Kids that old are old enough to know the difference and understand the consequences of their actions should be charged and sentenced as adults.

UncleBob,

I have no intention of starting a fight with you on the boards, or of insulting you, but if this boy tried to kill you and acted like that, then someone went tragically wrong somewhere in his upbringing to date. I've studied child psychology and been helping raise boys for the last 14 years - mainly due to parental neglect and overall failing to provide on their part. Kids simply don't act like that out of the blue. SOMEONE in the parental scene there has definitely screwed up badly at some point in time - and it sounds like YOU got left with the pieces.

For that, I am truly sorry.

But the most painful thing about the King brothers' case is that what happened is so obvious, and so glaring that it's absolutely ridiculous to think that these boys committed said crime WITHOUT serious coaching from the man who's walking free of it. So in answer to your question about these boys (the Kings) my answer is NO. I am convinced from what I've seen and read that they are not to blame. As a formerly abused child (via my stepfather), as I mentioned earlier, the power that this man obviously had/has over them is unbelievable.

UncleBob (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2002 9:37 am And if the little SOB had succeeded in killing either one of us, I would feel a lot better knowing he was going to be tried as an adult and get a long jail sentence, rather than spend a couple years in a juvenile detention place at best.

Now this comment REALLY bothers me. If you truly feel this way about the boy, with such a callous condemnation and dismissal, then I certainly hope that he's been permanently removed from your immediate environment. Hello, anyone interested (like maybe, you?) as to WHY he acted like this? I seriously doubt if he was born that way, trying to kill the doctor as he delivered him.

In rebuttal, as you said earlier, I can only say this : Does anyone out there actually believe that a long jail sentence, spanning most of his life, and these important early years, is going to do anything GOOD for him?

OK, now for my two cents.

It seems to me that the real miscarriage of justice here lies in the let's-keep-trying-people-until-we-convict-someone mentality of the prosecutor. It's painfully obvious that he's just making sure that he can claim a high percentage of crimes "solved" and convicted.

The trouble is, prosecutors are supposed to be serving justice, and not simply seeking convictions. They swear an oath to protect the rights of ALL citizens, including those suspected of a crime. Given the way he argued the two cases, that certainly didn't happen in this case. Justice is not served by presenting different sides of a case, depending on who's on trial. It's the law's duty to define what happened, and prosecute that, and only that. Shotgunning a case doesn't fly.

Prosecutors simply have WAY too much power in this country, and they're often completely out of control. Just take a look at the witch hunts of the 80's and it becomes undeniable. I think the only thing that will stop prosecutorial misconduct is to impose criminal penalties for it. If prosecutors have a genuine fear of personal liability for such shenanigans, they'll not take the risk.

As for trying kids as adults, remember that developmental psychologists have for decades recognized that development of the ability to fully appreciate the seriousness and consequences of an act may take as long as age 15 or so to develop. That was why we devised the juvenlie justice system in the first place. Now we're abandoning it, not because it doesn't work, but because a bunch of fanatical hand-wringers whine about the danger to society such kids present. Well yes, there are young predators -- but patricide is not typically the act of a child who poses a threat to the rest of society. It's usually far more personal and exclusive than that.

The neighbor who encouraged the boys to commit the act should at least be charged as an accessory to murder.

When I was a child and teen, my parents knew what I was doing most of the time and my dad would taken action to correct me long before I got that involved with the neighbor. No matter how unfair I considered my parents to be, they were the authority figures and I had to accept their decisions.

How times have changed! Parents had the right and were the authority - not the kids.

What trully pisses me off is parents no longer have the right to SPANK thier own child.

You spank your child and it's called child abuse and YOU as the parent go to jail for abusing a child.

Now why would a parent take the risk of jail for spanking thier child, when they can just let thier kid go out and kill and let our trial system punish the kid, so the parent can stay free?

Erik (imported) wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2002 10:14 am What trully pisses me off is parents no longer have the right to SPANK thier own child.

You spank your child and it's called child abuse and YOU as the parent go to jail for abusing a child.

Now why would a parent take the risk of jail for spanking thier child, when they can just let thier kid go out and kill and let our trial system punish the kid, so the parent can stay free?

It pisses me off, too. The reason it happens is because it's people's feelings that are driving the laws, not their brains. Too few people actually think about the potential effects of a law before they lobby for it, and politicians, being the whores they are, happliy oil the squeaky wheels. And we get bad laws.

You may have seen the news story about a just-released study that found that the "three strikes" laws actually increase the murder rate. The public, reacting to whatever horrific, but quite rare, crime, pushed for what felt right, and never thought about the fact that anyone with two felonies on his record -- and minor drug busts are still felonies -- are going to be very tempted to kill any witnesses, or cops.

Well Du-u-u-h! Any four year old could have figured that one out, if only he took the time to think things through to their logical conclusion. Anyway, that's why the legal system seems so insane sometimes.

The Legal System

There was a case here where the parents were found guilty of child abuse for disciplining their teen son. Then, they were subsequently found legally and financially responsible for crimes that he committed.

No wonder kids are so bad.

For those following the King trial this link might be of interest:

http://justice4kids.org/

ringlo

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - A judge Thursday threw out the convictions of two boys, ages 13 and 14, in the slaying of their father, who

Erik (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:23 pm was bludgeoned with a baseball bat as he slept.

Circuit Judge Frank Bell said the boys' rights were violated by the "unusual and bizarre" way prosecutors simultaneously argued two contradictory theories of the crime.

Prosecutors won the conviction of Alex and Derek King last month by arguing that Derek swung the bat. But in a trial that ended a week earlier, they argued that an adult friend of the boys committed the crime.

The judge said he will order a new trial for the boys, and in the meantime will encourage the prosecution and defense to work out a deal.

The brothers were facing prison terms of 20 years to life because they were tried as adults. They were convicted

Erik (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:23 pm of second-degree murder without a weapon,

as well as arson, for setting the house on fire to cover the crime.

"We're all ecstatic," said Linda Walker, the boys' maternal grandmother. "I saw Derek smile. I think they're happy about it. Now they know they've got hope."

The brothers' lawyers argued that prosecutor David Rimmer committed prosecutorial misconduct for pursuing the contradictory theories.

The boys' adult friend, convicted child molester Ricky Chavis, was acquitted, but the verdict was sealed until the boys' trial was over.

Jurors in the boys' trial said that they believed Chavis was the real killer and that the brothers had only helped him commit the crime.

Rimmer defended his handling of the two trials. He said he never actually argued Chavis was the killer, and instead left it to jurors to decide.

Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida, said the judge made the right decision. He said the judge recognized a need to rectify an appearance of injustice, if not actual injustice, in the way prosecutors pursued conflicting cases.

"To many people, that smacked of risking inconsistent verdicts and allowing convictions when in fact there really wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt," the professor said.

Alex was 12 and Derek 13 last November when their father was killed in nearby Cantonment. Terry King, 40, was clubbed in the head with an aluminum baseball bat as he dozed in a recliner.

Prosecutors said the boys did it because their father was too controlling and they wanted to live with Chavis, who let them smoke marijuana and stay up late watching television.

Before Thursday's hearing, jury forewoman Lynne Schwarz said at a courthouse rally that she never thought the verdict would result in prison time for the boys.

"We always thought that there was going to be some kind of rehabilitation, that the boys were going to be taken somewhere where they could have a new life and learn to be productive citizens," said Schwarz, 52. "We never thought that these boys committed the crime. Never."

Jurors were shocked when they found out a separate jury had acquitted Chavis a week before the boys were tried.

Perhaps there's still hope for Florida. The state might yet secure a place in the modern civilised world!

PUEROS