Support NeoGAF

[Tazznum1]

Says who? I didn't realize you were a psychiatrist.

Check the tag.

 

[Loki]

Another point is, long term thinking is a late development of the brain in growing up. When you are a child, no matter what you have been taught and learned, your brain is physically incapable of thinking about long term future consequences. Hell when I was that young, 5 minutes from now was a long ass time away.

This is factually accurate. Numerous psychological studies based on the Piagetian model of cognitive development have shown that children enter what is termed the "formal operations" stage from ages 11-15, only fully emerging from it towards the latter end of that period. In addition, many people (even into adulthood) never fully "master" this stage, which involves a tremendous increase in abstract reasoning ability as well as the first glimmer of the ability to plan for the future and to be fully cognizant of the implications of one's actions in a temporal sense (i.e., the permanence of certain actions/states, such as death/injury).


(Incidentally, this is also why I am generally opposed to condoning sex between children under 15-16 years of age-- their critical and emotional faculties just aren't appreciably developed yet; I'm consistent in this regard)


Consequently, I am generally not in favor of treating anyone under the age of, say, 16 as an adult in criminal matters regardless of the severity of the crime. These people should be detained, obviously, but in a mental health facility as opposed to an adult prison. I'm not averse to the idea of rehabilitating young criminals (again < 16-17 years old), and I feel we should do our best to understand the conditions, both social and personal, which led them to commit their crimes, for society's future benefit. These children should obviously be enisled from the rest of society for a good long while (many years), and should not be released until numerous psychological evaluations are made by professionals; ideally, they'd be eased back into society by moving from a maximum security mental health facility to less secure institutions where children in rehab are allowed to mingle, so as to get a better feel for their social competency before full release.


I am not, however, in favor of rehabilitation for adult murderers and pedophiles (though I can generally support the idea for every other sort of crime), and feel that they should never be released from prison. This is because, for murderers, the risk is too great-- I've read too many stories, including one in the paper today, of murderers paroled for "good behavior" who go on to kill again. The rights and safety of innocent people clearly trump any human rights (right to freedom etc.) you may feel the non-innocent murderer still possesses. For pedophiles, it's because numerous studies have shown a > 90% recidivism rate (more than twice as high as "normal" rapists) once released, even after extensive counseling; I'm not about to take that risk when children's lives and health are at stake. It's a cost-benefit analysis, undoubtedly, but one that I feel quite comfortable making.

 

[Flynn]

This is factually accurate. Numerous psychological studies based on the Piagetian model of cognitive development have shown that children enter what is termed the "formal operations" stage from ages 11-15, only fully emerging from it towards the latter end of that period. In addition, many people (even into adulthood) never fully "master" this stage, which involves a tremendous increase in abstract reasoning ability as well as the first glimmer of the ability to plan for the future and to be fully cognizant of the implications of one's actions in a temporal sense (i.e., the permanence of certain actions/states, such as death/injury).


(Incidentally, this is also why I am generally opposed to condoning sex between children under 15-16 years of age-- their critical and emotional faculties just aren't appreciably developed yet; I'm consistent in this regard)


Consequently, I am generally not in favor of treating anyone under the age of, say, 16 as an adult in criminal matters regardless of the severity of the crime. These people should be detained, obviously, but in a mental health facility as opposed to an adult prison. I'm not averse to the idea of rehabilitating young criminals (again < 16-17 years old), and I feel we should do our best to understand the conditions, both social and personal, which led them to commit their crimes, for society's future benefit. These children should obviously be enisled from the rest of society for a good long while (many years), and should not be released until numerous psychological evaluations are made by professionals; ideally, they'd be eased back into society by moving from a maximum security mental health facility to less secure institutions where children in rehab are allowed to mingle, so as to get a better feel for their social competency before full release.


I am not, however, in favor of rehabilitation for adult murderers and pedophiles (though I can generally support the idea for every other sort of crime), and feel that they should never be released from prison. This is because, for murderers, the risk is too great-- I've read too many stories, including one in the paper today, of murderers paroled for "good behavior" who go on to kill again. The rights and safety of innocent people clearly trump any human rights (right to freedom etc.) you may feel the non-innocent murderer still possesses. For pedophiles, it's because numerous studies have shown a > 90% recidivism rate (more than twice as high as "normal" rapists) once released, even after extensive counseling; I'm not about to take that risk when children's lives and health are at stake. It's a cost-benefit analysis, undoubtedly, but one that I feel quite comfortable making.

