11yr old US killer to face life in prison

[blaaah]

Now 13, Jordan Brown, the boy who shot his fathers fiancée faces life imprisonment. He used his own gun, a children's hunting rifle, to shoot the woman in the back of the head while she slept, she was also pregnant expecting to give birth in 2 weeks, the baby also died. He is to go on trial for 2 counts of homicide.

Apart from the issue that raises again of gun ownership, the other main news this concerns is about US law, which is said to be the most cruel in the world for children, equal only to Somalia, which also imprisons children for life with no chance of parole. The key factor is other countries will look at parole later in life if the person was under 18 at the time of the crime.
America has refused to ratify the UN treaty that allows for parole. It was only in 2005 that America decided it was wrong to execute children under 18 for crimes they committed. And it was only in May 2010 that the law was changed to make life imprisonment of children without parole applicable to only homicide, and not other crimes too. Even with that law change 2,400 children are currently facing total life in prison for their crimes.
At this point Judges are hearing an appeal asking that Brown should not be tried as an adult.

Source article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/25/us-boy-accused-murder-appeals

 

[Famine]

the other main news this concerns is about US law, which is said to be the most cruel in the world for children, equal only to Somalia, which also imprisons children for life with no chance of parole.

He's above the age of criminal responsibility - the age at which someone is judged to be capable of telling right from wrong and responsible for their own actions - for the United Kingdom too.

So he's a murderer and an execution-style one at that. Not seeing the problem with life in prison - he's bloody lucky he's not facing an execution of his own.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

I know as soon as minors are mentioned it's a sensitive issue but I'm not entirely sure I don't agree to be honest.

He's facing trial, in which they will have to prove he was of sound mind, and in cold blood, premeditated the act. And if all that proves to be the case, 11 years old or not if you have that in you and show no remorse at that age, then that's pretty much the person you are going to be. We're not talking about teens who steal cars for joyriding because they don't really appreciate the gravity of their actions but can with maturity look back and realise they were scum at the time. The best you can hope for with a person who does something like this is that they realise the motives behind their action were flawed, they are still capable of the action under the right circumstances.

 

[blaaah]

He's above the age of criminal responsibility - the age at which someone is judged to be capable of telling right from wrong and responsible for their own actions - for the United Kingdom too.

So he's a murderer and an execution-style one at that. Not seeing the problem with life in prison - he's bloody lucky he's not facing an execution of his own.

It's against the whole worlds legal consensus on what is correct punishment for children, It's covered by the United Nations. If America was not a superpower it could be invaded and it's regime overthrown for this activity, which the world considers a crime punishment. That's an extreme point, but has context to the morally criminal aspect of US behaviour.
The UK has signed the UN treaty for protection of children, America has refused to.

 

[Famine]

It's against the whole worlds legal consensus on what it correct punishment for children

He's above the age of criminal responsibility ... for the United Kingdom too.

Be careful with such sweeping statements, particularly when the flaw has already been pointed out to you.

Britain had a case some years since of two ten year olds who were found guilty of torture and murder. Both were imprisoned until they reached 18, then had their identities changed and were released on a life term licence - they can be recalled to prison at any time. They are on effective life sentences without the possibility of parole.

I wonder when the UN will invade us.

 

[blaaah]

You refer to the Bulger killers?
Well it says a lot that the UK released them very early, they were on parole which is part of the UN treaty, they were protected by given new identities which costs a huge amount of money, at least one of them has gone onto commit further crimes so they had their freedom. Under US law they would be in prison until they died.
Which maybe considered better for the public, but which is illegal and immoral in the eyes of the world. Why should UK be invaded for upholding the law and the UN treaty?
They did fail in protecting the public from the re-offending, so maybe the parole conditions were to lenient or mistakes were made, either way the UN treaty was being obeyed. In this instance the UK is not committing a world crime, but the US is.

I responded to your comment about the UN invading "us" to mean UK? I'm guessing you are British like myself?

