10 ms·
>he admits the night ended in a stabbing spree in which he was involved, violence which left two people dead and six injured. >he has since accepted in an inte
by polartx 5y ago
>he admits the night ended in a stabbing spree in which he was involved, violence which left two people dead and six injured.
>he has since accepted in an interview with US broadcaster CBS that he stabbed someone who survived
>”I didn't murder anybody."
I wonder if there’s some very simple investigative work that took place, but the article doesn’t mention it, as the author attempts to portray the convicted murder in a way that would foster empathy.
For instance, did the wounds suggest more than one knife was used? If not, that would mean they were handing the knife off to each other. It would be pretty unrealistic that a group of inebriated youngsters could rack up 8 stabbings and 2 murders with 1 knife before the streets were completely cleared and the police were on the scene.
As he’s been convicted, he’s a murderer unless proven otherwise, and deserves his original sentence.
- JshWright 5y ago"Deserves" is a pretty loaded word there...
- iratewizard 5y agoA life sentence for participating in a cold-blooded murder spree is something I imagine most members of society would see as just.
- Arainach 5y agoFor a mentally capable adult, perhaps. We have plenty of research to show that the brains of juveniles are wired differently. That doesn't mean no punishment, but it means that a life sentence is excessive and rehabilitation should be tried.
- systemvoltage 5y agoSo, "Deserves" still applies here, just less.
- iratewizard 5y agoThe overwhelming majority of juveniles do not commit cold-blooded murder like this. Do you believe that this person is not a psychopath? Has any real ground been broken to take violent psychopaths and "cure" their condition? I've seen no evidence of this, and I don't see rehabilitation as anything more than a tool that is useful in certain circumstances.
- alogray 5y agoMost of us on here are in tech rather than psychiatry and not fit to make a call on whether someone is a psycopath, especially from a single article about them that doesn’t really focus on their mental state.
- thrwhizzle 5y agoHe went on a robbing and stabbing spree that ended up with six critical injuries and two deaths. Maybe you don’t think he deserves his punishment. I certainly do. The type of person who would go on a stabbing spree for wine money is not the kind of person who has any place in society I want to live.
- daenz 5y agoFurthermore, if this is the type of thing that someone has to "learn" not to do at 15, what other horrible things do they still need to learn not to do? It is not worth having these people live around others while they learn these lessons at the cost of innocents around them.
- polartx 5y agoWhen you think about it, there was enough complex decisions taking place to point towards a developed (albeit devoid of conscience) mind in control. A childs reasoning would more likely follow this kind of path: Child wants alcohol->storekeeper has alcohol->child capable of coercion by force (ie stabbing)—>child gets alcohol from storekeeper However, instead he did this: Young man wants alcohol->storekeeper has alcohol—>alcohol costs money that young man does not have—>innocent passerby’s have money—> young man capable of coercion by force (ie stabbing)—>young man stabs innocent passerby’s for their money—>Evaluate whether amount stolen is enough for alcohol, if not, repeat previous steps, if so—->young man gets alcohol from storekeeper Good decisions are not proof of brain development, however complex ones are. Given the evidence I would say he was rightly judged as an adult.
- daenz 5y agoYou make a good point, but I think there is a simpler argument for why he was rightfully tried as an adult: murder is an adult action.
- alogray 5y agoAre there crimes that are “juvenile actions”? Would adults who commit them be tried as juveniles given that it is a juvenile action?
- mekkkkkk 5y agoIIRC, empathy isnt fully developed until the early twenties. Even if you are capable of having sophisticated trains of thoughts you might not realize the scope of consequences from your actions. Life without parole seems like it should be reserved for those who are beyond saving. Not sure a 15 year old boy would classify as such. It all depends on your view of retribution vs rehabilitation though.
- taneq 5y agoAww he's just a kid... no need to get upset about him stabbing a bunch of people to death now is there?
- alogray 5y agoThat is not what the person you replied to what the person you replied to said and you know that. Intentionally misconstruing what others say is something best left for Reddit.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- MomoXenosaga 5y agoSociety is rarely for lower sentences. I find that leftist wokes tend to live in their own bubble. They are painfully reminded of it when there is a survey about the death penalty. Luckily the justice system doesn't operate on the whims of the people like in that story of Jesus' trial.
