If this guy DIES, EXECUTE the offenders.

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935246[/url]

I mean, really.......

We need some serious crime prevention, and sending a message goes a LONG way to deterring crime.

Later,

Geo

reason number 3,678,396 to carrry a concealed weapon EVERYWHERE that it is legal to do so...

On a semi-related topic, I've never understood why the severity of the crime was the determining factor in charging a juvenile as an adult. Shouldn't it be the maturity of the juvenile rather than the seriousness of what he/she did that determines if you charge as an adult? Furthermore, if they decide to charge as adult, then if found not guilty they should be able to vote.

It seems as if the judge DID consider the maturity of the juveniles in this case. There are two suspects, one 14, the other 16 years old. Based on this news story, it would appear that only the 16 year old is being charged as an adult.

[URL]http://www.wave3.com/global/story.asp?s=13076162[/URL]

But you bring up a very interesting point, Know1. I would add that if they get the right to vote, it seems only fair that they should also be allowed to by cigarettes, drink, gamble, and anything else that has an age limit on it. As I see it, it's impossible to objectively determine the maturity of a juvenile, or anybody else, except in a physical sense, so what we as a society have done is to arbitrarily assign age limits on certain activities, based on the assumption that "most people" of a certain age will be mature enough to make an informed decision on how to vote, and whether or not to take up smoking, drinking, etc. Correspondingly, we've established arbitrary age limits on how old a person has to be before they can recognize right from wrong, and how we punish criminal behavior. These work fine when we're talking about small crimes - few people would argue that an eight year old who shoplifts a candy bar should be treated the same as an adult who does the same thing. But the system breaks down when it's a heinous act of violence, such as beating and stomping somebody to the point where they end up on life support. So we've compromised by giving certain individuals, namely judges, the responsibility for deciding when to make exceptions. That's an enormous task, one I don't envy them. But judges are human beings, so there are certain to be mistakes. We just have to accept those if we wish to live under the rule of law, rather than anarchy.

Here was one of the reasons that I asked that question although it's something I've thought about for awhile (from the original link):

"Berry's attorney, Larry Wilder, said because of the severity of the crime, the 16-year-old should be treated as an adult."

I know we have to pick an arbitrary age to grant rights and that people do not mature equally, but it seems wrong to me to charge someone as an adult who hadn't been already given the rights of an adult - most notably the ability to vote potentially for or against those that might be involved in their prosecution.

Give 'em a fair trial, and a fair hanging. Put it on live tv, even post it on YouTube, and Facebook.