Police: Boys Use Taser On Woman, Rape Her

[The Straight Story]

Police: Boys Use Taser On Woman, Rape Her
Victim's Baby Was Sleeping Nearby, Police Say


MIAMI -- A 13- and 15-year-old were arrested after they broke into a woman's home, shocked her with a stun gun and raped her while her baby was sleeping nearby, police said.

Miami police said the teens confessed and were charged with armed sexual battery, armed burglary, kidnapping and armed robbery.

Police said the 21-year-old woman heard a knock on her front door on May 23 but ignored it. She later noticed the door was ajar, and when she turned, she was hit in the back with a Taser gun, police said.

The teens took her into one of the bedrooms, covered her face with a shirt and raped her, police said.

http://www.local6.com/news/16915536/detail.html

[varkam]

1. Ten bucks says they'll get charged as adults. eom

[exothermic]

11. Certainly hope so...

:eyes:

[varkam]

16. I don't.

They're kids. That's not to say that they shouldn't be punished, nor is it not to say that what they did wasn't terrible - only that the juvenile system is in place for a reason.

[Rainbowreflect]

19. If the "justice system" continues to charge juvenile offenders as

adults that do away with the juvenile system. What age to we say no to charging them as an adult? 12? 10? 5?

[varkam]

28. What age do you think is appropriate? eom

[exothermic]

24. The juvenile system is in place because a bunch of bleeding heart morons

created it...a massive failure.

[varkam]

27. Not quite.

There is ample scientific evidence to support the notion that a juvenile brain is still developing, and as such cannot make the same moral decisions as a brain that is fully, or at least more fully, developed.

[exothermic]

34. Well, that certainly would explain some of the posts here.

:shrug:

[varkam]

37. Right. Because anyone who disagrees with you must be...

stupid or cowardly or both.

Perhaps you would like to feed me to the alligators as well for my temerity to question your wisdom.

[timtom]

94. Just your arm...

[aikoaiko]

45. I'd like to see a citation than makes that claim...

"a juvenile brain is still developing, and as such cannot make the same moral decisions as a brain that is fully, or at least more fully, developed. "


especially in the context of 13 and 15 year olds which is what this discussion is about.

ample evidence, indeed.

[varkam]

47. Google is your friend.

Here's a primer: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1112&scid=

Here's a helpful quote from the article:

But teens are really bad at the kind of thinking that requires looking into the future to see the results of actions, a characteristic that feeds increased risk-taking. Baird suggests: Ask someone, "How would you like to get roller skates and skate down some really big steps?" Adults know what might happen at the bottom and would be wary. But teens don't see things the same way, because "they have trouble generating hypotheses of what might happen," says Baird, partly because they don't have access to the many experiences that adults do. The ability to do so emerges between 15 and 18 years of age, she theorizes in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

It isn't exactly a controversial subject. The SCOTUS outlawed DP for juveniles partially on this basis.

[aikoaiko]

49. NOWHERE does it or anyone else say juveniles of 13-15 CANNOT make moral decisions as YOU claim

[varkam]

50. Apparently strawmen are popular today.

Please point out where I claimed "juveniles of 13-15 CANNOT make moral decisions".

I'll be waiting.

OE: I'm feeling charitable today, so I'll do your work for you. Here is what I wrote:

There is ample scientific evidence to support the notion that a juvenile brain is still developing, and as such cannot make the same moral decisions as a brain that is fully, or at least more fully, developed.

Now, I want to draw your attention to the words between "as such" and "as a brain". If you will notice, I did not say that juvenile brains cannot make any moral decisions at all, but rather cannot back the same decisions as a more fully developed brain. Putting it another way, juvenile brains are not as apt at making moral decisions as adult brains are.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion. :hi:

[aikoaiko]

51. Are 13-15 juveniles? Yes, You wrote juveniles cannot make the same moral decisions as someone with

a more developed brain.

Do you see where I'm getting it from?

[varkam]

54. Uh, yes they are.

:shrug: I don't know what else I can do here aside from providing you with a definition of what "juvenile" means. Also, you should perhaps go back and read that article I posted or some of the helpful links that another posted, seeing as how you were so curious about the topic.

[varkam]

55. Uh, yes they are.

:shrug: I don't know what else I can do here aside from providing you with a definition of what "juvenile" means. Also, you should perhaps go back and read that article I posted or some of the helpful links that another posted, seeing as how you were so curious about the topic.

[aikoaiko]

52. Most 13 year olds easily make the decision not to taser and rape women.

[varkam]

56. Doesn't refute anything that I wrote.

The fact that most 13 year olds do not do these sorts of things doesn't address anything about the nature of a developing brain, or the fact that moral decision making is not equivalent in adults to juveniles (hence the reason for a juvenile justice system).

[aikoaiko]

57. But you wrote that juveniles cannot make the same moral decisions and yet they do -- don't they?

Even with developing brains most teens do not rape -- so they CAN make the same moral decision that we are discussing.

I will give you the point that some brains are so immature that such a decision might be difficult.

[varkam]

60. No, they can't.

I'm telling you: read the links. You are the one who asked for them, so don't make us think that we have wasted our time (myself and the other poster). Read them.

The fact that most teens do not go out and rape women, again, does not meet that they have the same ability to make moral decisions as adults do. Juvenile ability to make moral decisions is lessened by virtue of the fact that their prefrontal cortex (that area of the brain that handles that sort of thing) is among the last areas of the brain to develop fully.