- mekkkkkk 5y agoHistorically, "society" has been huge fans of corporal punishment, elaborate executions and torture. Not sure you wanna go down that road, buddy.
- LordDragonfang 5y agoNot to mention slavery, lynchings, and the consequence-free murder of gender and sexual minorities. There are many things that are today considered barbaric that were once popular, and this is almost certainly a trend that will extend into the future.
- JshWright 5y agolol, I work as a paramedic. How many fatal stabbings have you been to? Especially ones where it was your job to try to save the victims life? Unless your number is higher than mine, save your "woke leftist bubble" argument. My position is that no 15 year old deserves a life sentence _without parole_. Are there 15 year olds who commit crimes that truly reflect their irredeemable nature? Perhaps. I expect they are in the minority though, and that's the whole point of a parole board (as flawed a system as that is).
- polartx 5y agoI’m not sure I get your meaning? “Deserve” is a consequence of action, whether it’s a reward or punishment depends on the action. The scope of the consequence is usually clearly defined, and a person or group is empowered with delivering that consequence (reward or punishment). So just as “injustice” exists when someone deserves a reward, (some consequence predicated on their actions), but does not receive it, the same must also exist where someone deserves a punishment but does not receive it.
- tgflynn 5y agoIn a democracy what such an action "deserves" is decided by the people and the people are not of one mind on what a person like this "deserves". It seems quite likely that in a different jurisdiction or at a different time a much lighter sentence would have been imposed for this crime.
- aksss 5y agoPerhaps worth pointing out for general awareness that trial by jury has nothing to do with democracy, per se. Not all democracies do it, and it was (is) a pretty unique thing about the American system of checks and balances at the time it was enshrined in the sixth and seventh Amendments of our Constitution. Jury trials can exist with or without democracy. To your point about different time and place, yes, but that’s the system: the jury you get, absent a mistrial, is the jury you get and their opinion is what decides what you deserve by definition (absent new evidence, appeals, etc, within the confines of sentencing regulation, etc.). Perhaps what you’re after is that there’s no universally objective standard of what a person deserves for their actions, given all the myriad influences and conditions that lead to a particular moment in a person’s life, and which may lessen that persons agency. Therefore the judgement of society is imperfect in the sense that it cannot adequately grasp all these attributes, and may give attributes differing weight based on something as small as whether their eggs were over cooked that morning. So for a person to use the word “deserves” with authority is flawed because a person or people cannot render a perfectly objective judgement. I think you’ll find that this is an argument as old as time, but whether by birth or immigration, people living in a system operate by its rules, and the word “deserve” reflects the authority of a society to bring down punishment on scofflaws. Like when I tell you something is “cold” we need not debate the true principle of what cold means, you assume to context. So should you assume context for the word “deserves”. Society has never achieved perfection in balancing agency and justice but herein lies a predictable truism - if you run around with a band stabbing others so severely that some die and by luck some don’t, society will determine ya dun f’d up.
- Quarrelsome 5y agoI don't think anyone deserves that long for something done at 15. Remember that the potential range of failure (how hard you can fuck up) for a 15 year old is kinda arbitrary as much of it is based on who your parents are. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve punishment but that seems like a very long amount of time to sentence a minor.
- prepend 5y agoIt’s definitely pretty hard to determine how long someone should be punished for multiple murder. I expect the most capable would be the judge and jury, so it’s hard to improve on that decades later with minimal information. So life for multiple murder by a 15 year old doesn’t strike up my curiosity for optimizing the sentencing. Unless there’s lots more info. This article didn’t provide any and since the journalist would likely research to make a good article, I expect there’s not any compelling narrative.
- aksss 5y agoArguably (though not certainly) a better punishment than death, which would have been a frequent consequence in most of human history for taking the lives of others (plural). Life imprisonment is simply an alternative to the state killing you. You can die (so we don’t have to worry about your exposure to society) or you can stay in this institution (so we don’t have to worry about you). What do you prefer? ..aaand arguably you can revisit the decision on your own accord later if you choose the latter. “Time head all wounds” refers to the lessening sense of gravity of experiences over time. This is a function of memory and the healing power of forgetfulness. Life sentences are therefore liable to re-evaluation and pity by their nature, whereas if death was meted out as the sentence, that too would be forgotten in time. I find that interesting, and perhaps it says that we should not trust such emotions in either direction (for or against a punishment) when figuring out how to manage people who systemically murder others.