So for those who think that kids should not be tried as adults when they're a minor, do you still think so after reading <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/jonesboro.shooter/index.html">this article</a> about the Jonesboro shooter?

I think its a shame they 'closed the loophole' that let him go at 21.

It doesn't change the basic fact that its patently unfair to say "He's an adult" when a child does something wrong but then turn around and claim "He's too immature to be franchised" when it comes time for him to vote, or drink, or drive, or smoke. You can't have it both ways.

I think its a shame they 'closed the loophole' that let him go at 21.

It doesn't change the basic fact that its patently unfair to say "He's an adult" when a child does something wrong but then turn around and claim "He's too immature to be franchised" when it comes time for him to vote, or drink, or drive, or smoke. You can't have it both ways.

I think it is a shame that there people who actually believe what you do Aidon.

Simply because he was not able to vote, drink, drive, or smoke at the time he and his little buddy killed 5 people means they get a clean slate once they are able to - that is f-ed up thinking imho.

I think there's a whole gamut between wiping the slate clean and sentencing young kids to life in prison, or the death penalty. Letting them walk with a clean slate is too lenient, life in prison or death penalty is too harsh. I think aiming at reforming them and monitoring their mental health and ability to function in society for most of their lives would be ideal.

I think it is a shame that there people who actually believe what you do Aidon.

Simply because he was not able to vote, drink, drive, or smoke at the time he and his little buddy killed 5 people means they get a clean slate once they are able to - that is f-ed up thinking imho.

There's a simple solution to it. Let him vote, drink, drive, smoke, etc. If you think 14 or 15 is old enough to understand the repurcussions of your actions...then so let it be.

It doesn't change the basic fact that its patently unfair to say "He's an adult" when a child does something wrong but then turn around and claim "He's too immature to be franchised" when it comes time for him to vote, or drink, or drive, or smoke. You can't have it both ways.Why not? A felon, or an illegal alien, doesn't have the same rights that an ordinary citizen has (for good reason), yet there is no reason they shouldn't be held up to the same standard if they choose to commit a crime. One thing has little to do with the other.

Kids who kill... scarey stuff. I would hope that they could be REALLY rehabilitated and returned to society after a lengthy process. But I don't have that much faith in our prison system to believe that would ever happen. At the age these kids are when they kill, they have absolutely no idea what they are throwing away. They have no comprehension of what respect for their own life means... or for others'. Life is disposable... after all... people in the movies, in computer games, on TV, die ALL the time. And mixing them in with other societal misfits and ignoring them for years doesn't fix anything.

Why not? A felon, or an illegal alien, doesn't have the same rights that an ordinary citizen has (for good reason), yet there is no reason they shouldn't be held up to the same standard if they choose to commit a crime. One thing has little to do with the other.

Personally I think Felons should have the right to vote. Illegal aliens aren't citizens and thus do not have the full weight and protection of our rights. Legal aliens aiming for citizenship are trying to earn a right to become citizens, thus they are not fully protected either.

The entire premise that a child is mature enought understand the repurcussions of his crimes and thus pay the adult penalty for them, and yet is not mature enough to partake in those things we reserve for adults is ridiculous, on its face and contradictory in and of itself. It should go without saying that if you have the maturity to face the full brunt of the repurcussions for your mistakes, you are mature enough to do anything else in our nation.

I'm not going to defend the seven year sentence. It does seem too light. However ...

Can you really say these kids fuly understood their impact of their actions? The hideousness of their crime seems to baffle understanding.

Children are most likely offenders to change in prison. If you go in at 13 and leave at 23 then you are going to be a different person with a very different outlook.

Long sentences aren't a great deterent to children. Having a 30 year deterent sentence instead of a 15 year sentence would mean nothing to children. They don't know what they want from life and don't understand how it will all be ruined if they go to jail.

There are also a few cases where people need to be locked away because they've proven to be a serious danger to everyone else, and can't be rehabilitated.
Perhaps when children commit very serious crimes like this, they need to be given the adult sentence, but with the possibility of a much earlier release or parole if psychologists are willing to vouch for them?

So letting an immature kid, who has no idea how to differentiate between a good candidate and a bad one, who cannot make the distinction between whether smoking and drinking is good or bad, is the solution to trying them as adults? Sorry, that train of thought is wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to start. When adults can't even make these distinctions you expect a child can?
Putting murder and voting and booze on the same boat is like comparing peanuts to elephants.
But, as I've said in a previous post some months ago, if a child, be it 5 years old or 15, is in any way, shape or form in any position to put me or anyone (not just friends and family) in danger or kill them, I would do my utmost to stop them. Consider them not as children, consider them simply as persons who have the power to kill, and just because they do not have a certain age does not mean they do not know what they are doing when it comes to pulling a trigger. They should be tried according to the laws of men, not let go at 21 as if they had never done anything. That teaches them nothing, and makes the world a more dangerous place, making them think they can literally "get away with murder".

I expect your point of view would change Aidon if it had been - God forbid - a fellow friend or relative killed.

Your point of view would even change if you had seen someone you never knew shot dead infront of you, like I did many years ago.

When it comes to murder or serious bodily harm there should be no distinction in age. That kid should be in jail for the rest of his life. And yes, even sentenced to death.

She added, "In my eyes, he's always going to be a killer. I mean I don't see how you can go from being a killer to being a minister, especially just in seven years."You know, they say once you've killed somebody there's no going back. It's like opening a door that will never close. I wouldn't know personally since I've never killed anybody nor ever came close. /shrug

I fully believe in the simplest of all solutions: Intentionally take a life (note, I said 'a'), you've just volunteered yours up, reguardless of age.

Anybody that is was convicted of murder should be killed immediately. Simple as that. No questions, no releases, no tax dollars going to them in jails, etc. Take a life for a life.

So letting an immature kid, who has no idea how to differentiate between a good candidate and a bad one, who cannot make the distinction between whether smoking and drinking is good or bad, is the solution to trying them as adults?
just because they do not have a certain age does not mean they do not know what they are doing when it comes to pulling a trigger.
Your two statements appraising the capabilities of children contradict each other.

just because they do not have a certain age does not mean they do not know what they are doing when it comes to pulling a trigger.

But do they understand the punishment?

Do they understand the misery they will cause? Do the understand the revulsion they'll have from their family, friends, and everyone they will ever know? Do they understand they'll miss on out a sex life at their sexual peak? Do they know their chances of starting family and what that will mean to them in later life? Do they understand how much education they'll miss? Do they understand how their employment prospects are wrecked? If you can answer yes to all of those questions then perhaps children do understand their crimes and deserve adult punishments.

I think there's a whole gamut between wiping the slate clean and sentencing young kids to life in prison, or the death penalty. Letting them walk with a clean slate is too lenient, life in prison or death penalty is too harsh. I think aiming at reforming them and monitoring their mental health and ability to function in society for most of their lives would be ideal.

/agree - I'm fine with children being convicted as children, however I don't think their sentence should be lifted until it's determined they're completely rehibilitated. If he was 17 when this happened and convicted as a minor, I really don't think four years would be enough time to rehibilitate him. I'm not even sure seven years is enough.

I also think when someone in an instance like this is released, there should be mandatory visits to a psychologist for at least a few years.

With the system as it is, I doubt that mandatory visits to a shrink for YEARS would be enough. At the VERY least I would say that they need oversight for many years as well. Release them to the probation system for no less than another 20 years when they get out.

