369
Boy, 15, who fatally stabbed teenager he did not know in Birmingham is jailed for life
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
369 points (97.9% liked)
World News
39387 readers
2251 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A youth justice system is for dealing with kids and teens who shoplift, or break noise ordinances, or run away from home, or abuse illicit substances, or any number of "boundary exploring" behaviors.
A youth justice system is not the appropriate venue for dealing with "kids" so lacking in moral fiber as to deliberately and maliciously kill another person.
The tolerance we have for "youthful indiscretion" does not and should not extend to this degree of violence. A youth justice system is not an appropriate venue for those determined to be fundamentally irredeemable.
You got the purpose of juvenile justice completely wrong: It is focussed more on rehabilitation and less on deterrence than the adult one because juveniles are still way more formable. Psychologists will descend upon him, and they'll do the job his parents and neighbours didn't (or couldn't) do, a job which, at 15, noone is able to do on their own.
That's vile. Of course they'll be unredeemable if you don't give them the chance to redeem themselves.
My decision to give or withhold a second chance for this kid is irrelevant.
He can try as hard as he wants to dig redemption out of his victim's grave, but it's simply not possible. Unless you're alleging this kid is some kind of necromancer, he is fundamentally incapable of redemption.
Save the pshrinks for kids who can be saved.
Even if you now demand a life for a life, which isn't your call to make, it very much is possible: He might save a life that, in prison or dead, he could not have saved. He might save twenty, even a million.
You're plain and simply out for blood. An eye has been struck out, and you hide your desire to see the whole world blind behind "well, we don't have to poke it out, we only have to sew it shut" (put him in prison vs. executing).
There's virtually no crime that can be physically redeemed, except for property crimes. Literally any other criminal offense creates an irredeemable injury. But that is exactly why nearly developed country, except for the USA have a redemption-type penal system. How do you measure redemption? Is r*pe redeemed after 4 or 50 years? It will never be for the victim.
But what you can do is try to help everyone to not become criminal again. Because for one, guess what, they're human too. They weren't born criminal and aren't criminal by nature once they've committed a crime. They have the right to live their life as much as the guy they killed. Once you have them forfeit their right to a free life, you commit a similar crime. One that in this case is done by objectifying them as an object rather than a subject.
This thinking is the result of hundreds of years of philosophical thinking and seeing the result of your mindset being used by tyrannys.
If they do not pose a danger to anyone anymore and have reformed then they are to be let go. Also in dubio pro reo.
As for minors, their mind is still developing, they may have cognitively known that killing someone is wrong, but they have not yet accepted it as their own moral. Not knowing even the basics of cognitive development of children, I feel like there's not even a point to discuss with you
Are you sure you replied to the right guy because that's an argument I made from the start.
Sure. He might save more lives than anyone who has ever existed. The chances of that happening are as good as winning the lottery, but hey, it could happen.
He might also take another life. Or twenty. Or a million. The chances of that are substantially higher: far more people lose the lottery than win anything at all.
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. The best approach to playing the lottery is to lock up the money you would have used, and never let it out to buy a ticket.
I find interesting that there's a lot of "might", "maybe" and "possible" when talking about rehabilitation, but not as much attention is paid to the "absolute" of another person's death. Possibilities and potentials won't bring that victim back to life.
If only he was now in a situation where he can be dealt with by specialists who can increase the odds substantially, and only be released if another set of specialists evaluate his mental state to have, as you put it, won the lottery.
Throw away the keys and you worsen the odds. Also, break the European Convention on Human Rights, which demands that there be a light at the end of a tunnel for everyone: Because denying it, no matter how far away it may seem, amounts to taking away his freedom to free development of personality. In other words, he has a right to work towards redemption. To, if not arrive, at least begin to learn to walk into the right direction. Everybody does.
Who are you to make a judgement on the future of his life while the blood on the knife hasn't even dried yet? Can you predict the future? Make a judgement for the here and now, instead.
He can study necromancy for the rest of his life, and attempt to raise his victim from the grave. That's his right. If he accomplishes it, we can talk about clemency.
His right to seek redemption isn't being infringed upon by locking him up permanently. It is the permanence of the death he caused that is denying him redemption.
One comment earlier you seemed to have accepted saving a life as possible repayment for a taken life, now you don't, any more. What happened?
I commented on it, but I never accepted your premise that saving lives counts toward redemption. The reason why is simple: Whatever future potential you envision this kid having, you must also give to the kid he killed. Balancing the number of potential future lives the murderer saves vs the same number of potential lives lost by killing his victim, this kid is always going to be one life short of redemption.