 

[FoolKiller]

Part of the problem I see here is that this news story paints with a very broad brush. Almost every single one of those juveniles gets a second hearing at 18. I noticed it lists all kinds of facts about how many juveniles face life sentences, but not how many adults are in for life sentences because of what they did as a child.

Yeah, some cases do treat them as an adult and they don't get their second trial at 18. Most of those are 16 or 17 though and it is only decided after expert evaluation.

The article also mentions individual states, but paints the entire US with the information it found from Pennsylvania. If they had done the same using Kentucky as the basis it would have been about how no one under 16 can be denied a secondary parole-type trial at 18.



My personal take on this is that no one under 16 when the crime was committed should ever be tried as an adult. Those under 16 who are found guilty should then have to undergo psychological testing at 18 to be sure that whatever it is that led them to act as they did is not still affecting them. Basically, be sure that they are not locked into that state of mind by the psychological trauma the act of killing another can create. If they are still deemed unsafe then they are transferred to a mental health facility where release is dependent upon doctor evaluation.

 

[blaaah]

Thanks for that viewpoint. What would you say regarding the point in the way the US is behaving in regards to the United Nations protection of children treaty it refuses to sign?

 

[Famine]

You refer to the Bulger killers?

Yep.

Well it says a lot that the UK released them very early

They were released when they were supposed to be - at 18.

they were on parole which is part of the UN treaty

No, they were on life licence - a completely different animal.

at least one of them has gone onto commit further crimes so they had their freedom.

And he was reimprisoned without trial.

They were sentenced to life for a crime they committed at 10. They didn't get let out with a clean slate like any other criminal - they aren't treated by the justice system with the same rights as any other criminal who has served their sentence and been released, because they effectively never were.


But this is all besides the point - if you commit a crime and are above the age of criminal responsibility, you may be tried as an adult (though the initial part of your custody may be different). That works in our country and it works in the US too. Venables and Thompson were 10 years old when they abducted, tortured and murdered another child - and Brown was 11 years old when he executed a pregnant woman while she slept. In both cases they may be tried in an adult court as an adult.

You don't have to look too hard to find countries where the age of criminal responsibility is lower - in both Singapore and India, the age is 7 and both countries have the death penalty. 7 year olds may be tried for crimes as adults and, in the case of capital crimes, executed. One would think the UN may find that slightly more objectionable, yet Singapore (which once had the highest rate of execution for any country in the world) is rated as having the best criminal justice system in the world...

 

[Jay]

I don't dissagree with a re-evaluation at 18 but frankly I don't have a problem with a life sentence (even without parole) for clear execution murder done by a 11 year old if he understands what he was doing.

 

[blaaah]

You don't have to look too hard to find countries where the age of criminal responsibility is lower - in both Singapore and India, the age is 7 and both countries have the death penalty. 7 year olds may be tried for crimes as adults and, in the case of capital crimes, executed. One would think the UN may find that slightly more objectionable, yet Singapore (which once had the highest rate of execution for any country in the world) is rated as having the best criminal justice system in the world...

The article should have picked up on something like that to contrast to. I suppose that is the nature of short news stories and what they lack in depth.
Do you know what the UN view is on that? Well on the face of it with the information reported so far, Singapore and India are signed up to the protection of children treaty, even if they can execute children ( the US only stopped this recently anyway), the fact remains the US has not signed the UN treaty, what is the justification for that?

 

[Touring Mars]

the fact remains the US has not signed the UN treaty, what is the justification for that?

I would imagine it is because the US prefer to decide on their own laws and not be bound to international agreements/treaties that may contradict them.

 

[Tornado]

the fact remains the US has not signed the UN treaty, what is the justification for that?

I don't see why there needs to be any justification in the first place. You can be a UN member and not ascribe to every single thing the UN comes up with simply because they came up with it.

 

[OG_Wretch]

We are who we will be by age 6 and if they don't know right from wrong by then, they never will.

Children should be held accountable for their actions just like anyone else.
10 years old sounds fair enough time to have experience with right and wrong.
7 isn't really even unreasonable depending on the child's environment.

