TexasCHLforum.com

The DA announced that he will seek the death penalty in this case:
http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... e8250e04ad

- Jim

A minor girl who was in the car has been certified to be tried for capital murder as an adult (contrary to my earlier speculation). All four alleged participants in this crime have now been charged with capital murder.

The DA's office has previously announced that the adult male defendant will be tried in a death penalty case. Trial dates for the other defendants have not been set.

All four have been in jail for nearly a year.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... ee7f1dd192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Mr.Scott wrote:

starrbuck wrote:

rbraughn wrote:A 10 year old minor may not understand the consequences of his actions, but at the age of 16 (unless mentally incompetent) you know exactly what you are getting yourself in to.

I say certify them as adults and at least give them life in prison unless they had no idea what was taking place and were truly in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, at 10 they don't understand, but at 16 they do? Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there. Should be simple, right?

Unless the kid is named Corky, at 16 every "kid" knows right from wrong. If they don't and are not named Corky, the parents need to be executed along with the kid.

Hey, whats wrong with being named Corky?

Purplehood wrote:

Mr.Scott wrote:

starrbuck wrote:

rbraughn wrote:A 10 year old minor may not understand the consequences of his actions, but at the age of 16 (unless mentally incompetent) you know exactly what you are getting yourself in to.

I say certify them as adults and at least give them life in prison unless they had no idea what was taking place and were truly in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, at 10 they don't understand, but at 16 they do? Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there. Should be simple, right?

Unless the kid is named Corky, at 16 every "kid" knows right from wrong. If they don't and are not named Corky, the parents need to be executed along with the kid.

Hey, whats wrong with being named Corky?

Er...uh....nothing Corky...you have a really cool name.

So, at 10 they don't understand, but at 16 they do? Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there. Should be simple, right?


Right on.
The age set for a minor is there for a reason. If you want to change the age in the law go ahead; but don't charge a minor as an adult.

jhutto wrote:So, at 10 they don't understand, but at 16 they do? Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there. Should be simple, right?


Right on.
The age set for a minor is there for a reason. If you want to change the age in the law go ahead; but don't charge a minor as an adult.

So for the sake of consistency in your thoughts, I am wondering if you believe 10 year olds should be allowed to drive?

glad to see when they catch them that quick.

I'm sure it saved a lot of grief for potential victims down the road.

- Jim

"Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there."

Pennsylvania says at least by 11 yrs of age
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497986,00.html

optman09 wrote:"Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there."

Pennsylvania says at least by 11 yrs of age
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497986,00.html

10-11 i think would be a good age, but the argument then is at what age is a child able to account for their actions under persuasion from an older person.

at 10 i know what i am doing is bad, but am i going to tell a 16,17,25 year old no? At 16 can I tell a 25 or 30 year old no, etc. I think that's the main reason the states set such age limits all over the board.

ls6tt wrote:

optman09 wrote:"Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there."

Pennsylvania says at least by 11 yrs of age
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497986,00.html

10-11 i think would be a good age, but the argument then is at what age is a child able to account for their actions under persuasion from an older person.

at 10 i know what i am doing is bad, but am i going to tell a 16,17,25 year old no? At 16 can I tell a 25 or 30 year old no, etc. I think that's the main reason the states set such age limits all over the board.

Is that a new take on the Nuremberg defense?

Purplehood wrote:

ls6tt wrote:

optman09 wrote:"Where is this magic age where every child understands the consequences of their actions? Let's figure that out and set the age there."

Pennsylvania says at least by 11 yrs of age
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497986,00.html

10-11 i think would be a good age, but the argument then is at what age is a child able to account for their actions under persuasion from an older person.

at 10 i know what i am doing is bad, but am i going to tell a 16,17,25 year old no? At 16 can I tell a 25 or 30 year old no, etc. I think that's the main reason the states set such age limits all over the board.

Is that a new take on the Nuremberg defense?

before i continue i want to make it clear that I do not agree with this, but giving the side that could be argued by a good lawyer.

But yes, it could be construed as a Nuremberg defense with the addition of peer pressure. since the state doesn't define peer pressure its not defined as not being able to be used as a defense. While i doubt it would stop a conviction it could be the difference in 20 years or 5 years

jhutto wrote:Right on.
The age set for a minor is there for a reason. If you want to change the age in the law go ahead; but don't charge a minor as an adult.

But the government sets all sorts of different standards for age. . .

21 to drink (state)
21 to get a CHL (state)
21 to purchase a handgun (state)
18 to purchase a long gun (state)
18 to vote (national)
18 to buy pornography (state)
18 to buy tobacco (state)
18 to be exempt from most city curfew laws (city)
18 to join the military (some can join at 17 depending on their next birthday and the beginning of training) (national / state)
17 to consent to sex with somebody more than 3 years senior (state)
17 to see an NC-17 movie (not a law, but an accepted standard)
17 to see an R-rated movie alone (not a law, but an accepted standard)
16 to drive unsupervised (state)
15 to drive while supervised (state)
15 to drive unsupervised with a hardship license (state)

. . . there is no universal age of responsibility. It seems that the more serious the responsibility, the older you have to be. I think that criminal activity would be the inverse of this. . . the more serious the crime, the younger you hold people accountable for it.

Wednesday, a judge denied a motion to lower bail in the case of the minor male defendant in this case.

The minor female defendant has been released on bail, with the condition that she remain in her home with an electronic monitoring device, except to attend church.

The DA plans to pursue the death penalty against the alleged shooter. Plea bargains may be offered to the teens in exchange for testimony against him.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... 052a913a04" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Shame they can't install an express lane on death row. As to the minors, certify the punks as adults and let them face the consequences of their actions.