Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mekh]

Ethan Crumbley is so fucked his parents might feel it.

I don't go to bat for spree killers, but I feel like trying him as an adult and suing his parents should be mutually exclusive.

[Breccia]

I don't go to bat for spree killers, but I feel like trying him as an adult and suing his parents should be mutually exclusive.

Certainly their lawyers can/should argue such. And while I'm no expert, I think that could fail. Being tried as an adult is a consequence of how malevolent the crime was, including the pre-planning. Leaving a loaded gun where someone that disturbed and that ready to kill people could find it isn't necessarily an age-related issue.

Also, it sounds like a really stupid idea for the parents to try that defense before a jury. "Your Honor, we're being charged with child endangerment, but the state would say that this child was so ridiculously disturbed and dangerous that we actually endangered a psychotic prepared murdering adult."

It depends what the state charges them with, and how. Certainly it's child endangerment when the children involved are the schoolchildren their insane son murdered with the father's gun.

[Mekh]

Parents should go to jail for accessory to murder.

Oh, and universal background checks for these gun nuts that can't even lock their shit up right.

Sure, but try the child as a child then.

[Mekh]

Why?

I mean, this is less a gun question than a law question, but what's the point of juvenile court, if you can put literally anyone on trial as an adult if people just get emotional enough? Facts shouldn't care about feelings, which includes the facts found by developmental psychology.

[Draco-Onis]

Parents should go to jail for accessory to murder.

Oh, and universal background checks for these gun nuts that can't even lock their shit up right.

They will surely lose a civil case but it would be near impossible to pass a criminal case against them it would fall under willful negligence even then the punishment would be a slap on the wrist.

[Mekh]

If a kid shoots up a place and kills others, yes he/she/they should be trialed as an adult and face much harsher consequences.

15 year olds are adults now? Then he could have bought his own gun.

[Orange Joe]

I mean, this is less a gun question than a law question, but what's the point of juvenile court, if you can put literally anyone on trial as an adult if people just get emotional enough? Facts shouldn't care about feelings, which includes the facts found by developmental psychology.

Either way what does that have to do with charging his parent?

[Easo]

Trying him as an adult is debatable. Either someone is an adult or he is not, we are not at point where we judge everyone individually (which would be preferable, as people are not all the same). I would say the decision has little to do with laws and more with emotional kneejerk reaction to him killing 4 people aka there must be harsh punishment no matter what.

[Orange Joe]

The general reason why they are trying him as an adult and not a kid is because when charged as a kid they can't do much more than slap his hands.


Do you want this person out in 2-3 years if that?

[Mekh]

The general reason why they are trying him as an adult and not a kid is because when charged as a kid they can't do much more than slap his hands.


Do you want this person out in 2-3 years if that?

I'm still looking for a more recent source, but I have found an article from 2011 about Michigan having more juvenile -life sentences- than almost any other state.

[Draco-Onis]

Trying him as an adult is debatable. Either someone is an adult or he is not, we are not at point where we judge everyone individually (which would be preferable, as people are not all the same). I would say the decision has little to do with laws and more with emotional kneejerk reaction to him killing 4 people aka there must be harsh punishment no matter what.

Mass murder is usually one of the reasons to trial someone as an adult even worse when it's pre meditated nothing about it seems to be a kneejerk reaction.

[Easo]

The general reason why they are trying him as an adult and not a kid is because when charged as a kid they can't do much more than slap his hands.


Do you want this person out in 2-3 years if that?

It's not what I want, but I can naively live with that. But let me bite - why even separate then? What's the point if you give harsh sentences anyway? It would de facto change nothing in the end.

Mass murder is usually one of the reasons to trial someone as an adult even worse when it's pre meditated nothing about it seems to be a kneejerk reaction.

Not what I asked. It again goes back into why even separate then. Either there are kids and adults, or there are not in judicial sense.

[Orange Joe]

It's not what I want, but I can naively live with that. But let me bite - why even separate then? What's the point if you give harsh sentences anyway? It would de facto change nothing in the end.

Because when they are younger, Generally under 13, rehabilitation is the main focus, not punishment. With adults the focus is punishment not rehabilitation.