I believe that killers CAN be rehabilitated, and children certainly would be the ones worth giving that second chance to, but success can't be measured in how many years they have until they reach 21.

Personally I think Felons should have the right to vote. The one MOST precious right that our founding fathers fought and died for was the right to vote. They believed that if an individual commits one of the most heinous crimes against mankind, he doesn't deserve the most important right of our US citizenship. I agree, but it's sad that so many voluntarily give up this fundamental right every election. Voting rights doesn't have the same passionate meaning to most Americans that it once did.

So letting an immature kid, who has no idea how to differentiate between a good candidate and a bad one, who cannot make the distinction between whether smoking and drinking is good or bad, is the solution to trying them as adults? Sorry, that train of thought is wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to start. When adults can't even make these distinctions you expect a child can?

Oh, I don't expect a child can...but then I'm not the one unreasonably expecting a child to understand the "wrongs" involved when he commit a crime, either. If a child is too immature to vote, doesn't it go that he's also too immature to realize the repurcussions of a crime he's committed? Except we've changed our justice system from a system of reform into a system of revenge and all most people think about is punishing the criminal, even when they are children.


Putting murder and voting and booze on the same boat is like comparing peanuts to elephants.

If you think the discussion is about comparing murder to booze, I can't help you.

Consider them not as children, consider them simply as persons who have the power to kill, and just because they do not have a certain age does not mean they do not know what they are doing when it comes to pulling a trigger.

Treat them as children or treat them as persons, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. And actually, a child of teenage years does not understand what they are doing when it comes to pulling a trigger, other than it is "wrong", just liike drinking is wrong, or shoplifting. Humans don't begin fulling comprehending death until their 20's, generally speakingl. A teenage doesn't believe he can die...and thus doesn't really believe anyone can die.

They should be tried according to the laws of men, not let go at 21 as if they had never done anything. That teaches them nothing, and makes the world a more dangerous place, making them think they can literally "get away with murder".

I can promise you that locking him up for twenty to life will teach him absolutely nothing, either. At least it won't teach him anything you'd want a child to learn. He'll learn about male rape. He'll learn about drugs. He'll learn about violence. He'll learn everything there is to learn about how to never fit into society again...all because you want revenge.

I expect your point of view would change Aidon if it had been - God forbid - a fellow friend or relative killed.

Perhaps it would, which is why I'd hope people like myself would prevail and not permit my lust for revenge compromise justice.



When it comes to murder or serious bodily harm there should be no distinction in age. That kid should be in jail for the rest of his life. And yes, even sentenced to death.

I'm glad you have no say in our justice system, because the American justice system is supposed to include concepts of mercy and compassion. Ideals of understanding that a child doesn't grasp the seriousness or long term effects of his actions.

The one MOST precious right that our founding fathers fought and died for was the right to vote. They believed that if an individual commits one of the most heinous crimes against mankind, he doesn't deserve the most important right of our US citizenship. I agree, but it's sad that so many voluntarily give up this fundamental right every election. Voting rights doesn't have the same passionate meaning to most Americans that it once did.

It is patently ridiculous that a person can loose their right to vote after they've served their sentence for a crime. Even more ridiculous when that crime is having white powder on your person, or spamming people with e-mail.

Too many crimes in our society are deemed felonious, its gotten absurd. The War on Drugs has disenfranchised a sizable percentage of certain minorities in our society, which is antithical to everything our nation is supposed to stand for.

I'm going to agree with Aidon about several points.

First, having worked in a prison for a couple of years, it is a terrible place to reform, what happens in a prison is that you learn a new set of values - values much better suited to criminality. Children by nature are still internalising the values of their peers. Giving them a bunch of hardened criminals as peers is pretty risky if you are ever going to let them out. Children who commit gruesome crimes require a seperate and parallel system. Maybe instead of bumping them into the adult system, reform the juvenille system to handle severe cases.

However, adults in prisons can and do reform despite their surrounding. The human soul has an amazing capacity for revelation and growth. The idea that after they are released they are unable to vote undermines the fundementals of democracy. If a country starts putting away a large percentage of a social/economic/ethnic group they convinently disenfranchise that group, and then there is no chance that the democratic process can change unjust structures or laws. At that point, what other options are left but violent struggle?

At the same time, I am all for giving teenagers both the vote, and the right to drink alcohol. Driving, not so much. If you listen to the things kids hold dear - family, parks, animals, schools, mothers - and consider the impact on society of having a voting block that is likely to demand their representatives cater to those things, where is the harm? As for drinking, it is my opinion that much of our problem with alcohol comes from our unhealthy attitude towards it. Like every other life lesson, how to drink responsibly is best learned at home, under the supervision of parents. Having it be illegal simply drives it out of the home, and into the streets, and fields to an unsupervised setting, and attaches a kind of reverse taboo to it that makes it "cooler" to drink your face off.

The one MOST precious right that our founding fathers fought and died for was the right to vote. They believed that if an individual commits one of the most heinous crimes against mankind, he doesn't deserve the most important right of our US citizenship.
AFAIK, it was the 14th Amendment which allowed government to restrict the voting rights of criminals. The founding fathers were long dead when it was proposed and even deader by the time it was ratified.

They believed that if an individual commits one of the most heinous crimes against mankind

Like kids throwing rocks in a dirtclod fight.

Or kids giving each other titty twisters.

Or listening to radiowaves.

Or directory browsing a computer network.

????


We are attaching the denomination of felony to some really stupid stuff these days. I think that the founding fathers would think THAT is more absurd than the idea of letting rehabilitated convicted felons vote. Additionally, I doubt that anyone would agree with a strict interpretation of the Original Constitution on sufferage. Only landowning males, older than 21, had the right to vote. Expanding to both genders took 150 years or so.

Excerpt from 14th Amendment...
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

edit: Klath beat me to it.

The one MOST precious right that our founding fathers fought and died for was the right to vote. They believed that if an individual commits one of the most heinous crimes against mankind, he doesn't deserve the most important right of our US citizenship.Kid would have been killed immediately if he did such a crime back then.

Back then, kids were trialed as adults. Kids *were* adults by the ages of 12 and 13.

AFAIK, it was the 14th Amendment which allowed government to restrict the voting rights of criminals. The founding fathers were long dead when it was proposed and even deader by the time it was ratified.Yeah my mistake. It's been a long time since I read the Constitution in it's entirety. I was thinking that it was spelled out in the articles. Then when I went back to re-read it I realize that this only gave the states the right to determine how they elect their Electoral College representatives. Until the 14th amendment it was the states' perogative to include or exclude whomever they wanted to from the process. Duh! big mistake on my part.

I had forgotten that our Founding Fathers didn't have as much faith in the "common man" as we usually give them credit for. In actuality they were pretty snobbish by today's thinking in that they believed only highly educated males should be permitted to have a say in government. So let me change my above post to read that they didn't believe that uneducated felons should have the right to vote. ;)

I had forgotten that our Founding Fathers didn't have as much faith in the "common man" as we usually give them credit for. In actuality they were pretty snobbish by today's thinking in that they believed only highly educated males should be permitted to have a say in government. So let me change my above post to read that they didn't believe that uneducated felons should have the right to vote.

They didn't all have the same ideas about everything. I think Ben Franklin would probably have been pushing for women's rights early on and liberating slaves. He certainly wasn't a highly educated guy. He was pretty much self-taught and from very common stock. His ideal was that it was the middle class schlubs, like himself, that should be running the country. Not the elite.