Edit:
Forgot to comment on this earlier:
No, by locking him up forever, you greatly improve the odds that he won't kill again. He is free to explore the development of his personality within the context of having his behavior directly supervised for the rest of his life.
No, he isn't. Literally psychology 101. You're dooming him, how are you going to redeem yourself from that? You'll need, by your own argument, do something that benefits him, not others, or the collective.
He doomed himself. I don't owe him a thing. If I owe anyone anything, it is his victim, not him. If I do owe his victim, locking up his killer for the rest of his life would be my pathway toward redemption.
You locked him up and threw away the key. That is your action, directly affecting his psychology, directly harming him. You may be the judge, the legislator, the juror, the jailer, the voter. You have to account for it.
You justify locking him up by protecting others, but how do you justify the harm you're inflicting?
Then, you're assuming agency on his part. Choice. The kid is 15 FFS, go back in your own life, consider how much, at that age, it was yours, or that of the environment. You also need to argue that he was the reason he killed, and not his environment. Humans don't generally kill other humans, they also don't grow up to do so, something must've happened to him and I very much doubt it was his fault.
What basis do you have for presuming his incompetence?
The fact that he was unsupervised in public tells me he should be assumed to understand the concepts of right and wrong.
Now I don't know where you're from but around here four year olds are unsupervised in public. It's also not about the concept, but about what is considered right and what's wrong, and the self-control to not act on an overwhelming impulse from the unconscious. May I remind you that the frontal cortex, that which gives us the ability to pause and reconsider, is not fully developed at his age.
You have no idea what his psychology looks like, yet you're condemning him, and thousands more, by your principles. Unseen, unheard, and yep that -- unseen, unheard -- is one of the possible depth-psychological reasons why kids lash out like that. Not only do you, self-righteously, condemn him, you also might have created him by the habitual way in which you regard -- or rather don't regard -- people.
I suspect you misspoke. 4-year-olds require 24/7 supervision from a parent, guardian, or other caregiver in public or private. Failure to continuously supervise a 4-year-old you are responsible for is a chargeable offense.
It is about the capacity to understand right and wrong about a given act. Children much younger than 15 are expected to understand the general legal and moral implications of murder.
Untrue. I know he was subjected to numerous hearings and evaluations to determine his competency. He was found to not have sufficiently diminished capacity to excuse or mitigate his actions.
I'm sorry you're living under fascism.
Which does not mean that he is responsible for being the way that he is. Criminal insanity is a rare thing and, as a verdict, not actually that preferable. Doubly so criminal insanity as a juvenile, who are, yes, judged by different standards because their brains aren't there, yet.
I suggest you learn something about developmental psychology.
Ad hominem.
"The way he is" is "responsible for his own actions". He has been found to have the mental capacity necessary to comprehend the difference between the "rightness" and "wrongness" of jamming a knife into another human.
Some people should just never see the light of day again. This kid is one of them.
I'm not attacking your person, I'm attacking whatever backwater government you're living under for having such inane laws.
He has been found to have the capacity necessary to stand trial in juvenile court. Those standards are different than for adults because, and I'll say this again: Juveniles are not fully developed. They don't have the same mental capacity.
If, at the ripe age of 90, he's still messed up then I'd agree with you. But there's quite a couple of decades until then.
As said: You're out for blood, plain and simple. You know nothing of understanding, of forgiveness, or you would be more lenient, you know nothing about justice or you would take into account that he's a kid, and you certainly know nothing about developmental psychology.
You should be kept as far away from the justice system as possible. I don't consider you unredeemable, but by the way you dig in your heels and refuse to listen to arguments it's going to be a while before that restriction can be lifted.
You just "othered" me. You just called for me to be undemocratically removed from the political process, entirely because you don't agree with my opinions. I have not been tried or convicted in any crime, or otherwise been the subject of any sort of due process that would strip me of any rights or privileges.
Your position is therefore undemocratic.
I do, indeed, understand that children slowly bear more and more responsibility for their own actions as their cognition and experience increases. What you don't seem to understand is that the cognitive abilities and experiences necessary to comprehend the rightness and wrongness of murder are typically developed well before age 10. You further fail to understand that this kid possessed them. He knew what he was doing. This wasn't some youthful indiscretion, or a simple failure to control his impulses. This was a deliberate act. He specifically went looking to kill someone, and succeeded.