You're in the wrong thread.

Please report to the quartermaster for your dispersment of a pitchfork, torch and lynching rope.

 

[Tarazet]

Flynn, no, I'm still not convinced that you adequately comprehended and responded to what I said. It's like you're responding to invisible words in addition to what I actually wrote..

 

[Flynn]

Flynn, no, I'm still not convinced that you adequately comprehended and responded to what I said. It's like you're responding to invisible words in addition to what I actually wrote..

Then you'd better stop typing invisible words.

 

[Tarazet]

:lol

Seriously, if I was to follow your direction anyway, if I thought my kid was going to be violent, I'd level with him. I'd let him know that I was a bitter, repressed kid who was prone to fits of rage, too, that I had been there and I eventually just had to quash it myself, or risk getting into some serious shit.

 

[luxsol]

This is factually accurate. Numerous psychological studies based on the Piagetian model of cognitive development have shown that children enter what is termed the "formal operations" stage from ages 11-15, only fully emerging from it towards the latter end of that period. In addition, many people (even into adulthood) never fully "master" this stage, which involves a tremendous increase in abstract reasoning ability as well as the first glimmer of the ability to plan for the future and to be fully cognizant of the implications of one's actions in a temporal sense (i.e., the permanence of certain actions/states, such as death/injury).


(Incidentally, this is also why I am generally opposed to condoning sex between children under 15-16 years of age-- their critical and emotional faculties just aren't appreciably developed yet; I'm consistent in this regard)

Please, at around age eight kids begin to understand what death entails, that it's a permanent thing. The "concrete operation" is when they can begin understand the world around them and they aren't thinking about themselves only. They think they're immortal, it won't happen to them (the thought doesn't even occur to them), nor that it can happen at any time, but they sure as hell understand its permanence (to others). If he had shot his grandparents wildly or without aim, he may not have been tried as adult, but because he purposely aimed at a place that causes death instantly (and again to make sure) it only shows that he knew what the hell he was doing and what would happen (which is why he tried to get rid of the evidence and ran away). He wanted his grandparents dead but he sure as hell didn't have a good plan on what would happen afterward.
So do you want to try him for not having a good plan on what to do afterward or plan ahead better to make it seem like someone else came into the house to kill his grandparents? Because his lack of theoretical reasoning (planning ahead) is the only part that should be held in a juvenile court =P

And it's not like this kid is going to rot in jail. They will send him to counselors to give him the help he needs, he'll also get an education and all the medication he wants.

 

[BlackClouds]

You people are really quick on the trigger. I'm not typically angry against Americans, but you're now proving you just deserve that right-wing redneck heading your country towards bankruptcy and moral, social, and global failure.

I totally agree with this statement, except that the world will go down with US. Bring on the draft.

 

[Loki]

Please, at around age eight kids begin to understand what death entails, that it's a permanent thing. The "concrete operation" is when they can begin understand the world around them and they aren't thinking about themselves only. They think they're immortal, it won't happen to them (the thought doesn't even occur to them), nor that it can happen at any time, but they sure as hell understand its permanence (to others). If he had shot his grandparents wildly or without aim, he may not have been tried as adult, but because he purposely aimed at a place that causes death instantly (and again to make sure) it only shows that he knew what the hell he was doing and what would happen (which is why he tried to get rid of the evidence and ran away). He wanted his grandparents dead but he sure as hell didn't have a good plan on what would happen afterward.
So do you want to try him for not having a good plan on what to do afterward or plan ahead better to make it seem like someone else came into the house to kill his grandparents? Because his lack of theoretical reasoning (planning ahead) is the only part that should be held in a juvenile court =P

And it's not like this kid is going to rot in jail. They will send him to counselors to give him the help he needs, he'll also get an education and all the medication he wants.

You're correct in that object permanence begins to manifest at around age 7-8, and that children can comprehend death in a limited sense at that age, but that's somewhat different than fully understanding its implications, which doesn't take place until about 11-12 on average. You're also correct in that the concrete operations stage is when abstract reasoning first appears; should we not wait until these faculties are adequately developed before treating people like adults? As for the rest of my points, about not being able to properly prepare for the future or appreciate the consequences (for oneself and for others) of one's actions until the formal operations stage (on average), they stand. These views are supported by a mountain of evidence, and no offense, but I'm not going to sit here and argue them when a cursory review of any academic journal will tell you the same thing.