Kid would have been killed immediately if he did such a crime back then.

Back then, kids were trialed as adults. Kids *were* adults by the ages of 12 and 13.

I'm glad we've advanced, as a society, over the past 229 years and are not still basing everything we do on how they would have done it back then. I mean, they were still burning people at the stake, from time to time.

To a degree, I also agree with Aidon. I think our society needs to decide at what age we're going to hold a person responsible for their actions.

We can vote at 18 primarily because we needed young men to go to Viet Nam and die, and an awful lot of those young men thought it might be kinda nice if they had some say in who got elected and who was sending them to their deaths. Prior to Viet Nam, the voting age was 21. We have a war to thank for the voting age being what it is today.

I do think we need to say "at this age, you are now capable of reasoning well enough to be held accountable for your actions". I think this age is probably best set at 18. At 18 we consider a person old enough to go to the electric chair, but not old enough to drink responsibly? That seems out of kilter to me. In some states now, you can't get a completely unprovisional driver's license until the age of 21. That way they can celebrate by going out, getting drunk and driving home! Yeehaw.

I also agree with Aidon that most younger teenagers really don't have the faintest clue what they're doing. That's why they do stupid things. It's a learning stage, and unfortunately, the learning curve can be a bit steep at times.

Heck, at the age of 6 I tried to get my older sister to eat rat poison. Did I have the faintest idea what the REAL ramifications would have been? No. At that age, all I knew was that she used to beat me up, and if she was dead she couldn't do that anymore. Not to mention all the stupid crap I did as a teenager that, looking back on it, I'm amazed no one died or was seriously injured (like sliding down the spillway of a dam).

Am I a hardened criminal? nope. Have I ever attempted to take a person's life with true intent? nope. I'm probably one of the most non-violent people you'll ever meet.

I do think that, at 18, the vast majority of people out there have gotten past their "let's see what happens" stage and are capable of reasoning before acting. And I agree with Aidon that the current state of affairs where we don't really have a singular "coming of age" age is bogus.

If they're old enough to get shot at in Iraq, they're old enough to drink, drive, vote and be tried as an adult, IMO.

I'm glad we've advanced, as a society, over the past 229 years and are not still basing everything we do on how they would have done it back then. I mean, they were still burning people at the stake, from time to time.No bashin here. I happen to agree what they would've done in this circustance. ;)

Life for a life. Simple as that. You kill something intentionally, you deserve to be killed as well (although back then I don't think they qualified "intentionally" as I believe it was much harder to accidentally kill somebody -- ie; car accidents, etc).

Your two statements appraising the capabilities of children contradict each other.

Read more carefully:

There are two clear points being made:

1- The first is determine what candidate is better than another based on credibility, image, past, present, bla bla.
and
booze + smoking, which it seems kids only want to do to appear adults and cool in front of their peers.

These things are prohibitted from them by law for a reason.

Children cannot make an intelligent decision on these matters because their view of these things is beyond their full comprehension. Ask a kid what he thinks of Bush or about alcohol and see what kind of intelligent response you get.

2- But death, unlike what Aidon has stated, IS something a child can understand WAAAY before 20. A child can understand the concept at 10. Before then he knows what it is, but he won't accept it, that much is true.
So, when it comes to pulling the fire alarm of a school and sitting in ambush in front of it as the children and teachers walk out and aiming and shooting at them, you better damn well believe that kid knows what he is doing.

If it had been two kids playing with a weapon and not knowing it was loaded and it acidentally going off and killing one I would think different, but this is not the case.

Now ask a kid of 10 or older what death is and what killing is and compare the response to the voting and booze one.

Aidon:
I find it funny that comment about your judicial system, when the whole world knows it is a joke. You talk about compassion? Puhleeese. Compassion towards murderers and rapists? And how about a bit of compassion towards the VICTIMS? oh wait, no, they can screw themselves, but the person who murdered your child and raped your daughter deserves compassion and to be back on the street 2 minutes later to DO IT ALL AGAIN, huh?

And going to jail is not about teaching, because the only thing you learn in jail is that you got free cable, free food, free gym, etc. Going to jail is about PUNISHMENT for a crime that you have committed. You guys have a funny little saying that goes: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Now go and tell the relatives and friends of the children and teacher that kid (not so kid now) killed that he deserves compassion.

Aidon:
I find it funny that comment about your judicial system, when the whole world knows it is a joke.

Whoa now. You want to talk about a the US judicial system being a joke? You, from Spain? A nation which was still fascist and butchering its own citizens en masse within the lifetime of most of the folks on this board? A nation which, historically, has proven itself to be absolutely incapable of rational thought or basic human decency since 1492? You would have the audacity to claim America's justice system is a joke? Our judicial system has its issues (it gets more and more difficult to successfully defend in a criminal case every year it seems), but in the end, the nations where I would feel comfortable with risking their judicial system number a bare handful, and Spain isn't on the list.


You talk about compassion? Puhleeese. Compassion towards murderers and rapists? And how about a bit of compassion towards the VICTIMS?

Everyone has compassion for victims and the gut reaction for most people is excessive, indiscriminate, and prejudicial, which is why there needs to be those people who stand up for the rights of the accused and people who have mercy for the convicted on their mind. How is it compassionate toward the victims to put a child to death or behind bars for 60 years?


And going to jail is not about teaching, because the only thing you learn in jail is that you got free cable, free food, free gym, etc. Going to jail is about PUNISHMENT for a crime that you have committed. You guys have a funny little saying that goes: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Prison is twofold. It is punishment...but it is also rehabilitation. It needs to be such, else it ends up being nothing but a breeding ground for criminality (as it tends to be).

Now go and tell the relatives and friends of the children and teacher that kid (not so kid now) killed that he deserves compassion.

Someone needs to, yes. Someone needs to tell them that it is not just to hold a child responsible to the same level as an adult for those crimes. But, aside from that, someone needs to tell them all that our system should not allow a situation where a child can be treated as an adult only when it comes to punishment, but in all other situations he cannot recieve the beneficial trappings of adulthood.

I like Spain. The legal system is fine. From the time I've spent there, any problems seem to be with paperwork and bureaucracy rather than dispensing justice.

Back to the legal point though. You need to treat criminals as human beings, no more, no less. They will at some stage be released back into society and will need to fit in. If you treat them as human punchbags for every bit of rage possessed by society then they will become as bad as you treat them. If you think law is just about vengeance then forget the judicial system and we can all hire some mobsters to hurt people instead.

As for the one-age-fits-all suggestion, I don't buy it sorry. It might make the administration of our lives easier but the real world isn't one-size-fits-all. Some capabilities will come to young adults at different times. Ignoring the real world to lump capabilities that come at 12, 14, or 18, all together in one age bracket at 16, is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

I too dislike the one age fits all thing.

I especially did when I was a kid and teenager.

But then, I knew at 5 that killing was bad, and would end me up with worse consequences.

There are those who have the maturity for adult decisions at a pre 18 age. It would be OK in my book to treat those individuals, good and bad, as such. But having some bureaucratic Ministry of Adulthood, to determine exactly who those 10% or so are, is eqully absurd(as saying that everyone under 18 is child with a childs mind).

