspicious, then at least one of them is manipulative enough to get out of most psychoanalysis tests.
You're skirting the question. If it was a 9 yr old who understood what he was doing and committed premeditated attempted murder, does that equate to an adult crime? And 8 yr old? 6? I don't believe one can take a single factor, premeditated attempted murder, and state unequivocally, that deserves to be tried as an adult regardless of the age of the accused.
Knew them very well in fact. The Times doesn't name names, but one girl and the victim were very close and apparently ate lunch together every day. But it's clear that she would not and did not understand their reason for trying to murder her. All the slenderman stuff may wind up inadmissible as evidence.
I doubt the perps are as calculating as you claim based on the fact it's extremely unlikely a 12 yr old would understand and have the skills to manipulate a physician psychiatrist evaluating them. You are claiming being able to plan a fantasy stabbing of a peer and carrying it out indicates they are evil geniuses. I'm comfortable the facts we are each using support my conclusion as much more probable. Other than that, it's fine you disagree.
I agree with charging them as adults. I've known the foster-care system and one thing that the courts, and the justice system frequently ignored was the pattern of behavior these kids created. Treating them like children only postpones the inevitable. I don't necessarily agree with jail though, its a dead system. But they need to be watched - probably for good. As for trying a six year old as an adult, that depends on the six year old. Cases should be tried by the specific person, specific details and behavior. Not by age, gender, or necessarily the crime. More the details of the crime & person. I've known a seven year sociopath. He was highly manipulative - could deceive anyone, and was very careful to mask the fact that he had no genuine feelings for anyone or anything. He was assessed by several psychiatrists. Most were snowed. One he had wrapped around his finger but he got caught in a major lie and the man finally knew. But for almost a year this guy was totally snowed - like the rest. I'd look into the girl's backgrounds. They might find the answers there.
It would if the prosecution was trying to prove premeditation. The only reason we know they plotted this out was their confession. They even invented code words so people wouldn't know what they were talking about.
Im telling you the age doesn't make a difference to me, the maturity does. If a five year old did it but knew what he was doing he deserves servere but not life time punishment. So I answered your question.
I see. I haven't seen what other evidence they might have of premeditation. Certainly the girls had to take knives with them into the woods.