OE: I think you're assuming that teens who do not rape women are making a decision not to. I don't think that one can necessarily grant such an assumption, as perhaps the majority of teens did not find themselves in the same situation (whatever that situation may be) as these two teens did. The fact that the majority of teens do not rape women does not then mean that the majority of teens have a moral decision making ability equivalent to that of an adult.

[aikoaiko]

62. Yes, they can. Lessen ability is not the same thing as CANNOT.

I'm confronting you on your absolutism.

[varkam]

67. As I posted below...

it is a simple fact that juveniles do not have the same moral decision making capacity as adults do by virtue of the fact that the prefrontal cortex is not totally developed. Perhaps there are a few out there who totally understand the consequences of their actions better than some adults do - but they would be the exception and not the rule.

And as I noted above, I think you're making an assumption in claiming that the majority of teens make the decision not to rape women. I don't think that the majority of teens find themselves in situations where that decision has to be made. The power of the situation is enormous on all of us and, especially on people who are not especially good at making moral choices.

[aikoaiko]

68. ok, but it is not required that one fully understand the consequences of their actions...

...in order to make a correct moral decision.

[varkam]

69. No, but it makes it a lot more difficult...

which is the entire point. A reduced ability to make moral choices constitutes a mitigating factor in criminal procedure.

[aikoaiko]

77. sure, but it depends on how reduced the ability is.

[varkam]

79. Are you conceeding the point? eom

[aikoaiko]

82. The point that some degrees of reduced capacity mitigate culpability? sure.

But such things need to addressed on a case by case basis, in my opinion.

[Romulox]

72. The law does not require that one have "moral decision making capacity" to be held responsible.

It merely requires that one understand the criminality/wrongfulness of one's actions. The law does not require that one be motivated by one's own fully formed sense of morality--this would excuse the majority of criminals, for many of whom rape, or theft, e.g., does not violate their own "personal moral code".

Thankfully, the law merely requires that a defendant know society condemns their wrongful actions. Thankfully, teenagers are clearly legally responsible for their actions under this test.

[varkam]

73. Of course it doesn't.

I'm not arguing that teenagers are not, or should not be, held criminally responsible for their actions. What I am saying is that the fact that juvenile brains are still in development constitutes a mitigating factor, and is one of the reasons for a juvenile justice system. To put it another way, juvenile offenders should not be held to the same standard as adult offenders as their brains work differently.

[Romulox]

80. Unfortunately, you overlook that the fact that "juvenile" and "infant" are LEGAL classifications

Not scientific ones. There is nothing magical about the age of 18; if your view prevailed, no one could be held responsible for their actions as an adult until they are at least 21 (which is the age at which the portion of the brain in question is fully formed, IIRC.)

Moreover, if one's subjective ability to independently arrive "moral decisions" is the determining factor as to when someone can be held fully criminally liable for one's actions, there's a good argument that even so-called "adults" (again, a legal not a scientific category!) should be held to lower standards where it is demonstrated that some brain deficiency retards their sense of inner morality--this even though they are fully aware that society condemns their actions.

For example, the very definition of sociopathy is the under-development of precisely this capacity for morality. Thankfully, sociopathy is not a defense to any crime.

[varkam]

83. Hmm...

Not scientific ones. There is nothing magical about the age of 18; if your view prevailed, no one could be held responsible for their actions as an adult until they are at least 21 (which is the age at which the portion of the brain in question is fully formed, IIRC.)

I agree, there is nothing magical about the age of 18, but the line, however, needs to be drawn somewhere. For better or for worse in our society, that is where it is drawn.

Your re-statement of my view is a strawman. No where have I advanced the idea that juveniles not be held legally responsible. Indeed, in the post that you just responded to I said that it is merely a mitigating factor.

Moreover, if one's subjective ability to independently arrive "moral decisions" is the determining factor as to when someone can be held fully criminally liable for one's actions, there's a good argument that even so-called "adults" (again, a legal not a scientific category!) should be held to lower standards where it is demonstrated that some brain deficiency retards their sense of inner morality--this even though they are fully aware that society condemns their actions.

I agree with that. The only problem is that I don't think that science has developed fully enough to really determine how "mature" an individual is with respect to moral decision making. For now, the magical age of 18 will have to do.

For example, the very definition of sociopathy is the under-development of precisely this capacity for morality. Thankfully, sociopathy is not a defense to any crime.

Actually, sociopathy is not a legal nor is it a psychological term. What you may be looking for is Anti-Social Personality Disorder. I think it could very well be argued that such individuals have a developed sense of morality, but rather they simply do not care. Mental illness, FWIW, is often a mitigating factor in criminal procedure.

[Romulox]

97. Actually, 18 is *not* where the line is drawn.

Most states allow prosecution of juveniles as adults for particularly heinous crimes, so 18 is emphatically not where the line is drawn. If you admit that this line is arbitrary, then there is little room to say, "My arbitrary line should be adopted, though there is no real logical or medical basis for it!"

"Actually, sociopathy is not a legal nor is it a psychological term. What you may be looking for is Anti-Social Personality Disorder."

Nope. What you must understand is that terms like "sociopathy", "psychopathy", and "insanity" are legal terms whose meaning is not determined by modern scientific theory. In other words, the test for legal culpability (and the mental states that might mitigate same) are informed by, by not determined by, modern scientific thought.

So to tell a jurist that, "The proper term is 'Not guilty by reason of schizophrenia!" is a nonsense. The law does not recognize "schizophrenia" as a defense to any crime; it recognizes insanity, however.