Whoa now. You want to talk about a the US judicial system being a joke? You, from Spain? A nation which was still fascist and butchering its own citizens en masse within the lifetime of most of the folks on this board? A nation which, historically, has proven itself to be absolutely incapable of rational thought or basic human decency since 1492? You would have the audacity to claim America's justice system is a joke? Our judicial system has its issues (it gets more and more difficult to successfully defend in a criminal case every year it seems), but in the end, the nations where I would feel comfortable with risking their judicial system number a bare handful, and Spain isn't on the list.

You need to get your facts straight before typing so many words.
Spain was under Franco's dictatorship until the early 70's when he died and the whole nation celebrated it in the streets. Don't even start to think the people were fascists just because their leader was. It is like blaming the cubans for allowing Castro to dictate their lives. Wrong way to go, especially when it has NOTHING to do with the judicial system. And please, before you say stupid things like "butchering their own people en masse" I HIGHLY suggest you get some facts right, because if you're talking about the civil war which ended in 1939 you can never compare that to the kind of butchering you are attempting to imply; and, for your information, although I am not Spanish born, I just live here, I take it personally. So get you facts straight and then talk outta yer ass all you want to.
About the rational thought or human decency, well, Aznar, who you could consider a right wing extremist, was who helped your current president Bush in so many things and they were great pals, so I would actually suggest you shut your trap on that issue also. Now, when you start calling Spaniards without rational thought or indecent, back it up with facts, because I won't let it pass, and not only that, you just show how ignorant and stupid you are, passing judgement on a whole nation and people you know NOTHING about. So again, shut your big mouth.
Next, when you talk about 1492 you sound like the islamo-fascist terrorists that have threatened Spain for the re-conquering of Spain from the muslims, which funnily enough ended in 1492. But since you openned the can of worms, lets not talk about what you yanks did to the native americans. Lets not even get into the discussion of what you guys have done to other nations... I won't even mention how you guys trained Bin Laden, or Armed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Irak war. I won't even start to go there.
But returning to the middle ages, where you seem to be set, learn your facts BEFORE you spew your bull****.
So, to recapitulate, your judicial system is a joke, in case you had forgotten. You have a good constitution, solid and intelligent, maybe needing a few tweaks to adjust to the times, but the way the guilty get set free, and the innocent sent to the electric chair, and murderers set loose with a clean slate, is, despite all your antics, WRONG.

Everyone has compassion for victims and the gut reaction for most people is excessive, indiscriminate, and prejudicial, which is why there needs to be those people who stand up for the rights of the accused and people who have mercy for the convicted on their mind. How is it compassionate toward the victims to put a child to death or behind bars for 60 years?

It isn't supposed to be compassionate. The kid MURDERED 3 other kids and a teacher. Ask them what they think the boy deserves as punishment, and their families. You talk about "teaching" and "compassion" and whatnot, but you seem to prefer "others" to do it. When I said "go and tell the victims' families the murderer needs compassion" you responded "someone should". That, my friend, is cowardice to the power of 10. Show compassion towards the terrorists who attacked your country and killed thousands of americans on 9-11, or does the fact those men were adults change something? They were brainwashed, so in theory did not know what they were doing, which would put them in the same frame of mind as the murderer kid, so why don't you show compasion towards them?

Prison is twofold. It is punishment...but it is also rehabilitation. It needs to be such, else it ends up being nothing but a breeding ground for criminality (as it tends to be).

It should be rehabilitation, but is it? No. They get free cable, free food, free gym, come out of jail bigger and badder, and things like the Bonny and Clyde wannabes of last week end up happening. Tell the family of the downed agent the two criminals need compassion.

Someone needs to, yes. Someone needs to tell them that it is not just to hold a child responsible to the same level as an adult for those crimes. But, aside from that, someone needs to tell them all that our system should not allow a situation where a child can be treated as an adult only when it comes to punishment, but in all other situations he cannot recieve the beneficial trappings of adulthood.

Sad.

So tell me, why is it some black kids are tried as adults but white kids get away with murder?

You spoke blatant and difamatory lies about Spain, which you know NOTHING about, but you uphold a racist judiciary sytem that protects some but puts others in the line of sight simply because of the colour of their skin or how much $$ they have in the bank. Cute.

Having a strong and breachless judicial system as Japan has would do you a world of good. Japan has the lowest crime rate in the world because the guilty go to jail and go to jail for a long time, to the full amount of what they are sent for.
Letting kids kill and get away with it not only doesn't punish or teach them anything, it also doesn't set a good example for other kids who might be living close to you.

So tell me, why is it some black kids are tried as adults but white kids get away with murder?

...

you uphold a racist judiciary sytem that protects some but puts others in the line of sight simply because of the colour of their skin or how much $$ they have in the bank. Cute.
I agree with these statements 100%. With that in mind, do you really want to give a system with these flaws the power to end lives?

You need to get your facts straight before typing so many words.
Spain was under Franco's dictatorship until the early 70's when he died and the whole nation celebrated it in the streets.

1975, November 20. Though Spain didn't become a constitutional democratic monarchy until 1978.The whole nation agreed not to bother attempting to punish those involved in the regime so as not to stir up bad memories or create greater turmoil. But you're willing to put 15 year olds in prison for the rest of their lives.

Don't even start to think the people were fascists just because their leader was. It is like blaming the cubans for allowing Castro to dictate their lives. Wrong way to go, especially when it has NOTHING to do with the judicial system. And please, before you say stupid things like "butchering their own people en masse" I HIGHLY suggest you get some facts right, because if you're talking about the civil war which ended in 1939 you can never compare that to the kind of butchering you are attempting to imply; and, for your information, although I am not Spanish born, I just live here, I take it personally. So get you facts straight and then talk outta yer ass all you want to.

Some estimate near to 500,000 people executed by Franco's regime. That qualifies as en masse (For the record, I've seen numbers ranging from 35,000 to 2 million).


About the rational thought or human decency, well, Aznar, who you could consider a right wing extremist, was who helped your current president Bush in so many things and they were great pals, so I would actually suggest you shut your trap on that issue also. Now, when you start calling Spaniards without rational thought or indecent, back it up with facts, because I won't let it pass, and not only that, you just show how ignorant and stupid you are, passing judgement on a whole nation and people you know NOTHING about. So again, shut your big mouth.

You want facts? With the exception of Germany, no Western nation has proven itself so xenophobic, destructive, and torturous over its history, but Germany was a spike, whereas in Spain its been the standard for half a millenia. For over five hundred years Spain has been a bastion of death, intolerance, and oppression. You want kudos because you've managed not to slaughter dissedents, seperatists, and non-catholics for the past 30 years? You would pass judgement on our judicial system, when yours hasn't existed long enough to be able to tell if its functional or not? History suggests it'll be a miracle if Spain doesn't begin pogroms, political executions, theo-political tyrrany, and mass expulsions within the next fifty years, because they've not managed it since the Visigoths conquered Rome, except when they were under Moorish control.

Next, when you talk about 1492 you sound like the islamo-fascist terrorists that have threatened Spain for the re-conquering of Spain from the muslims, which funnily enough ended in 1492. But since you openned the can of worms, lets not talk about what you yanks did to the native americans.

1492 was only the beginning. It wasn't until the 19th century that Jews were allowed back in. In 1492 Jews were 8% of the Spanish population. Today, the 14000 Jews in Spain comprise 3/10th of 1% of the population. Spain didn't even apologize for the Inquisition until about 1999 or so.

And really, of all the nations on this planet who could chastise the United States for its treatment of Native Americans...I think Spain is dead last on the list. Mass slavery. Mass conversions (by the normal Spanish methodology, i.e. torture and forcible re-education of the youth). Violent slaughter of any who disagreed. From 1493 to 1496 alone, Spain slaughtered some 5 million Carribbeans.

