I know that up to a certain age, kids who kill people are most likely not aware of what they've done, do not realize the full extent of consequences for their actions, but I do believe that line has to be drawn long before the teen years.

Let us not forget the Jamie Bulger case, 2 10 year old boys find a 2 year old in the mall, kidnap him, take him off somewhere where they can be alone, they torture and sexually assault him, then murder him, then go home and when they're caught, each cries and blames the other. They get sentenced to 20 years, get out in 10 with new identities and a chance to go to college. These boys also stole from stores in the mall the objects which they used to torture and sodomize the 2 year old with, that's not premeditation? That's not appreciation for their actions? I don't buy that they didn't know it was wrong because I knew when I was 3 that if you kill somebody, first you go to jail, and then you go to hell. Unless these 10 year olds are feral and have been raised by wolves their whole lives, they are going to know that and shouldn't get a slap on the wrist just because they haven't hit puberty.

AGE AIN'T NOTHING BUT A NUMBER!!! When kids commit crimes and think that they could get away with it because of their age, this is where they need to meet Bubba and for him to show the little boys how the big boys roll.

This is so hard for me to take a stand on. The case you detail is extreme for the age of 10. The average 10 year old has committed a murder has done so by accident or acts in cold blood due to being a product of his environment.

I think for extreme crimes like the one you cited, the courts should keep them behind bars for more than ten years. Also, young killers should be evaluated very well to see if they should be kept in state mental hospitals after their time has been served.

I guess I can't say it shouldn't be a factor but it really shouldn't be a heavy weighing one. Murder is murder.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I guess I can't say it shouldn't be a factor but it really shouldn't be a heavy weighing one. Murder is murder.

Indeed and a case like Jamie Bulger, you can't say that's an accident, not by ANY stretch of the imagination.

RedBedroom wrote:

This is so hard for me to take a stand on. The case you detail is extreme for the age of 10. The average 10 year old has committed a murder has done so by accident or acts in cold blood due to being a product of his environment.

I think for extreme crimes like the one you cited, the courts should keep them behind bars for more than ten years. Also, young killers should be evaluated very well to see if they should be kept in state mental hospitals after their time has been served.

I agree....10 and under, I can take into consideration. But if they're pubescent on up, they gotta be fully charged, especially if it was premeditated/calculated.

Shale wrote:

I agree with this and am appalled that ppl have a problem with how to deal with the little sociopaths.

The Supreme Court just ruled that teen murderers can't be given a life sentence because it was too severe. YET, the person they killed won't get any gain time off from being dead now will they?

We normal ppl all went thru childhood and adolescence without torturing or murdering others. There is a norm here and those who prove to be sociopathic should never again live in society.

RedBedroom wrote:

This is so hard for me to take a stand on. The case you detail is extreme for the age of 10. The average 10 year old has committed a murder has done so by accident or acts in cold blood due to being a product of his environment.

I think for extreme crimes like the one you cited, the courts should keep them behind bars for more than ten years. Also, young killers should be evaluated very well to see if they should be kept in state mental hospitals after their time has been served.