You say it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a kid thinking about shooting up a school and living afterwords. If the person before you got a slap on the wrist and let go would that encourage you or dissuade you?

Now


If you were a kid thinking about shooting up a school and living afterwords. If the person before you got 20-life would that encourage you or dissuade you?

[Endus]

Trying him as an adult is debatable. Either someone is an adult or he is not, we are not at point where we judge everyone individually (which would be preferable, as people are not all the same). I would say the decision has little to do with laws and more with emotional kneejerk reaction to him killing 4 people aka there must be harsh punishment no matter what.

It shouldn't be a choice that gets made.

If they're a child, they're a child, and should face the juvenile version of the consequences. If there should be crimes where this is not possible, write that into the law, rather than making it prosecutorial/judicial discretion (can't recall which offhand, doesn't matter to my point). If you'd think a sliding scale would be better than a binary division, write that into the law; maybe you need a "juvenile" court system for 0-13, and an "adolescent" for 13-17.

Making it a choice just makes every instance where they choose to try a child as an adult come off as vindictive and emotional, rather than interested in the rights of the accused and in justice in general. This is part of the point of the whole "justice is blind" thing.

I definitely don't think eliminating juvenile procedures and penalties is right, but the phrase "try this child as an adult" should be one that people get shocked and horrified by, not something they applaud. Maybe murder, or even just multiple murder, needs to be an exception to the rules here and you're charged as an adult regardless of your actual age. Just write that shit into the law so it isn't an emotional response, but just how the law works.

[Easo]

Because when they are younger, Generally under 13, rehabilitation is the main focus, not punishment. With adults the focus is punishment not rehabilitation.

You say it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a kid thinking about shooting up a school and living afterwords. If the person before you got a slap on the wrist and let go would that encourage you or dissuade you?

Now


If you were a kid thinking about shooting up a school and living afterwords. If the person before you got 20-life would that encourage you or dissuade you?

Well, we are not talking about under 13 and he regardless still is not an adult in eyes of law... But he is going to be judged as one which is what I dislike. And until changes into law get made which makes exceptions like Endus noted or we do really judge every single case individually this should not happen, no matter how much some might dislike it. I will agree that yes, rarely anyone wants to see a killer of 4 people go free after couple of years, it is not perfect.

[Endus]

Well, we are not talking about under 13 and he regardless still is not an adult in eyes of law... But he is going to be judged as one which is what I dislike. And until changes into law get made which makes exceptions like Endus noted or we do really judge every single case individually this should not happen, no matter how much some might dislike it. I will agree that yes, rarely anyone wants to see a killer of 4 people go free after couple of years, it is not perfect.

Like, to be clear, I'm not taking a position on whether any particular case should be treated one way or the other.

I'm stating that if you have a system that divides justice between a juvenile and an adult system, there shouldn't be any way you can "upgrade" a juvenile to the adult system. If you think there should be a sliding scale, then there aren't two systems, there's three or more. If you think it should be related to context, objectively determine what contexts and write those into the law.

To me, the idea of trying a 16-year-old "as an adult" is equally asinine as choosing to try a 20-year old as a juvenile, because he's kind of childish. Do we ever do that? No? Then why the other way around? It just seems like an emotional response, rather than one rooted in any sense of appropriate justice. There shouldn't be any "choice" in the matter. The circumstances should dictate how the case should be prosecuted. In these cases, the context is that the accused is a child, but that context is ignored, and the explanation is mostly a desire to see the accused be punished more severely. And that's kinda gross.

I have further issues with how binary the system currently is, but my central point is that these kinds of decisions should emerge from the facts, not from prosecutorial discretion. Discretion should be allowed to lessen the severity, but not escalate.

[Orange Joe]

Well, we are not talking about under 13 and he regardless still is not an adult in eyes of law... But he is going to be judged as one which is what I dislike. And until changes into law get made which makes exceptions like Endus noted or we do really judge every single case individually this should not happen, no matter how much some might dislike it. I will agree that yes, rarely anyone wants to see a killer of 4 people go free after couple of years, it is not perfect.

I didn't say you were talking about under 13. I'm explaining the way it works. 13 is generally the age were kids go from not being able to be responsible for anything to having some responsibility for their own actions. And no 13 is not some hard set in stone number.