No, I think that while the US's record in its dealings with our Native Americans is deplorable...Spain at best has the right to keep quiet and look sheepish at the mere whisper of its colonial record.

Lets not even get into the discussion of what you guys have done to other nations... I won't even mention how you guys trained Bin Laden, or Armed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Irak war. I won't even start to go there.
But returning to the middle ages, where you seem to be set, learn your facts BEFORE you spew your bull****.

Again, Spain cannot really comment about things done to other nations. Allow me to point out...the entire Central and Southern half of the Western Hemisphere in regard to failed Spanish policy. At least the US cleans up after its mistakes. Granted, it should probably be noted that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was with Russian built T-55 and T-59 tanks and AK-47s.


So, to recapitulate, your judicial system is a joke, in case you had forgotten. You have a good constitution, solid and intelligent, maybe needing a few tweaks to adjust to the times, but the way the guilty get set free, and the innocent sent to the electric chair, and murderers set loose with a clean slate, is, despite all your antics, WRONG.

The guilty do not get set free, for if they were not convicted, by definition they are not guilty. If they serve their sentence, then they were not set free, for in America by default you are free and once your sentence is up, you return to your 'free' status. And while we do send too many innocents into our penal system, there are those of us who continue to strive for changes to rectify and reduce such mistakes. Our judicial system is not a joke...and Spain has zero room to speak of judicial systems when within the lifetime of most Spanish citizens, the judicial system consisted of whatever El Generalissimo declared.



It isn't supposed to be compassionate. The kid MURDERED 3 other kids and a teacher. Ask them what they think the boy deserves as punishment, and their families.

It is supposed to be compassionate!

You talk about "teaching" and "compassion" and whatnot, but you seem to prefer "others" to do it. When I said "go and tell the victims' families the murderer needs compassion" you responded "someone should". That, my friend, is cowardice to the power of 10.

Sorry to say, but I don't know them to tell them anything. But I can tell you what I would say...and what needs to be said:

"You are the fathers and mothers, siblings and spouses of those unfortunates who were killed. It is your right and duty to feel hatred and desire vengeance for those deaths. That is why it is not up to victims or their families to decide the fate of those who transgress, because it would be patently unfair for us to require or even ask you to put aside those rightful feelings.

However, as a society we decided upon our formation, that we would seek beyond vengeance and retribution in our criminal system and seek, instead, a better method...Justice. And we need remember that Justice must always be tempered with mercy and compassion, else it becomes as tyrranical as any autocratic or oligarchic regime. So, we do not ask the victim's family to look beyond their grief and hatred, but instead say, 'We will do what is right, so that you may continue to feel as is proper'."

Show compassion towards the terrorists who attacked your country and killed thousands of americans on 9-11, or does the fact those men were adults change something? They were brainwashed, so in theory did not know what they were doing, which would put them in the same frame of mind as the murderer kid, so why don't you show compasion towards them?

Because foreign terrorism and terrorists are a seperate issue from civil liberties and criminal justice. Because they are foreign hostiles waging undeclared war trying to destroy our system, thus forfeiting any right to be protected by its benefits.



It should be rehabilitation, but is it? No. They get free cable, free food, free gym, come out of jail bigger and badder, and things like the Bonny and Clyde wannabes of last week end up happening.

They live in an area smaller than your bedroom, I'm willing to bet. Their free 'gym' is a struggle for survival where they must constantly beware for their lives. Yes, they get free food, but frankly my understanding is its even worse than the food the Marine Corps fed me, and let me tell you, that wasn't exactly fine cuisine. But, as near as I can tell, your suggestion is that because we have failed in creating a system to rehabilitate, they should be punished by overly harsh sentences?

Tell the family of the downed agent the two criminals need compassion.



Sad.

What's sad is your absolutism and lack of any sort of mercy or understanding.

So tell me, why is it some black kids are tried as adults but white kids get away with murder?

First of all, white kids are tried as adults, frequently, but I'll admit there is still, sadly, some racism in our judicial system. Granted, we haven't had 500 years of winnowing out anyone ethnically or religiously divergent from ourselves. Aside from a 'sizable minority' of Moorish/Muslim people (roughly 2-3% of the population), Ethnic Diversity in Spain is being Galician or Basque or Catalunyan.


Having a strong and breachless judicial system as Japan has would do you a world of good. Japan has the lowest crime rate in the world because the guilty go to jail and go to jail for a long time, to the full amount of what they are sent for.

Of course, in Japan, the police can enter your house at whim. Also, Japanese society is completely different from the US. They have a society which has a long history of submitting to authority and condemnation of 'rebellious' conduct.

Letting kids kill and get away with it not only doesn't punish or teach them anything, it also doesn't set a good example for other kids who might be living close to you.

He didn't get away with it. He was punished. He was sent to prison for juveniles. But to punish him like an adult does nothing productive, and indeed it can only be considered cruel to put a person in jail for the 60 or 70 years they have left to live, or indeed to put them in jail from age 15 to 35, even, and then ask them to somehow function in society. Its cruel and self-defeating, for they will re-offend for no other reason than they have spent more of their life institutionalized than not and will be as incapable of functioning in free society as a man who's been raised by wolves in the wild until the age of 35.

No mention of Hitler yet (but almost!). I'm can't see however how General Franco is relevant to the release of a child offender from Arkansas other than to insult all Spaniards. I'm not sure that's necessary either.

...I'm can't see however how General Franco is relevant to the release of a child offender from Arkansas ...Not sure that it is. I think we've been re-derailed, but I'm not gonna read all of Aidon's post to find out :D

The door was opened by his suggestion that our judicial system was a joke...which is would be akin to Stalin telling Mao he isn't tough enough on dissidents.

Thereby avoiding the whole Godwin's thing.


/chuckle

Ah, just think of all the information and editorialization you'll miss by not reading, Arriene, and you're already in trouble for making fun of my Buckeye sig.

because we have failed in creating a system to rehabilitate, they should be punished by overly harsh sentences?

I rarely agree with Aidon, but this needed to be quoted for truth and food for thought.

Ah, just think of all the information and editorialization you'll miss by not reading, Arriene, and you're already in trouble for making fun of my Buckeye sig.It's ok! If you can't spell my name you can't ban me :D

Damn the logic!

1975, November 20. Though Spain didn't become a constitutional democratic monarchy until 1978.The whole nation agreed not to bother attempting to punish those involved in the regime so as not to stir up bad memories or create greater turmoil. But you're willing to put 15 year olds in prison for the rest of their lives.

Murderers yes. A murderer who despite the claims knew what he was doing.
Furthermore, I don't think you are in any position to say what a whole nation should or should not do to those who took part in Franco's regime, and this just goes to show how twisted your thinking is: You say the Spanish lack rational thought and are indecent, yet they chose to forgive those who oppressed them, show compassion towards them, for the greater good, which is allow the Spanish nation to move forward and not ponder on the mistakes of the past. It seems to be easy for you to call out on the nightmare the whole country had to withstand and you blame them for it even. And then you come here giving lessons in compassion? I don't think so!


Some estimate near to 500,000 people executed by Franco's regime. That qualifies as en masse (For the record, I've seen numbers ranging from 35,000 to 2 million).