[varkam]

101. .

Most states allow prosecution of juveniles as adults for particularly heinous crimes, so 18 is emphatically not where the line is drawn. If you admit that this line is arbitrary, then there is little room to say, "My arbitrary line should be adopted, though there is no real logical or medical basis for it!

You're going through a lot a straw today. I do not know where you got the idea that I said that no juveniles are ever prosecuted as adults. 18 is, however, where the line is drawn as far as being an adult. The fact that juveniles are prosecuted as adults is well and good, but it doesn't make them adults: they are still juveniles.

Nope. What you must understand is that terms like "sociopathy", "psychopathy", and "insanity" are legal terms whose meaning is not determined by modern scientific theory. In other words, the test for legal culpability (and the mental states that might mitigate same) are informed by, by not determined by, modern scientific thought.

Psychopathy is actually a psychological term and to my knowledge is not a legal one (as you note below, there is no "Not guilty by reason of psychopathy"). Sociopathy used to be a psychological term but has fallen out of favor with the DSM-IV. Insanity is a legal term, but not a psychological one. In other words, neither sociopathy nor psychopathy are legal terms.

And where do you think that the mitigating factors came from in the first place? Did they fall out of thin air? Did judge's just pull them out of their collective asses? Of course they didn't. They came about as a result of scientific discovery, predominantly in the field of psychology. It is an ever-evolving thing, and will likely continue to change as new scientific discoveries are made.

So to tell a jurist that, "The proper term is 'Not guilty by reason of schizophrenia!" is a nonsense. The law does not recognize "schizophrenia" as a defense to any crime; it recognizes insanity, however.

Why bring schizophrenia into this? I didn't say that insanity is not a legal term, but rather that sociopathy is not a psychological nor a legal term.

[Romulox]

128. You are still confused; the DSM does *not* control legal definitions.

"In other words, neither sociopathy nor psychopathy are legal terms."

You're simply mistaken. Here's a short stub on an article discussing the contours of the issues of "insanity", "psychopathy", and "sociopathy" as they relate to the law.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/philosophy_psychiatry_and_psychology/v006/6.1slovenko.html

"Sociopathy used to be a psychological term but has fallen out of favor with the DSM-IV. Insanity is a legal term, but not a psychological one. In other words, neither sociopathy nor psychopathy are legal terms."

Wrong and right. Insanity used to be a psychological term; the fact that the medical community abandoned it does not control the legal usage. Monomania ("insane delusion") is another interesting term whose legal definition has diverged almost entirely from its psychological definition.

"And where do you think that the mitigating factors came from in the first place? Did they fall out of thin air? Did judge's just pull them out of their collective asses? Of course they didn't. They came about as a result of scientific discovery, predominantly in the field of psychology."

Nope. Criminal culpability is not a medical or scientific concept. It may be informed by psychology, but there is no scientific test for criminal culpability. You will not be able to run an experiment to determine when someone should be held criminally responsible. It is a legal construct only, and a mental health professional will not be allowed to testify that a person did not have the requisite mental state to be held criminal responsible--this determination is for the jury.

"Why bring schizophrenia into this?"

It's a familiar example that demonstrates the fact that psychological definitions do not control legal definitions.

[varkam]

143. I'm not saying that the DSM does control legal definitions.

You're simply mistaken. Here's a short stub on an article discussing the contours of the issues of "insanity", "psychopathy", and "sociopathy" as they relate to the law.

None of these were originally legal concepts, but rather psychological ones. Moreover, psychopathy and sociopathy are not legal definitions. Do we ever have a "Not Guilty by Reason of Sociopathy" plea? Also, I can't read your article as it requires a subscription.

Wrong and right. Insanity used to be a psychological term; the fact that the medical community abandoned it does not control the legal usage. Monomania ("insane delusion") is another interesting term whose legal definition has diverged almost entirely from its psychological definition.

I'm not saying that the abandonment by the medical community has any impact on what the legal field wants to do. :shrug:

Nope. Criminal culpability is not a medical or scientific concept. It may be informed by psychology, but there is no scientific test for criminal culpability. You will not be able to run an experiment to determine when someone should be held criminally responsible. It is a legal construct only, and a mental health professional will not be allowed to testify that a person did not have the requisite mental state to be held criminal responsible--this determination is for the jury.

I never said that criminal culpability was a scientific concept. What I was writing was that mitigating factors are informed by scientific research.

It's a familiar example that demonstrates the fact that psychological definitions do not control legal definitions.

I never said that they do.

You seem to be responding to a good number of things that I'm not actually saying, or meaning - one of us is very confused, here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. You might actually read what he said.

"cannot make the same moral decision"

That is absolutely true. The still developing brain can make decisions that have the same outcome, but they do not have the depth of context, the logic, or the inherent strength of character to withstand malevolent influences that a mature brain can, and therefore CANNOT make the same moral decision. They can only approximate it.

Why do you think juvenile crime rate for every generation is always high? Why committing of crimes always drops, the older the generation gets?

The juvenile brain structure is the determining factor. The juvenile brain is impulsive, focused on short term rewards, is reckless, and in a very real sense does not comprehend death. The human brain actually is not fully mature until, I believe it is, about 24-25 years old, though the maturing process levels out dramatically from around 17 or 18.

Like Klebold and Harris, if you have two less than healthy individuals reinforcing each others' psychopathology, neither has the maturity to pull back and say "we can't do this" - while either on their own might be completely (or nearly so) harmless.