You asked me several comments up to consider my own behavior at age 15. I never murdered anyone, and I knew that murdering people was wrong before 15. Long before 15. The overwhelming majority of kids are sufficiently responsible to use deadly weapons for hunting and sport before reaching their teens.
Murder stops being tolerable as soon as the individual is capable of deliberately causing it. This kid was capable of such deliberation. He is irredeemable.
If your position was to kill all people of a particular skin color then my position would be the same. Democracy cannot work if fundamental rights are not protected from onslaught by people who, ultimately, would abolish democracy itself. Because that's where your path leads: Towards a failure to regard other people as people.
You still fail to acknowledge that that's not what it's about. It's about executive control. If an adult has an intrusive thought they have a very good grasp on blocking it, youth doesn't. If everything works well then they're simply exploration happy, like stupid bands, invent new makeup styles and re-invent the shopping cart race. If society messed them up at a fundamental level then things like murder can bubble up, and might not be stopped by the weak frontal cortex. That does not mean that they'll regret it, though: They're already perfectly capable of rationalising, and will do so to maintain a consistent self-image of themselves.
Did you understand anything of what I just wrote. Please rephrase it in your own words ("So you're saying that...") so I know we won't continue to talk past each other, there.
More generally speaking, there's an African saying: If a kid does not feel the warmth of the village they will find the warmth they deserve by setting it ablaze.
No. Life, liberty, rights, and privileges can - and should - be deprived upon conviction of a crime. The appropriate deprivation of rights and privileges as a sentence for murder is life imprisonment. Nothing of my opinion disregards any person as a person.
Your position, however, disregards the victim's rights as a person. Further, you have advocated for stripping me of my rights to participate in governance based solely on your dislike for my opinion.
You have justified fascism.
I summarily reject your suggestion that a 15-year-old is so lacking in their capacity for executive control that they can be excused of murder.
This wasn't an intrusive thought. This was a deliberate act.
By all means, be warm to the kid. Until he starts setting people on fire.
Life can and should be deprived? That's barbaric. Every civilised country has abolished the death penalty. Heck even parts of the US managed to abolish it.
So you reject reality. Which explains a lot.
And what if noone was warm to him, who is at fault when the village burns? I'd say the adults are. Punishing the kid is just them trying to cover up their own failures. A convenient scapegoat for their own failure to foster wholesome interactions.
Him.
It's a pretty simple concept. He is the one who performed the act. He is responsible.
Unless you can show the adults deliberately taught him to murder, I'd say no. If you can show they did that, they can join him in prison forever. But he doesn't get a pass.
I'm perfectly happy to blame the adults for a kid becoming a little shithead asshole. Not so much when the kid deliberately decides to murder someone.
You argued that 4-year-olds don't need supervision. Now you're arguing that 15-year-olds are incapable of being responsible for their own, deliberate actions; that their parents, guardians, or other individuals charged with supervising their behavior are responsible.
So if someone calls up an assassin to murder another person, the one who ordered the kill gets off scott-free?
Adults have a duty to raise kids well, just as they have a duty to file their taxes. If they cannot do so on their own, they have the right to be helped along by the rest of society. And, really, even if not there's that other (more famous) African saying: It takes a village to raise a kid.
Consider the alternative, or, rather, that really seems to be what you're implying: That children are responsible for their own upbringing. Next up: Babies are expected to grow their own food. Your potted petunia is responsible for its own watering.
If they have shown signs of being violent to their peers, yes of course they need supervision. And so does our 15yold. But that doesn't mean that we pre-emptively supervise every kid that way they'd never learn independence, and thus never truly become adults, they'd just spinelessly bow to the next random person who passes as an authority figure.
His upbringing isn't relevant to the issue. His deliberate actions are. He is generally responsible for his deliberate actions, regardless of how shitty a hand he was dealt.
We can give him some leniency on issues like contract law: He might not have the cognitive ability to understand an important legal document. He might not understand the value of money. He might not have the capacity for complex abstract thought, and should be protected from those who would exploit that and defraud him.
But Murder isn't an abstract concept. It's pretty simple. He isn't owed any societal protections for deciding to kill someone.
Why? Because it would put blame on the adults? Because you want to, at all cost, deflect responsibility from the ones in the position to provide warmth without there being a burning village?
I call that spineless.