You're talking of almost 40 years including the civil war. I agree the number of dead is great, I agree it should never have hapenned, but bear in mind it was still a struggle that was going on between the two opposing factions, from 1936 until 1975. Call it what you like, but don't dare say the Spanish people have no decency or rational thought. It is amongst the countries that give the most for solidarity, adopt chinese girls, and that has grown the most in europe due to immigration from eastern european countries, south american countries, and african countries.


You want facts? With the exception of Germany, no Western nation has proven itself so xenophobic, destructive, and torturous over its history, but Germany was a spike, whereas in Spain its been the standard for half a millenia. For over five hundred years Spain has been a bastion of death, intolerance, and oppression. You want kudos because you've managed not to slaughter dissedents, seperatists, and non-catholics for the past 30 years? You would pass judgement on our judicial system, when yours hasn't existed long enough to be able to tell if its functional or not? History suggests it'll be a miracle if Spain doesn't begin pogroms, political executions, theo-political tyrrany, and mass expulsions within the next fifty years, because they've not managed it since the Visigoths conquered Rome, except when they were under Moorish control.

/sigh
It really does not look good when you have to go back 500 years to try and prove a point that has no say in today's world. When was the last, or first, time you were in Spain? Do you compare the contemporary Spaniard to the ancient Iberian during the re-conquering of the peninsula, a time of war, where most nations would be considered barbaric and murderous in your eyes? Because if this is the case you really need to get back on track, it being you brought all this up because I said your judiciary system is a joke. And it isn't just me or the backwards and indecent Spanish that say it, it is mainly the world at large. And why is that? Because it is so.
You want compassion? Here goes the name of three geographical locations:

Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Guantanamo


1492 was only the beginning. It wasn't until the 19th century that Jews were allowed back in. In 1492 Jews were 8% of the Spanish population. Today, the 14000 Jews in Spain comprise 3/10th of 1% of the population. Spain didn't even apologize for the Inquisition until about 1999 or so.

Are you really talking about the Inquisition now? Was Spain the only country that had the inquisition? What about witch burning? Or head chopping?
Jews, that is funny, because the ratio of jews in a country really determines who tolerant they are, huh? Let me guess what religion you are ...
FYI, I'm an atheist. Does that make me a good or bad person? Does it make me inhuman and indecent?

And really, of all the nations on this planet who could chastise the United States for its treatment of Native Americans...I think Spain is dead last on the list. Mass slavery. Mass conversions (by the normal Spanish methodology, i.e. torture and forcible re-education of the youth). Violent slaughter of any who disagreed. From 1493 to 1496 alone, Spain slaughtered some 5 million Carribbeans.

Uh-huh, you forget I'm not Spanish. You just brought this up because you think I am. Think again. But I won't avoid your accusations of something that happened 500 years ago and with what I am also against. I do have discussions with Spaniards for what happened during the discovery of the Americas, but also with the brits for how they made their kingdom united and other things like India, piracy, and especially with certain americans for how they seem to forget how their country has systematically de-stabilized dozens of countries' governments around the world causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. But you prefer not to see that, don't you?
Because the USA had no slavery, right?
And I'd like to know where you get your figures from, because they seem overly inflated and greatly exagerated.
Take a walk through the streets of Bagdad now. Everyone who has recently been there or still is says the situation is worse than under Hussein, and you only got yourselves to thank for that.
And yes, I can bring myself to chastise the United States and any other country on this planet for unjust treatment of any race, religion, group, individual, etc. I feel like, because I have both the right and freedom to do it. You, on the other hand, are nobody to try and censor me in this or any other respect.

No, I think that while the US's record in its dealings with our Native Americans is deplorable...Spain at best has the right to keep quiet and look sheepish at the mere whisper of its colonial record.

I'll tell them on your behalf.
There is one thing I would like to say in their defense though: What you're referring to occured hundreds of years ago. The USA is still persecuting not only native americans, but the grandchildren of the slaves the whites owned and gave their surnames to, and the hispanics seeking better jobs, and a looooong etc.

Again, Spain cannot really comment about things done to other nations. Allow me to point out...the entire Central and Southern half of the Western Hemisphere in regard to failed Spanish policy. At least the US cleans up after its mistakes. Granted, it should probably be noted that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was with Russian built T-55 and T-59 tanks and AK-47s.

You clean up after your mistakes? You do really mean push the dirt under the carpet, for sure you must. The repercusions of the first 'mistakes' the USA made have still not been dealt with, and the echoes continue to expand and affect more and more each passing day.
I drove an elderly couple of new yorkers to Portugal about 10 years ago. During the trip the lady asked me whether we had blacks in Spain. I responded not many. She said they had a lot of trouble with blacks in the USA. She said they were bad bad people...
Cute, don't you agree?

The guilty do not get set free, for if they were not convicted, by definition they are not guilty.

A definition does not make one innocent. If someone has committed a crime and there is not enough proof to convict him/her, it is a tragedy, not a definition. If someone is guilty and let off, it is a crime in itself and should never be allowed to happen. It is not revenge, because revenge is what the relatives and friends of the victims would like the opportunity to have. Justice means to deal with balance a punishment in accordance to the crime. Letting someone free with no criminal record after killing 4 people is not justice, it is a joke!

If they serve their sentence, then they were not set free, for in America by default you are free and once your sentence is up, you return to your 'free' status. And while we do send too many innocents into our penal system, there are those of us who continue to strive for changes to rectify and reduce such mistakes. Our judicial system is not a joke...and Spain has zero room to speak of judicial systems when within the lifetime of most Spanish citizens, the judicial system consisted of whatever El Generalissimo declared.

And for that you call them inhumanly indecent and without rational thought? You attack those that suffered under Franco's regime? You really need to look at yourself in the mirror and check your priorities, because you have a twisted way of expressing them.

Sorry to say, but I don't know them to tell them anything. But I can tell you what I would say...and what needs to be said:

"You are the fathers and mothers, siblings and spouses of those unfortunates who were killed. It is your right and duty to feel hatred and desire vengeance for those deaths. That is why it is not up to victims or their families to decide the fate of those who transgress, because it would be patently unfair for us to require or even ask you to put aside those rightful feelings.

However, as a society we decided upon our formation, that we would seek beyond vengeance and retribution in our criminal system and seek, instead, a better method...Justice. And we need remember that Justice must always be tempered with mercy and compassion, else it becomes as tyrranical as any autocratic or oligarchic regime. So, we do not ask the victim's family to look beyond their grief and hatred, but instead say, 'We will do what is right, so that you may continue to feel as is proper'."

You see, I do not fall under the spell of big words and no substance you are so used to, so this 'dick waving' monologue is so much hot air to me, although I bet you feel mighty impressed yourself. all this "justice here" and "justice there" and "you are the fathers and siblings and bla bla" emptiness leads nowhere except confusion about what really needs to be done and is so lacking in your judiciary system. You need to make the convictions count, make the means to escape it more and more difficult, and think of ways lawyers will seek to use the law as a means for the truth and not to convict anyone or set murderers and rapists free.

But don't confuse me with a mindless anti-american. I'm neither. I have great issues with the spanish law and above all its convictions. Here it is almost as much a joke as in the USA, and I say almost because here it seems pretty clear the guilty go to jail, or at least get declared guilty. The terms for murder and rape are so ridiculous it seems almost preferable to commit one of these crimes before parking on a yellow line. But that is my struggle with this country and something I honestly hope will change, or better said help change.