A glass that is 3/4 full is not a full glass, no matter whether it can quench your thirst or not.

[varkam]

84. Perish the thought. eom

[aikoaiko]

87. one question, is it possible for a 13 year to correctly make the decision to not rape someone?

[varkam]

90. Again, you're making that assumption that I've called you on a few times now.

The fact that most teens do not rape women doesn't mean that most teens do not make a decision to not rape women. Most teens probably do not find themselves in a situation where they have to make that decision or do not find themselves in a situation where that is a viable option that is open to them.

Anyway, it really is besides the point as it doesn't really address the simple fact that juvenile decision making is not the equivalent to adult decision making.

[aikoaiko]

93. It's ok, I didn't think you would answer that question.

[varkam]

95. You're not very big on reading what I write, are you?

Sigh. And here I thought we were having a discussion. Apparently you don't want to actually discuss anything, but rather just browbeat your opponents into submission.

[aikoaiko]

98. browbeat ? you avoided answering my question --- is that what you call a discussion?

[varkam]

99. I responded why that question is not answerable on the basis that you're making a large assumption.

:shrug: I don't know what else I can do.

You could respond to my assertion that you're making an assumption that renders your question unanswerable, but instead you jump all over me for not answering your question.

[aikoaiko]

102. I ask because I need to know if you're at all reasonable.

Is it possible for even one 13 year old to correctly make the moral decision to not rape someone?


eta: this may help. I agree with you that neither a yes or no addresses the issue that by and large juvenile decision making is not the equivalent to adult decision making.

[varkam]

104. Okay. My objections notwithstanding, yes.

I would say that I'm sure there is at least one 13 year old out there, somewhere, that were he put in the same situation that this 13 year old was in, would choose differently.

So?

[aikoaiko]

109. Now I know you're reasonable. :-)

I will admit that I could do more reading on this issue, but so far I'm not seeing anyone saying that many teens don't have enough moral reasoning ability to keep themselves from committing violent felonies. Yes, the lit shows how physically, physiologically, and behaviorally teens are not the equivalent of adults in terms of their moral reasoning and impulse control, but that not the same thing as saying they cannot ultimately make the same choice to not commit a violent crime. I suppose I'm parsing the moral reasoning from the moral choice.

[varkam]

112. Slander!

:D

It remains as a simple fact of biology that the prefrontal cortex is still in the development stage when you are in your teen years and that the prefrontal cortex handles moral decision making. Many teens do not commit violent felonies, but I would say that is not necessarily a result of conscious choice but rather a result of situational factors. For teens who have a loving family and a decent support system, the choice makes itself by virtue of surroundings.

It is also a fact, however, that juvenile offenders are disproportionate in the criminal justice system in that they do commit a good number of violent felonies whereas, as we grow older, that number tends to decline. I'm sure that there are a number of reasons for this, but I'm also sure that one of them is the fact that the brain has been able to develop fully.

[aikoaiko]

85. But they can and do make the same moral decisions -- although I agree the reasoning may be ...

...more or less sophisticated.

How much do need to know that tasering a woman and raping is wrong?

[bean fidhleir]

115. What a pity that the citation you offered was both hypothetical (a handwave, iow) and off the mark

There's a big differences between being able to foresee the results of some action that's outside one's experience, and making an *ethical* choice. The late Larry Kohlberg's research showed conventional socially-oriented ethical reasoning in early teens. See, e.g., http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

[varkam]

116. So you're taking decades old research over modern research?

Handwave, indeed. You do understand that new research yields new discovery, correct? Also, I'm not going to let your strawman stand that I said that juveniles cannot reason morally. I only stated (and backed up) that their reasoning is not the equivalent of an adult's reasoning on the basis that the prefrontal cortex has not fully developed. IOW, what you just posted is not at odds with anything that I've said.

And how, exactly, was the citation that I offered "off the mark"?

[bean fidhleir]

120. Humans haven't changed much since Kohlberg did his work :-)

The citation you offered was off the mark because it was about foreseeing the results of some action - predicting the future, if you like- not about making a judgement about whether the action is good or bad from an ethical standpoint.

Example: foreseeing the future would be "if I break into this jewellery store, will I get caught?" That's different to "if I break into this jewellery store, what does that make me?"

The teen might break in, and be caught because he didn't think about a possible alarm system. It was outside his experience, so he didn't do a good job evaluating all the issues.

But even a normal ten-year-old knows that breaking into a jewellery store is stealing, and therefore bad. He might do it anyway, rationalizing his way out of the ethical dilemma, but he knows it's considered wrong even though his reason why it's wrong isn't society's reason.

[varkam]

121. No. But research has.

We didn't have fMRI machines, for example, when Kohlberg was around. Humans also haven't changed much since the sin theory of disease was around, does that mean that we should go back to that? Of course not. The point is that new research changes the way, or should change the way that we think about things.

The citation you offered was off the mark because it was about foreseeing the results of some action - predicting the future, if you like- not about making a judgement about whether the action is good or bad from an ethical standpoint.

Irrelevant. As I posted below, of course these kids knew what they were doing was wrong. I'm not, nor have I ever, argued for any other proposition. They key is in evaluating consequences and impulsivity. I would say that your assessment of the citation, as well as the issue, is off the mark for no other reason than you seem to be confusing knowing right from wrong and what constitutes a mitigating factor.

But even a normal ten-year-old knows that breaking into a jewellery store is stealing, and therefore bad. He might do it anyway, rationalizing his way out of the ethical dilemma, but he knows it's considered wrong even though his reason why it's wrong isn't society's reason.