Depending on the reasons/circumstances the child does murder someone the parents should be held accountable too.
Bottom line is if they don't know how to behave it's on the parents...
...providing the child has the capacity to learn anything.

 

[blaaah]

I would imagine it is because the US prefer to decide on their own laws and not be bound to international agreements/treaties that may contradict them.

It could be, then does that make the rest of the world meek puppets to the UN? It's quite a big contrast the whole world of Nations on one side and just America and Somalia on the other. Would make great TV at the UN though seeing the two representatives with their countries names on the table then pan across to show the rest of the world.

 

[Northstar]

It could be, then does that make the rest of the world meek puppets to the UN? It's quite a big contrast the whole world of Nations on one side and just America and Somalia on the other. Would make great TV at the UN though seeing the two representatives with their countries names on the table then pan across to show the rest of the world.

It just means they think what the UN thinks is right for their country. I would guess there are certain laws not every country agrees with the UN on.

 

[Tornado]

It could be, then does that make the rest of the world meek puppets to the UN? It's quite a big contrast the whole world of Nations on one side and just America and Somalia on the other.

The U.S. isn't the only country that doesn't sign every U.N. treaty that goes across the table. In fact, I'd be surprised if you needed more than two hands to count U.N. treaties that every U.N. member in the world was a part of.

If preexisting domestic legislation precludes the ability to be a part of a U.N. treaty, or the people in your country don't want to be a part of a U.N. treaty, why would you sign it? They aren't compulsory, and not signing it doesn't mean that you explicitly don't do the things that the treaty talks about.
I know that a large portion of the treaties that the U.S. doesn't get involved with are due to the fact that the U.S. has legislation that basically does the same thing, but the U.N. treaty doesn't do it the way the U.S. would like or it doesn't include situations that the U.S. legislation does; making the U.S. law incompatible with the U.N. treaty.

 

[Duke]

It's against the whole worlds legal consensus on what is correct punishment for children, It's covered by the United Nations. If America was not a superpower it could be invaded and it's regime overthrown for this activity, which the world considers a crime punishment. That's an extreme point, but has context to the morally criminal aspect of US behaviour.
The UK has signed the UN treaty for protection of children, America has refused to.

So... please do explain exactly WHY the US (or any other country) is bound by a treaty it refuses to sign?

That would be like me going on Facebook and getting 10 million users to agree that you should give me your car, and then expecting you to actually give me your car even though you refused to agree to that contract.

 

[FoolKiller]

Thanks for that viewpoint. What would you say regarding the point in the way the US is behaving in regards to the United Nations protection of children treaty it refuses to sign?

Considering it is a 54 article convention and the life imprisonment thing is just one article (37 -a) I think it is unfair to suggest that this one issue is the reasoning behind not signing that treaty. I admit I didn't read the whole thing (it's 21 pages in Word) but if it is anything like the UN's so called list of human rights it probably is contradictory and redundant with a bunch of feel good rights.

But to take a wild guess. The treaty also requires healthcare to be provided and as we have a private health care system in place (at the moment) that alone would be enough to prevent us from being able to sign as it would require us to create a change in our health system that is far more drastic than what we are debating in the US now. I am sure there are a few other things like that thrown in there that would be impossible to implement under the US Constitution. And quite frankly, I hold the US Constitution higher than anything the UN can come up with.

I might also hazard a guess that we would be hesitant to sign any treaty that had optional protocols on children in the military, child prostitution, and child pornography. They are ratified now, but they weren't when it was drafted.

Honestly, life sentences for murder pale in comparison to saying maybe or maybe not on things like forced child prostitution. You don't get to stand on a soap box about rights when you leave the possibility of an out for something like that. Of course, I'd argue that you don't get to stand on a soap box about rights when you turn a blind eye to some of the stuff we see happen in various third-world countries.

We are who we will be by age 6 and if they don't know right from wrong by then, they never will.