Because foreign terrorism and terrorists are a seperate issue from civil liberties and criminal justice. Because they are foreign hostiles waging undeclared war trying to destroy our system, thus forfeiting any right to be protected by its benefits.

So what you're saying is just because they're not american is they deserve no compassion, huh?
The prisoners in guantanamo have not been tried, found guilty, innocent, or anything. They were round up in a foreign country, automatically declared terrorists, and have been held there for years. I thought you cleaned up your mistakes?

They live in an area smaller than your bedroom, I'm willing to bet. Their free 'gym' is a struggle for survival where they must constantly beware for their lives. Yes, they get free food, but frankly my understanding is its even worse than the food the Marine Corps fed me, and let me tell you, that wasn't exactly fine cuisine. But, as near as I can tell, your suggestion is that because we have failed in creating a system to rehabilitate, they should be punished by overly harsh sentences?

They get free education, become members of gangs which protect them, get better food than you say (or the pro-inmate organisations would be all over the government), get access to computers, free internet, books, free medical assistance, etc., and although it is not gramatically correct, etc. etc. etc...
If you think an overly harsh sentence for a kid who killed 4 people is life in prison, then what would you suggest is a JUST one? I don't think setting them free after 7 years is justice, and although you're defending it I don't think you think it is either.

What's sad is your absolutism and lack of any sort of mercy or understanding.

I have a lot of mercy and understanding towards the victims of heinous crimes committed by people who knew exactly what they were doing and the repercusions of it. I do not have any towards the guilty of committing those crimes, because when someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger you don't wake up. You're dead. And when you're dead you are not able to protect or care for or help your family. you're dead, and with your untimely death a part of all those who loved you also dies. the lives affected by the death of one person are almost impossible to fathom, yet you round it all up by saying they have to be "compassionate". Sorry man, that just won't do.

First of all, white kids are tried as adults, frequently, but I'll admit there is still, sadly, some racism in our judicial system. Granted, we haven't had 500 years of winnowing out anyone ethnically or religiously divergent from ourselves. Aside from a 'sizable minority' of Moorish/Muslim people (roughly 2-3% of the population), Ethnic Diversity in Spain is being Galician or Basque or Catalunyan.

Wrong.
I am south american. My brother is english. my mother is also south american. Half my family lives here in Spain. Every two steps I take I pass 1 spaniard and 4 foreigners. I live in southern spain, close to Gibraltar, and the number of foreigners here is overwhelming. The strip from Gibraltar to Malaga (roughly 150 kms) has only publicity signs in english. There are about 20 spaniards working in the company I work in, which has over 150 employees.
I have moors, africans, south americans, europeans, etc. as neighbours. I am surprised when I come across a spaniard. There are no riots or movements trying to kick any of them out of the country. They are welcomed by the vast non-extremists (which every country has) with their arms open.
There is a reason I live here, and that is because here I feel as if at home. This is my home, even though I was not born here.

As I asked you earlier: When was the last, or first, time you were in Spain? Because I've been to the USA, to England, to South Africa, to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, France, Portugal, etc., and every single trip has allowed me to learn something I wouldn't have if I had not seen it with my own eyes. Openning a history book and repeating what it says is not the same as going out and experiencing what you are trying to talk about.

Of course, in Japan, the police can enter your house at whim. Also, Japanese society is completely different from the US. They have a society which has a long history of submitting to authority and condemnation of 'rebellious' conduct.

It works. They are strict. The guilty don't get off easily. Use what works, discard what doesn't, for your multi-cultural society. The US is not just whites, it may be so in the government, but it isn't on the streets, where it really counts.

He didn't get away with it. He was punished. He was sent to prison for juveniles. But to punish him like an adult does nothing productive, and indeed it can only be considered cruel to put a person in jail for the 60 or 70 years they have left to live, or indeed to put them in jail from age 15 to 35, even, and then ask them to somehow function in society. Its cruel and self-defeating, for they will re-offend for no other reason than they have spent more of their life institutionalized than not and will be as incapable of functioning in free society as a man who's been raised by wolves in the wild until the age of 35.

Have it your way. Putting someone in jail for committing murder for 60 years is cruel. BTW, when does the sentence for being dead end?

You want compassion? Here goes the name of three geographical locations:

Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Guantanamo

Well, most of the rest of your post is pointless to respond to. The idea that none of it matters, and that Spain is a lovely wonderful multi-cultural idyllic place is fairly laughable, it hasn't had its current government long enough to be able to make any claims of note, and the overwhelming span of its history, up through the modern era within the lifetimes of the majority of its population, it was a fairly miserable place to be, especially if you were different.

However, with regard to your 'examples' of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Guantanamo as examples of US compassion, you are absolutely correct. It was a shining examples of US compassion when we rebuilt Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rest of Japan. As opposed to most of the world which subjugated its conquests, either literally or financially, after wars less encompassing than WWII, the US decided to instead befriend and rebuild...showing compassion virtually unseen previously by a nation.

And Guantanamo, yes, that's unsurprising, as the US has always treated foreign prisoners better than anyone else in the world, except Britain, in the modern era. They are well fed, unbeaten, clean, and given access to their religious and secular literature.




Are you really talking about the Inquisition now? Was Spain the only country that had the inquisition? What about witch burning? Or head chopping?
Jews, that is funny, because the ratio of jews in a country really determines who tolerant they are, huh? Let me guess what religion you are ...
FYI, I'm an atheist. Does that make me a good or bad person? Does it make me inhuman and indecent?

Yes, I traditionally judge nations heavily on how they treat their Jews. I try not to go places where there are very few Jews. Its a fairly good bellweather, historically speaking.


A definition does not make one innocent.

And therein lies the beauty of the US legal system. A definition does make one innocent. People like you scare me.

If someone has committed a crime and there is not enough proof to convict him/her, it is a tragedy, not a definition.

If there is not enough proof to convict him, he didn't commit the crime.

If someone is guilty and let off, it is a crime in itself and should never be allowed to happen.

Wrong. Just dead plain wrong. Frighteningly wrong. It infinitely better that a system allows the guilty to go free, than to unjustly punish the innocent.

Justice means to deal with balance a punishment in accordance to the crime. Letting someone free with no criminal record after killing 4 people is not justice, it is a joke!

Which is why I'll remain living in the US, because if the 'rest of the world' considers mercy, fairness, and the concept that the State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to be a joke, I don't want to live there, because you are all submissive ****s who deserve the oppression your governments levy upon you.






You see, I do not fall under the spell of big words and no substance you are so used to, so this 'dick waving' monologue is so much hot air to me, although I bet you feel mighty impressed yourself. all this "justice here" and "justice there" and "you are the fathers and siblings and bla bla" emptiness leads nowhere except confusion about what really needs to be done and is so lacking in your judiciary system. You need to make the convictions count, make the means to escape it more and more difficult, and think of ways lawyers will seek to use the law as a means for the truth and not to convict anyone or set murderers and rapists free.

No, everything about this paragraph is simply twisted and wrong. From a lack of respect for 'big words' (the ability to well articulate your view should never be disaparaged, at least not by educated men) to the concept that a system which makes evading conviction difficult is good, the entire sentiment is antithesis to everything this nation was built on.






So what you're saying is just because they're not american is they deserve no compassion, huh?

In some respects, yes. Though America has always treated its foreign prisoners significantly better than our own soldiers were treated, on the whole.