Again, the "knowing right from wrong" issue is totally irrelevant here and, indeed, totally irrelevant to my citation.

[tchunter]

138. its truth, let me get my old sociology (fake science) notebooks

Roper v. Simmons (2005) was the first case to take into account scientific evidence that the brain does not fully develop/mature until 21-25. Someone that young processes data differently than a full grown person. Until then the brain can't fully understand consequences, ignore impulses, and misinterpret emotional cues.

[Phx_Dem]

48. Links

Teenage Brain: A work in progress
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress.shtml

ADOLESCENT BRAIN DEVELOPMENT
& JUVENILE JUSTICE
FACT SHEET
http://www.act4jj.org/media/factsheets/factsheet_12.pdf

Adolescent Brain Development and the
Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
http://www.bocyf.org/steinberg_presentation.pdf

[aikoaiko]

61. Of course the brain is still developing -- thats not the issue I am confronting

its the part where varkam says "juveniles cannot make the same moral decision...", when the research shows that they can and do, but not all the time.

CANNOT is very strong word and not supported from the scientific literature as I read it.

As a wrote in another post, most 13 year old CAN make the moral decision to not rape just a more fully developed brain can.

[varkam]

63. I think you're misunderstanding me.

And perhaps that was my fault as I should've been clearer with my initial post. By "make the same moral decision" I mean that juveniles do not have the same capacity as adults for moral decision making - as I have been trying to point out over and over.

[aikoaiko]

66. Capacity - actually thats very different than saying they cannot make the same decision.

[varkam]

70. Putting it in bold for you this time:

And perhaps that was my fault as I should've been clearer with my initial post. By "make the same moral decision" I mean that juveniles do not have the same capacity as adults for moral decision making - as I have been trying to point out over and over.

Had you been reading my posts, that's what I said in post 50 - immediately after you appeared to be confused at what I had written.

OE: Here's what I wrote immediately after your strawman:

Now, I want to draw your attention to the words between "as such" and "as a brain". If you will notice, I did not say that juvenile brains cannot make any moral decisions at all, but rather cannot back the same decisions as a more fully developed brain. Putting it another way, juvenile brains are not as apt at making moral decisions as adult brains are.

So, are you going to stop harping on a false premise now?

[aikoaiko]

76. ok, I see now that you've backtracked on your initial assertion.

Yes, I did miss that the first time.

So, you're an expert in these matters, what proportion of 13 year olds do you think have enough of a moral reasoning capacity to not rape someone?

[varkam]

78. Uh, I actually haven't backtracked.

I can't help it if you're confused.

:shrug:

And I never claimed to be an expert on these matters. Moreover, you're throwing out a red herring as "proportion" has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of what I have written.

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. I'd say - Zero.

The might not do it, but not because of moral reasoning capacity. Their brain is not developed enough for that. They do it because the law, or the bible, or some authority says not to do it and their more primative brain part, which understands punishment (at about 3months old) tells them not to.

It's not moral reasoning that makes the decision for the underdeveloped brain. It is fear, of one sort or another - fear of punishment, fear of losing affection of loved ones, etc. Like most sub-adult reasoning, it is based on personal self interest, not reasoned moral codes.

[aikoaiko]

100. From my point of view it doesn't matter why as long as its the correct moral decision.

When you says its not moral reasoning but fear of punishment that compells adolescents to make the correct decision, I think that fear of punishment, adhering to social expectation, avoiding group dishonor, etc is a type of moral reasoning.

I'm not sure many adults get past that level of reasoning.

[RaleighNCDUer]

141. That's the problem - you keep putting "moral" between "correct" and "decision".

Coming to the correct decision is possible, and with kids raised in secure situations it is expected. Most people eventiually develop beyond that level to come to a point of moral reasoning.

However, "I don't want to get caught" is not moral reasoning - it is pragmatic reasoning.

"My personal wants do not supersede others' rights" is moral reasoning.

And I agree, may adult don't get to that level of reasoning. That is the basis of the authoritarian personality. Their only concern is power - their power over others, or others' power over them. The makings of a good republican.

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. The age for being charged as an adult should be the voting age in that state

Let's be consistent.

If a thirteen year old can process as an adult for the purpose of criminal proceedings, then he or she should enjoy the franchise, since the only logic for denying the vote is a theory of cognitive development.

So, the voting age in a state should be the age at which that state deems it appropriate to try a person as an adult in criminal court.

[varkam]

144. And that is typically 18...

however it seems that the overriding factor (though there are others) in determining whether or not to charge as an adult is the amount of public outrage in reaction to the crime in question. If people are angry enough, then you can rest assured that they will be charged as adults.

[alcibiades_mystery]

146. Mob rule

Kinda like DU....:-)

[varkam]

147. Kinda.

:D

[Rainbowreflect]

36. Do you honestly believe that a 6 year old that sets a fire should

face the same charge/punishment as a 36 year old?

[exothermic]

39. Wait, I missed the part where these filthy little rapists set a fire years ago.

:eyes:

[varkam]

40. Ohhh...I get it now. It's because of the specific crime that's set you off...

not anything about criminal justice, or developing brains, or reason, or anything like that. So, as long as you're sufficiently upset or angry, then it appears that you're willing to abandon any so-called principles that you may or may not have. Awesome.

Thanks for the insight :hi:

[Rainbowreflect]

43. What you said was...

"The juvenile system is in place because a bunch of bleeding heart morons" No clarification that you were only talking about rape, or any specific crime just the juvenile system.