I just don't feel comfortable treating children under the age of roughly 16 the same way we treat adults-- and I'm as "hard on crime" as they come, believe me. That said, I'm obviously not for "kid gloves" in this instance (pun intended), since I do feel that he should be detained for quite a long time (10-15 years imo), but not in an adult prison, and not without receiving the proper psychiatric care. Adult murderers, I couldn't give a shit less-- they're entitled to nothing beyond sustenance imo. Also keep in mind that if this child, after those years, is deemed to have a serious sociopathic disorder (e.g., antisocial personality disorder), which is almost always genetically based and irremediable in most instances, I am fully in favor of keeping that person detained, possibly forever. However, if the cause was determined to "merely" be "faulty social acclimation", then with the proper care, and assuming he passes all the pertinent evaluations, I am generally in favor of releasing that child after 10-15 years or so, probably towards the latter end of that range given the severity of the crime.

 

[Tazznum1]

He even told the police afterwards that grandma and pa still deserved it. Awww, makes me want to have a kid.

 

[Ramirez]

Holy shit,why are people defending this shithead?

Hell,we all probably know by the age of 5 or 6 that if we kill our family and burn the house down its wrong,much less 12!

 

[luxsol]

You're correct in that object permanence begins to manifest at around age 7-8, and that children can comprehend death in a limited sense at that age, but that's somewhat different than fully understanding its implications, which doesn't take place until about 11-12 on average. You're also correct in that the concrete operations stage is when abstract reasoning first appears; should we not wait until these faculties are adequately developed before treating people like adults? As for the rest of my points, about not being able to properly prepare for the future or appreciate the consequences (for oneself and for others) of one's actions until the formal operations stage (on average), they stand. These views are supported by a mountain of evidence, and no offense, but I'm not going to sit here and argue them when a cursory review of any academic journal will tell you the same thing.


I just don't feel comfortable treating children under the age of roughly 16 the same way we treat adults-- and I'm as "hard on crime" as they come, believe me. That said, I'm obviously not for "kid gloves" in this instance (pun intended), since I do feel that he should be detained for quite a long time (10-15 years imo), but not in an adult prison, and not without receiving the proper psychiatric care. Adult murderers, I couldn't give a shit less-- they're entitled to nothing beyond sustenance imo. Also keep in mind that if this child, after those years, is deemed to have a serious sociopathic disorder (e.g., antisocial personality disorder), which is almost always genetically based and irremediable in most instances, I am fully in favor of keeping that person detained, possibly forever. However, if the cause was determined to "merely" be "faulty social acclimation", then with the proper care, and assuming he passes all the pertinent evaluations, I am generally in favor of releasing that child after 10-15 years or so, probably towards the latter end of that range given the severity of the crime.

Your whole argument is about the mental facilities of this kid and because of the stage he's at he shouldn't be tried as an adult or serve in an adult prison. Going by that logic, because many adults don't master (or even enter) the formal operational stage, should they be coodled like a juvenile as well? They still have the mental capacities of a child so shouldn't they have the same rights? They may have more experience than a child, but that still doesn't mean they can fully understand the extent of their actions. =P
If the Piagenet model were used as a defense for this kid, it would open the doors for its use on every crime commited.
This kid knew what he was doing and that's enough to get him an adult sentence.

Personally, I think that the whole prison system should be revamped and just be a full on correctional facility that corrects the broken thinking many of the criminals have. Almost anyone can be fixed with the proper psychiatric help and medication (whether they like it or not). However, the way they're run now i'm in favor of death sentences being carried out faster (and more of them) and longer prison time. If society doesn't want to truly fix them, then just get rid of them.

 

[darscot]

The whole solution of locking a kid up for thirty years is retarded. First he was twelve, someone else created this monster. Why is he on prescription drugs? I think there are few adults that deserve the thirty years allot more then this kid does. It's almost laughable. 30's more years of abuse is going to solve this? Or prevent it from happening again?