The prisoners in guantanamo have not been tried, found guilty, innocent, or anything. They were round up in a foreign country, automatically declared terrorists, and have been held there for years. I thought you cleaned up your mistakes?

What mistakes?



They get free education

Every child in America gets free education through high school.

become members of gangs which protect them

Are forced to join gangs in order to survive...

get better food than you say (or the pro-inmate organisations would be all over the government)

The food is adequate for nutritional purposes, as is the slop they fed me in the Marine Corps, but I rather suspect they'd rather eat other food.

get access to computers, free internet

Not much access to either, really, in maximum security, as I understand it.

free medical assistance

So, after we put people in prison we shouldn't give them medical assistance?


If you think an overly harsh sentence for a kid who killed 4 people is life in prison, then what would you suggest is a JUST one?

What he got. He was in a State institution until he turned 21. Hopefully they gave him the psychological treatment and education necessary for him to now re-enter society and become productive. If they didn't, therein lies the real issue with our justice system...not that we didn't put him in prison for the next sixty years.


As I asked you earlier: When was the last, or first, time you were in Spain? Because I've been to the USA, to England, to South Africa, to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, France, Portugal, etc., and every single trip has allowed me to learn something I wouldn't have if I had not seen it with my own eyes. Openning a history book and repeating what it says is not the same as going out and experiencing what you are trying to talk about.

Blah blah, I've been to Mexico, Argentina, Israel, Canada, and the USA obviously (see, I've travelled about some as well!), and the day to day lives of most everything in a nation will tell you little about it unless you spend some decent time there. In Mexico I saw nothing that would indicate the police are corrupt and that street gangs and drugs are an ever increasing problem, but its still true. In Israel, noone tried to blow me up, nor was there any terrorism in the areas I visited while I was there (though the news had a story about something almost every day, from stabbings to settlements being fired at), but there is obviously terrorism there and a long history of it. In Argentina I saw nothing which would indicate that the Jewish Community around Buenos Aires was in trouble, nor did I see significant numbers of Germans, yet the Jewish Community has been dying, and you only need to listen to the Argentinian pronunciation of certain sounds and words to see the Teutonic influence on the country (On a side note, I loved Buenos Aires, a city of some 10 million people and it was so clean as to make me disbelieve its size. Just don't try to cross the street, by all observations stoplights and street signs are purely optional).

I'm not surprised to see how you twisted the meaning of some of the points I made and gave them a "Feel Happy" answer, typical of a brainwashed, ehm, brain.

I'm also not surprised to see how you squirmed out of responding to some other points (not that I'm interested in your warped responses, but it just goes to show).

I always have a laugh when I see the same type of blank eyed responses I would expect from an extremist (terrorist, left-wing, right-wing, you name it) come from a self-proclaimed erudite. Really quite laughable, especially when you've shown to all by your responses to be a bigot and think victims had it coming and prisoners are all unjustly incarcerated innocents who deserve more than what they had outside of prison. I'm glad it's your tax dollars paying for all those murderers and rapists to have a cozy jail.

But the real issue is that the kid who killed those 4 people is free, and it is all because of your joke of a judiciary system.

the US has always treated foreign prisoners better than anyone else in the world, except Britain, in the modern era.

As a Scandinavian, I cannot decide wether I should be offended by this, or if I should offer to educate you. :/

It infinitely better that a system allows the guilty to go free, than to unjustly punish the innocent.

However, how do you consolidate a statement like this (with which I totally agree by the way) with your apparent defense of the proceedings at Guantanamo Bay? They're not convicted, so by definition they're presumed innocent.

He was in a State institution until he turned 21. Hopefully they gave him the psychological treatment and education necessary for him to now re-enter society and become productive. If they didn't, therein lies the real issue with our justice system...not that we didn't put him in prison for the next sixty years.

So refreshing to agree with you for once, Aidon :)

Scandinavia has had prisoners?


You may educate me.

Scandinavia has had prisoners?

Yes, even foreign ones amagawd, who'd have thunk it, ey? :P

As a Scandinavian, I cannot decide wether I should be offended by this, or if I should offer to educate you. :/

Erm...When's the last time a Scandinavian nation has taken a foreign prisoner? Is Finland considered Scandinavian, I suppose they took prisoners during the war they won against Russia.



However, how do you consolidate a statement like this (with which I totally agree by the way) with your apparent defense of the proceedings at Guantanamo Bay? They're not convicted, so by definition they're presumed innocent.

They aren't protected by our Constitution. They are foreign hostiles, different set of rules, by anyone's standards.

Erm...When's the last time a Scandinavian nation has taken a foreign prisoner?

Probably today.

Is Finland considered Scandinavian, I suppose they took prisoners during the war they won against Russia.

No, Finland is not part of Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden and Denmark are). But why are you acting as if we're talking about -war-prisoners in a thread about Kids tried as adults?

They aren't protected by our Constitution. They are foreign hostiles, different set of rules, by anyone's standards.

So "Better to let guilty men go free than to unjustly punish the innocent" is neither a policy you see the point in giving to non-americans, nor a policy you'd appreciate a foreign nation to extend to you as non-citizens of that country?

"Better to let guilty men go free than to unjustly punish the innocent"

No point having nice morals like that and then deciding that some people are more innocent than others.

No, Finland is not part of Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden and Denmark are). But why are you acting as if we're talking about -war-prisoners in a thread about Kids tried as adults?

Because it was brought up as part of the discussion. When I was speaking of foreign prisoners I was speaking of PoW/'Enemy Combatant' situations. Not tourist Bob heh.

Because it was brought up as part of the discussion. When I was speaking of foreign prisoners I was speaking of PoW/'Enemy Combatant' situations. Not tourist Bob heh.

Well in that case let me try to re-answer: I am not sure about to what extent PoWs from Iraq have been taken and held by scandinavians. So since I'm on my way out now, and too lazy to research, let's assume none have - at least I won't be making claims I'll later have to take back that way. That would make the answer to your question:

During the Bosnia-conflict.

Why do you ask?

lalala...

If Scandinavians have Iraq POWs, I am sure that the Swiss or Australians will take them off your hands.

Do you have a point to make here, Fyyr?

Wow, all this over a kid getting released cause the laws said he couldn't be held past his 18th birthday, but was stretched to his 21st birthday.

Well in that case let me try to re-answer: I am not sure about to what extent PoWs from Iraq have been taken and held by scandinavians. So since I'm on my way out now, and too lazy to research, let's assume none have - at least I won't be making claims I'll later have to take back that way. That would make the answer to your question:

During the Bosnia-conflict.

Why do you ask?

See, I didn't know that.

I think being a PoW to Swedes couldn't be that bad...Swedish Meatballs and all.

But when I think of Norway...I just don't know. I just think of fish.

But when I think of Norway...I just don't know. I just think of fish.

Hah, that's what we want you to think, while you buy all our oil (world's 3rd largest oil exporter omg plz don't "liberate" us omg! :P ) and make us pretty much the richest nation on the planet :)

No no, nothing to see here, move along *whistles innocently*

Well, for the lack of sunshine you have in the winter you probably deserve the extra wealth. Besides, doesn't Luxemborg own your a$$e$ in wealthiest nation (per capita)? And ours as well... :p

Hah, world's 3rd largest oil exporter omg plz don't "liberate" us omg! :P

Now that was funny :) :)

Besides, doesn't Luxemborg own your a$$e$ in wealthiest nation (per capita)? And ours as well... :p

Depends what report you're looking at, and I said "pretty much" so there nener! :P