Children should be held accountable for their actions just like anyone else.
10 years old sounds fair enough time to have experience with right and wrong.
7 isn't really even unreasonable depending on the child's environment.

So, would you say allowing children of this age to drink, smoke, drive, and even participate in sexual activity is fine? To claim anyone pre-puberty is thinking straight is a bit of a laugh to me. I clearly remember some of the crap I thought would be fine when I was far older than 10.

I'm just curious to what degree you would take this.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

So, would you say allowing children of this age to drink, smoke, drive, and even participate in sexual activity is fine? To claim anyone pre-puberty is thinking straight is a bit of a laugh to me. I clearly remember some of the crap I thought would be fine when I was far older than 10.

I'm just curious to what degree you would take this.

Drinking and smoking are bad for you at any age, the restrictions aren't so much about the judgement and decision making abilities as any one who decides to drink or smoke is obviously showing poor abilities, but more to do with the far more severe health impact upon an undeveloped physiology.

The fact is you spend your entire life honing your understanding of the rules of the game that is society. The kind of player you are in that game is pretty much finalised by the time your 10. Some one willing to steal at 10, is willing to steal at 40, the only change is their understanding of the risks involved and possibly a better feeling of empathy for their potential victims. And the same goes for a murderer. Prison isn't just about consequence and rehabilitation, it's also about removing from society that which can harm it. And even though the decisions of this kid to commit this crime may have been of an immature nature, the root ability to commit it is there to do so in cold blood given the right provocation.

 

[FoolKiller]

Some one willing to steal at 10, is willing to steal at 40, the only change is their understanding of the risks involved and possibly a better feeling of empathy for their potential victims. And the same goes for a murderer. Prison isn't just about consequence and rehabilitation, it's also about removing from society that which can harm it. And even though the decisions of this kid to commit this crime may have been of an immature nature, the root ability to commit it is there to do so in cold blood given the right provocation.

I think though that the ability to weigh those consequences must be taken into account when judging anyone's sentence for a crime. I don't kill in cold blood because I understand the moral consequences. Does a 10-year-old understand that concept?

Now, there is the possibility of a deeper damage being done by the act of killing someone before you are old enough to fully understand the consequences that can take you from selfish brat to danger to society as a whole, and that is why I am fully in favor of a re-evaluation at the age of consent, not just a paroled release.

I am not going to say he is innocent of anything, but I am not willing to accept that he is a culpable as I would be if I were to do the same thing.

 

[OG_Wretch]

So, would you say allowing children of this age to drink, smoke, drive, and even participate in sexual activity is fine? To claim anyone pre-puberty is thinking straight is a bit of a laugh to me. I clearly remember some of the crap I thought would be fine when I was far older than 10.

I'm just curious to what degree you would take this.

No, not straight thinking at all but certainly understanding of what is right/fair
and what is not if they have had any "home training" at all.
My 6 year old certainly does as did my 23 year old when she was that age.

I knew stealing was wrong as well as hurting others was wrong by age 5.
Didn't stop me from clouting another kindergartener in the coconut with a wooden block at that age
but then I wasn't quite 6 yet and hadn't seen blood flow like that before.
So, it became a matter of controlling my actions no matter how I felt...
...justified or not.
Should be the same for all concerned save the mentally impaired.

My understanding is that children have only feelings/emotion to draw from
until they start getting close to puberty when their experience starts to give them some logic
to build upon so they can reason effectively along with feel their way about.
It's why we as adults must take care of them for so long to guide their little paths safely.


The transition when hormones get introduced is the tricky part but we are talkiing about pre-pubescent killers here.

 

[Keef]

I think though that the ability to weigh those consequences must be taken into account when judging anyone's sentence for a crime. I don't kill in cold blood because I understand the moral consequences. Does a 10-year-old understand that concept?

Now, there is the possibility of a deeper damage being done by the act of killing someone before you are old enough to fully understand the consequences that can take you from selfish brat to danger to society as a whole, and that is why I am fully in favor of a re-evaluation at the age of consent, not just a paroled release.