 

[luxsol]

The whole solution of locking a kid up for thirty years is retarded. First he was twelve, someone else created this monster. Why is he on prescription drugs? I think there are few adults that deserve the thirty years allot more then this kid does. It's almost laughable. 30's more years of abuse is going to solve this? Or prevent it from happening again?

I've held off saying this, but why the hell does everyone make a big deal about him being twelve? Does everyone forget how they were at that age? Shit, this reminds me of that EGM article about kids playing video games and the sometimes funny quotes they had. Many people thought that article was faked because they under estimate 11-14 year olds. The same thing is happening here.

If you were to ignore that the kid was 12, the actions he took were pretty much the same you'd hear in murders involving adults. What this kid said also sounds like what other adults murder for (planning ahead for revenge, feeling that they weren't respected enough). The Zoloft kid shot his grandparents, got even more weapons and then took money from the grandparents to the truck for the getaway. After this he took the time to try and burn the house down and then fled.
Compare this to child murderers who really didn't know right from wrong nor understood what they were really doing. Take the case involving those two kids
(ten year olds) who beat a toddler and left him on the train tracks. They chose the toddler because he was just there and pretty much treated him like a doll. Or to that Buell Elementary shooting where the first grader (six year old) just wanted to "scare" a girl but instead shot her. With both these cases they made no real attempt to hide what they did. Both also immediately ran scared for what they did when they realized that their victim wasn't going to get up anymore. This is the way children really act.

Sure, the zoloft kid is the victim of his upbringing but aren't all criminals? He also has a sister raised by the same father, and she hasn't commited any murders.
It boggles my mind when i see people using his age as an excuse. Only state of mind (insanity, fear, etc) should be used as excuses not their age, because as we all know, we all develope at a different rate from others.

 

[Monk]

The only thing I hate about this case is:

Juror Christine Peterson said that at first, she felt Zoloft was a factor in the slayings. "It bothered me a lot," said Peterson, 54, a banker. "It was not an easy decision. But everyone kept saying, `Look at the evidence. Look at the evidence.'"

Seriously WTF?



And there is proof that Zoloft causes mental instability at times:

Last October, the Food and Drug Administration ordered Zoloft and other antidepressants to carry "black box" warnings — the government's strongest warning short of a ban — about an increased risk of suicidal behavior in children.

And then there is this:

A psychiatrist testified for the defense that the Zoloft was to blame for the killings, and a former Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) official told the jury that the crime was an angry, rash, manic act "that was chemically induced."

Yet you guys are arguing about the age?

 

[McLesterolBeast]

I really wouldn't care much if he wasnt capable of making a fully rational decision at that age. I'd be more concerned of the impact that the experience would have on him - since it would more likely than not place him squarly within the bracket that will recidivate. A 30 year sentence won't rehabilitate him though, if those 30 years are to be served in the conventional manner. Either they need to focus in on rehabilitation from the get go, or push it all the way to life in prison. He'll be even less capable of functioning in society after that 30 year sentence. With that in mind, I'd think that thorough rehab would be preferable, provided that psychological evaluations suggested that it be possible. Detained rehab with less than ideal living conditions, but not prison-esque.

And if it was attributable to the zoloft entirely, it just makes rehab even more preferable.

 

[Dilbert]

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but I made the mistake of clicking on it at lunch.

1) As a general statement, I don't think American society has ever reached a consistent point of view about the purpose of our criminal system. Is the purpose of sending someone to jail to punish them? To restrain them from future criminal acts? To fix the psychological issues which caused the criminal behavior and prevent them from recurring?

And no, "all three" isn't an acceptable answer since those three purposes are quite different from each other. If the goal is to rehabilitate, then you should be receiving treatment while detained, right? That isn't the typical jail experience -- in fact, many come out in far worse shape than they did going in. If the goal is to keep a threat away from society, but it's possible for someone to change, then shouldn't they be released as soon as they aren't a threat anymore? And if the goal is strictly to exact retribution, I think that's a sad commentary. No amount of punishment is going to make up for the loss of a loved one, and if we're going to sign up for vengeance as being one of our societal values, why not just allow the aggrieved family to kill someone on the other side and "even up" that way?