Why, then, are the adults owed social protections for deciding to turn him into the kid he became? And yes I used "decided" deliberately here: If he decided to become a murderer, then the adults can't claim that "it was an accident", "we didn't mean to" when it comes up to turning him into a murderer.
I have no problem throwing the adults in prison with him, if you can reasonably show they are responsible. Go ahead and blame them all you want. But understand that the blame they carry does not in any way excuse him from responsibility for his actions, nor the consequences of those actions. They can be blamed also, not instead.
Murder is too simple an idea to suggest that a 15-year-old can't be held responsible for committing it.
Please, again, read up on developmental psychology, and what the prefrontal cortex does. The alternative, for you, is to effectively have zero empathy for anyone younger than the early 20s. Whether they murdered or stole a cookie or broke a toy.
I'm out of here lest sounding like a broken clock.
I have near-zero empathy for any competent person who chooses murder. The idea that a 15-year-old murderer should be excused for his actions strips every responsible teenager of their own agency. Your arguments are degrading and insulting to this kid's victim and to every responsible teenager.
"Choose". There it is again. Read up on what the frontal cortex does. You're ignorant and unwilling to rectify it.
If I were mean I could now claim that's a choice on your part. But, no: You simply lack the self-control necessary to do your research before you form an opinion and post it online. That little step back, saying "wait, is this right", that "should I consider this impulse more closely before acting on it". You're lacking it, and by golly our 15yold is lacking it. He has an excuse, you, presumably, are old enough to have a fully developed frontal cortex.
I readily concede the fact that a 15-year-old's frontal cortex is not completely developed.
I reject the idea that only a fully mature frontal cortex is capable of restraining someone from murdering a teenager. Even a radically undeveloped frontal cortex is more than capable.
This kid went out that day with a deadly weapon, seeking out the person or people who had previously attacked his friend, intending to commit violence against that individual. He found this teenager. Based on this teen's race, he believed this teen was complicit in his friend's attack. He spent 4 minutes arguing with this teenager, then stabbed him.
This wasn't a crime of passion. This was premeditated. He left his home that day intending to use his knife on someone. He knew his actions and intent were criminal and immoral, and he chose to act anyway.
Everything else in your last comment is an ad hominem, and doesn't need a response.
And I suppose you're a neuroscientist, behavioural psychologist, and generally smarter than literally every single person working in juvenile justice.
No. I was describing your character as I inferred from your behaviour, I was not making arguments based on it. Learn your fallacies: "You are a numpty, therefore, you are wrong" is ad hominem. "You are wrong, therefore, you are a numpty" is not.
This is another ad hominem, disguised as an appeal to authority.
Correct. You were describing me, rather than discussing the issue. That is, by definition. An "argumentum ad hominem". It is an "argument against the man" rather than an argument regarding the issue under discussion.
I have been discussing the issue. You failed, repeatedly, to acknowledge developmental psychology 101, that is, you didn't discuss the issue. Thus, to work towards the possibility of a discussion about the original issue, I expanded the discussion to your person.
Because unless and until you realise that you're doing your darndest to not look at relevant factors there can be no progress. And with this I'm actually out.
I have acknowledged developmental psychology, repeatedly. I have rejected your characterization of not-fully-mature frontal cortex as exculpatory.
You would have a point if we were talking about an average 4-year-old, or a developmentally delayed 12-year old. Not an uninstitutionalized 15-year-old. Even a rather slow 15-year-old has sufficient mental capacity to comprehend extreme violence, and all the evidence says this kid wasn't extraordinarily stunted.
Immaturity is reasonable when discussing crimes involving substantially higher degrees of mental abstraction. Not intentional murder.
The approach you should be taking isn't that he is immature. The approach you should be taking is one that would apply to even a mature adult.
If you're distinguishing by the type of offense instead of by age, you don't have a youth justice system, you have a minor offense justice system.
Distinguishing by the severity of the offense is already part of the justice system.
Youth justice systems explicitly consider the age and maturity of the offender, not just what they did.
Also I'm not sure why a 15-year-old is a kid in one of your examples and a "kid" in the other.
This is not about tolerating behavior, it's about reforming people to become members of society instead of lifelong burdens for the justice system.
Despite the severity of his action, brandishing kids as "irredeemable" not only throws away their entire future but also burdens everyone else with keeping them contained forever.
That profits nobody.
The worst thing that can possibly happen is they reform their lives and some kid decides they are worthy of emulation.
No, the best thing they can do for society is remain locked up for the rest of their lives.
People like you should be locked up
Ooh, edgy.