I am not going to say he is innocent of anything, but I am not willing to accept that he is a culpable as I would be if I were to do the same thing.

What exactly would a revaluation accomplish? What's the purpose of them?

This case needs to be handled with care for sure. Kids learn a lot between the ages of 11 and 13, so he might realize now things that he didn't back then. But, that doesn't take away the fact that he apparently had a gun of his own and it being called a "hunting rifle" makes me think that he has probably gone hunting with his father and has indeed shot and killed animals before. He probably knows how gun safety relates to the gun itself, but maybe not everyone around it. He probably knows how to use it. He probably knows what death is. But maybe he was just being a mischievous little kid and didn't think that because the gun was designed to kill animals that it would also kill his mom. That sounds like some simple logic a kid would follow. This thing is for killing animals, not people, so it won't kill people, so I'm going to shoot my mom because it would scare her and be funny.

Maybe they should wait for the kid to grow up to put him in jail?

 

[FoolKiller]

What exactly would a revaluation accomplish? What's the purpose of them?

I addressed it above. If he has traumatically damaged his psyche to never get past this phase in psychological/emotional development then you need to find something to do with him to prevent his entering society, but is a full on prison life sentence the answer? Or should it be a mental hospital? Should a guy be getting prison raped at 35 for something he did when he was 10? If you think not, I still don't think we should just release them without making sure they won't be a danger to society.

Maybe they should wait for the kid to grow up to put him in jail?

Another point the OP missed. The US uses juvenile detention facilities until they are 18 under any case, then would transfer them to an actual prison.

But hey, The Guardian clearly did their research here, so who am I to question their judgment?

 

[Keef]

Ah, I see. If that's what the revaluation is for then they ought to be doing that for everybody!

I'm also curious as to how his mental development has been harmed by this event. It's certainly not what anybody would call normal, and for such an immature mind to have to deal with these mature concepts, surely there is some serious conflict going on in his head. The act itself must have been traumatizing even if he didn't realize it, and now all the court processes he has to go through? He might only have a very basic concept of what is going on and what could happen to him.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ah, I see. If that's what the revaluation is for then they ought to be doing that for everybody!

I'm also curious as to how his mental development has been harmed by this event. It's certainly not what anybody would call normal, and for such an immature mind to have to deal with these mature concepts, surely there is some serious conflict going on in his head. The act itself must have been traumatizing even if he didn't realize it, and now all the court processes he has to go through? He might only have a very basic concept of what is going on and what could happen to him.

And there is the possibility that his developmental state becomes stuck where he was when he committed the murder due to the trauma committing an act may cause.

The human brain is a crazy thing.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

I think though that the ability to weigh those consequences must be taken into account when judging anyone's sentence for a crime. I don't kill in cold blood because I understand the moral consequences. Does a 10-year-old understand that concept?

And that's what the trial is for. If it can be shown that he wasn't of sound mind and fully understanding of his actions, he wouldn't be charged with 1st degree murder in much the same way that a mentally handicapped adult wouldn't.

If however it can be shown that he fully understood that what he was doing would result in loss of life, and that he had a calculated motive for doing it, regardless of how immature it is then simply not understanding the legal/moral consequences of his actions wouldn't excuse him, as when he is an adult he would still have that within him, he would just understand the need to get away with it more.

 

[DK]

I'm expecting that arsehole lawyer Jack Thompson to come up any second now and blame this on Grand Theft Auto.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm expecting that arsehole lawyer Jack Thompson to come up any second now and blame this on Grand Theft Auto.

He's no longer a lawyer.

 

[Ibonibo]

I'm expecting that arsehole lawyer Jack Thompson to come up any second now and blame this on Grand Theft Auto.

That made me chuckle dispite the serious theme talked here.

He's no longer a lawyer.

Didn't he even get problems, because he was really bad at his job? ( he got his liscence revoked? )

As for the case i have mixed feelings about it and as i don't know enough of the case i can't really comment about it.