I wouldn't be against changing how it work but atm this is how it works now. If people want it to change they need to vote in those that will change it.

- - - Updated - - -

Like, to be clear, I'm not taking a position on whether any particular case should be treated one way or the other.

I'm stating that if you have a system that divides justice between a juvenile and an adult system, there shouldn't be any way you can "upgrade" a juvenile to the adult system. If you think there should be a sliding scale, then there aren't two systems, there's three or more. If you think it should be related to context, objectively determine what contexts and write those into the law.

To me, the idea of trying a 16-year-old "as an adult" is equally asinine as choosing to try a 20-year old as a juvenile, because he's kind of childish. Do we ever do that? No? Then why the other way around? It just seems like an emotional response, rather than one rooted in any sense of appropriate justice. There shouldn't be any "choice" in the matter. The circumstances should dictate how the case should be prosecuted. In these cases, the context is that the accused is a child, but that context is ignored, and the explanation is mostly a desire to see the accused be punished more severely. And that's kinda gross.

I have further issues with how binary the system currently is, but my central point is that these kinds of decisions should emerge from the facts, not from prosecutorial discretion. Discretion should be allowed to lessen the severity, but not escalate.

Just curious but what is wrong with having 3 systems? Who says it has to be 2 systems?

[Endus]

Just curious but what is wrong with having 3 systems? Who says it has to be 2 systems?

Nothing. I said further down that I have issues with how binary the current systems are (and that's not unique to the US). Just that a "sliding scale" type thing for teenagers makes it into "not two systems" thing any more; the "slide" is a third system.

The central issue is that the binary adult/juvenile break is significant, and that means fringe cases "feel" unjust. But we also see 13-year olds tried as adults, which is excessive, and we never see adults tried as juveniles. It's too much individual discretion, and it's only in one direction, which is bias. A third intermediary system could even out the leap in severity of sentences, or an objectively-determinable system beyond simply age could at least make these decisions objective rather than trivially opinion-based. Something. The current system is pretty garbage. Which is why you constantly feel the need to "try this child as an adult".

[Mekh]

Just curious but what is wrong with having 3 systems? Who says it has to be 2 systems?

I think @Endus doesn't object to having 3 systems, but he wants them to be actual systems with written guidelines and not the whole thing being up to the whims of a DA.

[Orange Joe]

Nothing. I said further down that I have issues with how binary the current systems are (and that's not unique to the US). Just that a "sliding scale" type thing for teenagers makes it into "not two systems" thing any more; the "slide" is a third system.

The central issue is that the binary adult/juvenile break is significant, and that means fringe cases "feel" unjust. But we also see 13-year olds tried as adults, which is excessive, and we never see adults tried as juveniles. It's too much individual discretion, and it's only in one direction, which is bias. A third intermediary system could even out the leap in severity of sentences, or an objectively-determinable system beyond simply age could at least make these decisions objective rather than trivially opinion-based. Something. The current system is pretty garbage. Which is why you constantly feel the need to "try this child as an adult".

I think @Endus doesn't object to having 3 systems, but he wants them to be actual systems with written guidelines and not the whole thing being up to the whims of a DA.

From what I understand there are guidlines and it's not just abitrary.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...as-adults.html

• The type or nature of the crime is so serious that it is believed that the juvenile should be treated like an adult;
• The juvenile clearly understood the very serious nature of the crime and the consequences of the crime;
• The juvenile has a history of committing similar serious crimes; and
• The juvenile has been tried by a court as an adult before. This is sometimes called the “once an adult, always an adult rule.” Once a juvenile has been tried as an adult, they will likely be considered an adult in court if they commit crimes in the future.

How Old Must a Juvenile Be in Order to Be Tried in Adult Court?

Again, the rules about the age of a minor being tried as an adult change depending on the state you are in. The specific minimum age when a minor can be tried as an adult changes by state. For example, in California, any juvenile over the age of 14 can be tried as an adult. However, in other states, a minor as young as 13 can be tried as an adult. Some states do not allow a minor below the age of 15 to be tried as an adult. The law in your state sets the minimum age for a juvenile to be tried as an adult.