2) As another general statement, American society has never reached a consistent point of view about what constitutes "being an adult." I'm not a psychologist, but assuming Loki's research is correct and the majority of people at the age of 15 have brains which can understand long-term consequences (is that the definition of being "adult?"), then I say we ought to declare 15 legal majority for EVERYTHING: vote, serve in the military, buy alcohol, have sex, work full-time, buy porn, sign themselves out of school to stay home and watch soap operas, whatever. I'm just sick to death of the inconsistencies -- pick one age for majority, and live with it. Minotauro was exactly on point with his comment.

3) I doubt anyone here has enough expertise in either psychology or pharmacology to weigh in with any kind of convincing opinion about the "correctness" of the verdict from a scientific standpoint. I do think that it's highly interesting that his family members were SO committed to his defense, however. You wouldn't expect family to go on Today and tell the world that you're going to "do whatever it takes" to fight for his exoneration if there was even a little bit of doubt about what made him commit those acts.

4) Finally, I've come to the conclusion that I come from an entirely different planet as NLB2. If he's trying to be funny with his fucked-up nonsequiturs, I haven't laughed yet. If he's serious about bringing MARTIN LUTHER KING into this particular discussion, then I am completely boggled.

 

[Piecake]

I thought Loki said the age was 16? Anyways, having one age, instead of many, makes the most logical sense, but i like our system now because its spaces out all of the adult activities. Just think if on your 16th birthday you could drink, drive, rent a car, smoke, gamble, go to a strip club, and other activities as well. That would just be crazy :lol :lol
I thnk it would be better to let people get acclimated to their new found privelages instead of dumping all of them on someone at once

Your whole argument is about the mental facilities of this kid and because of the stage he's at he shouldn't be tried as an adult or serve in an adult prison. Going by that logic, because many adults don't master (or even enter) the formal operational stage, should they be coodled like a juvenile as well? They still have the mental capacities of a child so shouldn't they have the same rights? They may have more experience than a child, but that still doesn't mean they can fully understand the extent of their actions. =P

Well, i dont really understand all that science stuff, but i think Loki might be saying that adults have no chance to reach that stage, while kids under 16 can, and that is the reason why kids under 16 should get pyschiatric treatment while people over 16 should be jailed.

 

[Loki]

I thought Loki said the age was 16?

There's not a hard and fast age limit; the formal operations stage is generally considered to run from 11-15. I'd personally just feel more comfortable knowing that they've emerged from that stage before treating them as adults, which is why I said 16. Keep in mind that I don't have a Ph.D in psychology or anything-- it's just my major, and something I've done a lot of extracurricular reading about, since it interests me.


At any rate, I'll be responding in more detail (mostly to luxsol) later on tonight.

Well, i dont really understand all that science stuff, but i think Loki might be saying that adults have no chance to reach that stage, while kids under 16 can, and that is the reason why kids under 16 should get pyschiatric treatment while people over 16 should be jailed.

No, that wasn't what I meant. However, I do feel that rehabilitation (i.e., education, counseling, vocational training etc.) should be a prominent feature of our incarceration system for most types of criminals (again, not for murderers, and likely not for pedophiles either for the reasons stated), not only for underaged offenders.

 

[luxsol]

1) As a general statement, I don't think American society has ever reached a consistent point of view about the purpose of our criminal system. Is the purpose of sending someone to jail to punish them? To restrain them from future criminal acts? To fix the psychological issues which caused the criminal behavior and prevent them from recurring?

And no, "all three" isn't an acceptable answer since those three purposes are quite different from each other. If the goal is to rehabilitate, then you should be receiving treatment while detained, right? That isn't the typical jail experience -- in fact, many come out in far worse shape than they did going in. If the goal is to keep a threat away from society, but it's possible for someone to change, then shouldn't they be released as soon as they aren't a threat anymore? And if the goal is strictly to exact retribution, I think that's a sad commentary. No amount of punishment is going to make up for the loss of a loved one, and if we're going to sign up for vengeance as being one of our societal values, why not just allow the aggrieved family to kill someone on the other side and "even up" that way?