[bean fidhleir]

88. Rape is an adult crime. A child cannot commit rape.

All traditional cultures have a coming-of-age ritual (e.g. bar/bat mitsvah) that occurs around age 12/13. It's a recognition of sexual maturity and the social demands for responsibility that go with.

[varkam]

92. I think these two children just did commit rape.

Perhaps that certain traditions would be unwilling to accept that or would call it something else, but these two certainly did (or at least allegedly) commit the crime of forcible rape as defined in the penal code.

[bean fidhleir]

106. Which means they aren't children.

If they commit an adult crime, they're adults. They might be able to plead diminished responsibility, but they're adults!

[varkam]

107. Not under the law they're not.

They might be tried as adults, but that doesn't mean that they are adults. Legally, one must be 18 years of age to be classified as an adult.

[bean fidhleir]

110. I think the "tried as adults" is the back-door determination.

Our legal "switch" (yesterday you weren't, click, today you are) ignores a lot of reality, but shouldn't. We have various back-door ways to get around it (emancipated minor, trial as adult, drink on post, etc) so it's obvious that its position is political rather than natural.

[varkam]

114. I agree that it is arbitrary...

and that there are many 16 year olds who are more mature than some 30 year olds. Of course the position is political, but I think it is partly tradition and partly because that seemed to be the reasonable thing at the time. As science and the study of the brain advances, I think we're going to come to a point where we can have a more sophisticated method of determining who is and who is not an adult.

Regardless, though, these "back-door" methods don't change the fact that anything under the age of 18 is juvenile. For instance, an "emancipated minor" is still a minor. Putting a juvenile on trial as an adult doesn't change the fact that they are a juvenile. From a scientific standpoint, you could probably extend that period into the mid-twenties on the basis of fMRI studies of the brain.

[bean fidhleir]

117. There are certainly a lot of brain changes mediated by puberty

that continue to operate for some years, but Kohlberg found that even six-year-olds understand that it's wrong to assault and injure someone who's never harmed them. They explain their understanding in a very primitive way at that age, but they're not in any doubt about it being a bad idea.

As they grow older, the reasoning behind their conclusion grows more richly textured and general, til in the early teens they see the social contract as underpinning such choices.

Some people, even though cognitively average, never get beyond six-year-old reasoning, and of course maybe 1% never even get that far. But most people have already reached a conventional, proper-working-of-society sort of ethics by the age the younger of this pair is at.

[varkam]

118. Nonetheless...

Kohlberg found that even six-year-olds understand that it's wrong to assault and injure someone who's never harmed them. They explain their understanding in a very primitive way at that age, but they're not in any doubt about it being a bad idea.

That has nothing to do with what I posted re: brain development. It doesn't refute the claim that juveniles are worse moral decision makers than adults are. Note that I did not claim that children are incapable of making moral choices. Indeed, many children and teens do know right from wrong as, if they did not, they criminal culpability wouldn't even be an issue. Rather, the fact that they are less able to make such decisions is a mitigating factor and one of the reasons for a separate system of justice for juveniles.

[bean fidhleir]

122. Perhaps we're talking at crossed purposes

Children aren't sophisticated reasoners. But one need not be a sophisticated reasoner to know that assaulting someone is frowned upon. That's impressed on kids at the toddler stage. "Don't hit Bobby. Play nice!" "Don't pull Kitty's tail, it hurts her." That's *very* basic socialization.

[varkam]

123. Of course.

And that's why I'm not saying that teens shouldn't be held criminally responsible for their actions. Of course these kids probably knew what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway. However, the mitigating factors would include things like not fully appreciating the consequences of their actions and impulse control - both of which are handled in the PF cortex.

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. Sexual maturity and mental maturity are two very different things.

As has been proved, repeatedly, by scientific studies.

The human brain doesn't fully mature until well into the 20s, though the rapid growth through the teens levels off significantly at around 18.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2006/02/06.html

http://www.factsontap.org/docs/2004Nov_AdolescentBrain.pdf

[bean fidhleir]

108. That sounds like a basis for a diminished-responsibility plea.

Some people in their 40s are still childish in their lack of maturity, but it doesn't save them from trial as adults. Someone who commits an adult-sized crime should endure an adult-sized trial. This was definitely, if the description is accurate, an adult-sized, premeditated crime.

[RaleighNCDUer]

142. That's the whole point of the juvenile justice system.

The kids' brains are still developing - they can be rehabilitated as they mature.

If you 40 year old does the same thing, it is as a fully developed adult.

Actually "diminished capacity" is the opposite of what it is - an adult who is mentally ill or under the influence can maybe claim diminished capacity, as they were funtioning at less than their adult capability (thus, the 'diminished'). We're talking about kids who have yet to reach their full capability - they cannot be 'diminished' from what they have yet to achieve.

Future generations will look at our system trying children as adults with the same horror as we look back on the 18th century, hanging children for stealing a loaf of bread. Or is that our goal - the opening scene of "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" where we see a shackled 9 year old being executed for piracy?

[ourbluenation]

111. tell that to the woman who was sexually assaulted. rape is rape. n/t

[bean fidhleir]

113. You sound as though you're "in violent agreement" with me.

:)

[alcibiades_mystery]

134. Then that should be the voting age

I say, great!

Let's make 12 or 13 the voting age and then we can charge kids as adults to our heart's content.

[Jack_DeLeon]

127. Fuck that shit...

If you commit a violent crime then you are acting as an adult and should be punished as one.

