Eight year old boy being charged with murder.
Crap, when I was eight years old, I had trouble with the notion that animals couldn't really talk to each other. I was, like, "what's the point of them living if they can't talk to each other?" Anybody who thinks an eight year old can really understand what murder is or that shooting someone with a gun will get a different result than when Elmer Fudd shot Daffy Duck is daffier than Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd combined. They're loonier than loony tunes.
But that's the nation we live in now, where a kid who gets ahold of a gun and shoots a couple of people gets charged with murder -- instead of that kid's parents, who left said gun where kid could get ahold of it. Sigh.
-- Badtux the Insanity-knowin' Penguin
What's next? Embryo lynching? Oh,...never mind.
ReplyDeleteIs an 8 year old competent to stand trial? No.
ReplyDeleteThis has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.
Amen, James. It's not like this is a hard question to answer. Sheesh.
ReplyDelete-- Badtux the Not-stupid Penguin
While I do agree we are getting ridiculous with charging children with adult crimes, you can't simply discount age 8. There is a famous case you learn in Torts in law school: Garratt v Dailey - about an intentional tort that was upheld where the defendant was a five year old. The five year old pulled a chair out from under an older relative as she was slowly sitting down (she was old and had arthritis or something) and so she fell and hit the pavement. She was awarded $11,000 in damages against the five year old, a not insignificant amount for the year - 1951. (The appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington that is the case we studied was decided in 1955).
ReplyDeleteDBB, there's a big difference between a civil lawsuit, where the question is, "who is responsible for paying for these damages?", and a criminal charge. Crap, in a civil lawsuit you don't even need to be *sentient* to lose. For example, "State of Louisiana v. 1974 Chevrolet Impala". (A civil forfeiture case, where the Chevrolet Impala confiscated from an accused drug runner, being somewhat incapable of mounting a defense, ended up as property of the Sheriff's department). I can very well see a 5 year old being held responsible for paying for damages in a civil court (though of course the court will go after the 5 year old's financial support -- the parents -- for collection of the judgement). I mean, it makes no less sense than a judgement against a Chevrolet Impala, right?
ReplyDeleteBut anyhow, criminal cases are different. We're not talking about money anymore, we're talking about depriving someone of their liberty. And the general standard is that you can't deprive someone of their liberty unless they're competent to understand the crime of which they're accused. Which, in the case of an 8 year old accused of murder for finding a .22 rifle in the closet and pointing it at a couple of people and pulling the trigger and killing them, is a no-brainer -- the answer is no. An 8 year old is not competent to understand that life is not a Daffy Duck / Elmer Fudd skit. Sheesh.
- Badtux the Competent Penguin
I know there is a difference between civil and criminal, but if you are just talking about competency, there is no cut-off at 8 years old - the cut-off for competency seems to be 4 years old and younger. Making the standard of proof higher in criminal trials doesn't change the test for competency. The big difference is that there is a juvenile system for criminal.
ReplyDeleteLike it or lump it, that's the law - which of late has gotten pretty draconian on all counts.
if you are just talking about competency, there is no cut-off at 8 years old
ReplyDeleteAre you sure? I mean, an 8-yr-old can't sign a contract or vote. Being the cause of damages, or even having caused damages intentionally, is different than being competent to stand trial or to be charged with a crime. That's my lay-assessment, of course; law isn't my thing.
I have been following this case, though, and the video-taped confession will likely be thrown out because it is absolutely against the law to coerce a confession from a child without parental or legal representation present at the time of questioning.
On a personal note, my heart goes out to that poor little boy. How many of us did things when we were kids and were immediately shocked by the outcome? I know someone who attempted to de-rail a trolley. Fortunately he was caught before he could do any damage, but I asked him what on earth he could have been thinking, and he said that he thought it would be cool; like a movie. He seriously could have killed someone. Kids have no concept of consequences; they act without thinking, and aren't even capable of "thinking" in the same way adults are.