It depends on the case and the state they're in. Some states focus more on punishment than rehabilitation (putting them to work), others keep it more like a holding area for dangerous people to build their communities, while others do offer a lot of rehabilitation. It seems to me that the prison system is so screwed up because the prisoners have rights and have the option to do what they want while in there. They don't have to go to therapy sessions (if they aren't in there under an insanity plea or whatever) or further their education, they don't have to do anything except the mandatory things prisoners do.
However, there is no doubt that this kid will receive counseling/therapy because it's already been established that he is sick.
Like Monk pointed out Zoloft probably did push him over the edge but it wasn't a spur of the moment thing. It was building up for a while and was in the right state of mind (of a murderer anyway).
Someone mentioned they tried to commit suicide while under zoloft in this thread, so I want to ask them if that was something they had been thinking about for a while and were building up the courage for? Or was it just that day that you did it?

2) As another general statement, American society has never reached a consistent point of view about what constitutes "being an adult." I'm not a psychologist, but assuming Loki's research is correct and the majority of people at the age of 15 have brains which can understand long-term consequences (is that the definition of being "adult?"), then I say we ought to declare 15 legal majority for EVERYTHING: vote, serve in the military, buy alcohol, have sex, work full-time, buy porn, sign themselves out of school to stay home and watch soap operas, whatever. I'm just sick to death of the inconsistencies -- pick one age for majority, and live with it. Minotauro was exactly on point with his comment.

Kids mature at different rates, and 18 is pretty much the standard for when they reach the "mature" (ending the formal operational stage) mentality. You could go by case by case, but that would take long. So it's easier to judge the extremely small cases that involve kids doing "Adult" things. So those who want to emancipate themselves from their parents, get married or even kill someone can go to court to see if they're "adult enough." =P
And like i already said, if a kid isn't old enough to fuck but he goes ahead to do it then he'll face adult decisions if an infant is made. Same deal if a kid wants to murder someone.

Just so you know, most adults don't "finish" the formal stage so they're still stuck in the teenage mentality the rest of their lives and some don't even enter it.

 

[Piecake]

No, that wasn't what I meant. However, I do feel that rehabilitation (i.e., education, counseling, vocational training etc.) should be a prominent feature of our incarceration system for most types of criminals (again, not for murderers, and likely not for pedophiles either for the reasons stated), not only for underaged offenders.

I still might be misinterperting what you said, but i was just referring to murderers, not other crimimals. Probably should have said that in my previous post, but i always seem to leave something important out when i say or write something

I guess that kind of sucks for me

 

[Yossarian]

1) As a general statement, I don't think American society has ever reached a consistent point of view about the purpose of our criminal system. Is the purpose of sending someone to jail to punish them? To restrain them from future criminal acts? To fix the psychological issues which caused the criminal behavior and prevent them from recurring?

And no, "all three" isn't an acceptable answer since those three purposes are quite different from each other. If the goal is to rehabilitate, then you should be receiving treatment while detained, right? That isn't the typical jail experience -- in fact, many come out in far worse shape than they did going in. If the goal is to keep a threat away from society, but it's possible for someone to change, then shouldn't they be released as soon as they aren't a threat anymore? And if the goal is strictly to exact retribution, I think that's a sad commentary. No amount of punishment is going to make up for the loss of a loved one, and if we're going to sign up for vengeance as being one of our societal values, why not just allow the aggrieved family to kill someone on the other side and "even up" that way?

In general, the American system of justice is described by three motives you explained above: retribution, utilitarianism and rehabilitation, and the answer to your first question is often: "all three". However, rehabilitation as a goal for the criminal justice system is only a recent phenomenon, arising in the early - mid 20th century. And it is because of the incompatibilities between those divergent ideas of criminal justice that we have the juxtaposition of 20 year drug offenses and 12 year manslaughter convictions.

In general, Americans have moved away from the rehabilitative side of justice since the Reagan administration in the '80's. Now we often find ourselves in the precarious position of adding more and more years to minor offenses in order to create a disincentive large enough to reach the average offender. It is under this paradigm that you find children being punished as adults, even at a young age. And generally, as long as the state doesn't violate due process in their prosecution, there is little that can (or even should) be done to prevent these prosecutions.

While these prosecutions may not bring back the dead family members, the feelings of the victim's family are largely immaterial to the punishment. The goal here isn't for the family members to be OK with the result, but rather the community at large (as represented by the jury). Take the case where the victim doesn't want the government to prosecute (ex: an inter-family killing). The government still has a duty to the community to follow through on what happened.

Regardless, Jinx, I thought you made an excellent point - I just wanted to expand on it a little.