These fuckers should not have their criminal past hidden once they turn 18.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

130. Nonsense.

One of the most disgusting excesses of the criminal system here in the UK was the witchhunt after two ten-year-olds - ten year olds! - who killed a two-year-old, and spent years in prison for it.

"If you commit a violent crime then you are acting as an adult and should be punished as one" is a complete non-sequitur - it's entirely possible for children to commit acts that, if committed by adults, would be violent crimes; it's abominably wicked to treat them as such.

That said, 15 is arguably old enough not to demand too much in the way of concession to age.

[gatorboy]

14. Perhaps you can set up a deal for them to stay at your house?

[varkam]

15. ?

Don't at what you're driving at.

[exothermic]

26. Well, that's a shocker.

:eyes:

[varkam]

29. Way to go right for the ad hominem.

:hi:

[Lex]

18. Excellent straw man.

nt

[exothermic]

25. I sure as fuck won't be holding my breath on that one.

:eyes:

[varkam]

30. Right. Because I obviously think that they shouldn't be punished...

nor that they have problems.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

131. I take it you'd have no objection to having psychopaths stay with you?

After all, we - quite rightly - treat the dangerously insane as not criminally liable.

So if you think that if the post you replied to arguing that these boys shouldn't be tried as adults implies that they wouldn't mind having them stay with them, presumably you yourself have no objection to having other groups of not-tried-as-responsible-adults people who commit violent acts stay with you?

There is a world of difference between "should not be tried as an adult" and "is not a danger to those around them".

[depakid]

125. Of course they'll be charged as adults- it's Florida

not a rational state.

[bdamomma]

2. that is awful.

people are bat shit crazy and sick.

[ingac70]

3. I certainly hope...

those little creeps are charged as adults. Doing this kinda stuff at such a young age, they'll be even bigger scumbags as adults.

[ensho]

4. I said from the beginning that tasers would be used on women

and children

now here we are

[aspergris]

7. tasers are a tool

they are no different from guns or knives. Both of those can also be used ON women . Both of those can also be used BY women.

Heck, same with cars.

[cobalt1999]

9. So?

It could have been a gun or a knife or a baseball bat. The issue is the evil person, not what they choose to use.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. GASP!!!!! You Mean, You ACTUALLY Were So Brilliant As To Deduce That Someone, Somewhere, Someday,

might use a taser for criminal purposes? I'm in awe of your intellectual prowess. We should all kneel before you oh great one!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

65. I can't believe that you predicted that someday someone might use a weapon to attack someone.

Man. We oughtta promote you or something.

[okieinpain]

5. hey to pull something like that they should have their names and

pictures plastered every where.

[RidinMyDonkey]

6. 13 & 15 likely to be tried as adults?

This was an awful crime and they both should be punished but 13 seems awfully young for an adult trial. Isn't there an age minimum or something?

[brentspeak]

20. Anyone who would commit forcible rape is beyond help.

The safety of the public pretty much dictates that these two remain locked up.

[exothermic]

35. You mean a swat on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper isn't enough?

Gee...

[varkam]

41. Need some more straw? You're certainly going through a lot of it... eom

[wvbygod]

8. These rapists should spend at least 30 years in prison

I don't believe in torture but these punks should be tazed three times a day and
put in solitary 24*7 for at least 30 years. Rape is not treated seriously enough
in this society. If I were for the DP, rapists would be first on the list.

[High Plains]

10. Oh, you do believe in torture.

At least that's what you're advocating.

[exothermic]

13. I think their testicles should be fed to alligators

while still attached.

[varkam]

17. Three cheers for civilized society. eom

[exothermic]

31. Civilized people don't rape, genius.

:eyes:

[varkam]

38. Well, when I think of feeding people to wild animals...

the world "civilized" doesn't come to mind, either, oh-wise-one.

I mean, we are supposed to be civilized, right? Hell, why don't we start torturing rapists. From there, we can start cutting the hands off of thieves and beating jaywalkers. Who knows where our glorious system of justice will end? Oh, wait, I forgot, you "don't believe in torture".

[exothermic]

42. You appear to be laboring under the absurd notion that all life is "sacred" or somesuch bullshit.

Some humans are just parasites and aren't worth bothering with. Just get rid of them...it's not as if there's any shortage of people...
:shrug:

[varkam]

44. And who is going to make that call? You?

:rofl: Something tells me we'd be ending up with a whole lot of dead people were that the case. Why, I can see it now - "Disagree with me? To the alligator pit with you!"

Plus, there's this pesky little thing called the Constitution standing in your way. Perhaps you have heard of it. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Something tells me that feeding people to wild animals for forcible rape would fall under that category.

The assumption that all life is sacred is not required to adopt my viewpoint, merely that a system of criminal justice ought to be more civilized than the crimes that are punishable under such a system - or else we might as well just go back to mob lynchings and vigilantism.

[hogwyld]

74. Something tells me that he would be very happy

In Saudi Arabia or Iran with it's draconian "justice" system.

[varkam]

75. Huh? eom

[hogwyld]

86. It was a statement on the absurdity

of some of EXO's more radical torture advocacy. I wholly defend your statements. Sorry if I confused you.

[varkam]

91. Oh, sorry.

:hi:

[Seldona]

59. But they force feed testicles to alligators along with the rest?

Thanks for the update on civilized behavior.

:puke:

[Deja Q]

124. Context, my friend, context. Not hubris, sarcasm, and cynicism.

People who rape, molest, and murder, especially repeat offenders, have no place in ruining other peoples' lives.

The scars of victims do last. I see no reason why such filth should be rehabilitated. There is a line, there comes a time, and there is context, and when we have repeat offenders getting out of prison, their time 'served', only to get arrested for another murder or sexual assault again in a few months...

[varkam]

126. A response:

People who rape, molest, and murder, especially repeat offenders, have no place in ruining other peoples' lives.

And who is arguing that they do? Also, are these two repeat offenders? I missed that in the link.

The scars of victims do last. I see no reason why such filth should be rehabilitated. There is a line, there comes a time, and there is context, and when we have repeat offenders getting out of prison, their time 'served', only to get arrested for another murder or sexual assault again in a few months...

I agree with the part that the scars of the victim do last, but disagree with you on the rest. The DoJ would also disagree with you when it comes to recidivism rates, as they are generally fairly low for sexually-oriented offenders.

But all this misses the point of the post that I was responding to. That is, namely, that we (as a civilized society) should try to stay out of the sport of practicing barbarity whenever possible.

[baby_mouse]

32. What for?

[Evoman]

21. Um..yeah, you do.

"I don't believe in torture but these punks should be tazed three times a day and
put in solitary 24*7 for at least 30 years."

[EOTE]

23. So you don't believe in torture unless you WANT the person to be tortured.

Well, I'm with you in that I certainly don't believe that innocents should be tortured. But when I say that I don't believe in torture, it means that I don't believe in torture. As soon as you start making exceptions, you've then become pro-torture. And while I'm anti-DP as well, I'd be even more sickened if they ever started to apply the death penalty in cases where murder isn't involved.

[Pavulon]

136. Rape is a horrible crime

if you saw this happen you could shoot both in the head and be will within the bounds of the law. However when it comes to sentencing rape is not treated seriously enough.

Forcible rape involving violence should warrant the same time as attempted murder.

To bad the story did not read, "Woman's dog mauled suspects then she shot both, one died on scene from gunshot to head the other died from a lacerated liver at Hialeah Hospital-ER after bleeding out"

These people are fucks and deserve hard time.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. Shocking

n/t

[slackmaster]

33. Wow, what a pair of worthless little messed up pieces of shit

I hope the criminal justice system can straighten them out, because their parents and everyone else have obviously failed.

[Maine-ah]

46. well, an interesting thread for sure, straight story....

At 13, I knew right from wrong. Though I wonder with the other boy being 15, how much coercion it took (if any at all) to get the 13 y.o. to participate. Peer pressure and all that....

horrible crime. I couldn't imagine that happening with my baby asleep right there. Poor woman.

Where the hell are the parents/guardians of these kids?

[AzDar]

53. Sue Taser Inc. These things should not be sold to the general public.

[Ilsa]

58. I wouldn't know what to do with kids like this except maybe put them

on a boat and set them out to sea for a few years. They certainly don't belong with civilized people. I think their parents should have to go too, maybe.

[Occam Bandage]

64. Try 'em as adults. They get what they get.

[galileoreloaded]

71. Couple hundred thousand years living as animals...

and we think the miraculous "civility" of the last 100 (maybe, thats even a stretch)removes all that ingrained shit. We are DOOMED by stupidity, a curious human condition.

[Indenturedebtor]

103. Plenty of other cultures around the world have been civilized for a lot longer than 100 years

I don't think that behavior like this is so much ingrained as it is encouraged by absent parenting etc. There are plenty of societies around the world with more of a communal way of life that don't have all these rapists and murderers running around.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. Now there's a fine example of anger and hatred overruling reason.

The thirteen year old at least is a child, and should be tried as one. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished, but "try them as adults" is just stupid.

[Occam Bandage]

135. I disagree. I think a thirteen-year-old engaging in brutal sexual assault is well aware of

what he is doing. He is not a dumb kid robbing a candy store for kicks with friends.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

139. Of course not.

The idea that children are any more responsible for their actions when they do something really bad than when they do something moderately bad is a foolish one.

I'm sure you'll get your wish; this child's chances in life are probably essentially over, and I'd be very surprised if what ended up being done to him isn't considerably worse than rape (and quite possibly includes it, from what I know of America's prisons). But I think it's wrong that this is the case, and you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting it.

Do you think that the severity of punishment doled out to this child will have any effect - any effect whatsoever - on whether or not other children commmit criminal offences?

[Catherine Vincent]

105. How terrible. I don't know what to say about that.

:-(

[Deja Q]

119. Animals. Inhuman, vicious animals.

Taser and rape them as punishment?

Lock them up, at the cost of tax money?

Put them in an induced coma for the length of the punishment?

Chop off their 'nads?


What the frig causes people to act so devolved, and was that a rhetorical question?

[MilesColtrane]

129. If guilty, they both need to be locked up in the state pen for at least 12 years.

[coffee_strong]

137. What 13 and 15 yrold sit around and think about doing this stuff??

I have no sympathy if they got life in prison. I guarantee if this was anyones wife,daughter,sister,niece,best friend they'd say the same.

[DaveJ]

145. I don't know what causes this, but 'life in prison,' No....

Might as well kill the kids, as to say life in prison. At age 13 and 15 they have no adult judgment, it's a scientific fact, and they are products of their environment.

I have no idea why kids become assholes like this. How bad do their parents and surroundings have to be? To me it's unimaginable. But I know that it is an irrational phase that they can't control.

[guardian]

140. These "kids"

should have a taser shoved up their a** and left turned on until they die.