An 11-year-old Wisconsin boy accused of murdering his mother has been ordered to stand trial.
The boy is charged with first-degree intentional homicide. The district attorney’s office is seeking to try him as an adult. The court has ordered that the boy’s name not be revealed because he may still be tried as a child.
In July, the court found the boy competent, according to court records.
Milwaukee Detective Timothy Keller testified in court on Tuesday about speaking with the boy about his mother’s death.
The detective said he questioned the boy the next day and the then 10-year-old boy admitted shooting her but called it an accident, according to WISN.
“[The boy] stated that he took up a shooting stance and was pointing the gun at her as she was walking towards him and asking him to put it down. And that’s when he indicated that he fired the gun with his intent to scare her by shooting the wall behind her,” Keller testified.
“He had made a purchase on his mother’s Amazon account for some virtual reality goggles the morning after this homicide occurred. And [family] were concerned because he had had an argument with her about whether he could have these prior to the homicide,” Keller said.
It makes sense in obvious cases where a 16 or 17 year old commits an “adult” crime, but having it pushed to under 14 year olds is clearly misuse IMO
It still doesn’t tbh. The concept of an “adult crime” is baffling to me.
A 17 year old rapist can be tried as an adult IMO
Why though ? They’re not an adult, and rape is depressingly common in children.
Edit: maybe instead I should focus on the core absurdity of it all: isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?
Because in this second case you ensure that all children be given the same rights under the law and you get the same severity for 17 year olds for crimes you decide warrant it, rather than a shoddy “hmmm I think this crime is heinous enough to preemptively strip this person from their rights before we even decide on guilt and stuff and maybe the judge will agree”.
They basically are, we have Romeo and Juliet laws for recognizing that under 18 people are able to consent (with themselves, obviously) so the legal framework for recognizing that a minor can make adult decisions is there. We all understand that maturity is not a binary, and teens can be expected to act like an adult (such as driving), and that comes with adult responsibility.
Me, personally, I think if a minor commits a crime with mature motivations, they can be tried as an adult.
I suppose, although the latter would be codifying the principle
It’s obviously a topic that requires nuance, but I do believe there are circumstances where it fits.
The thing is the motion to be tried as an adult comes before the trial, so it comes before you ascertain anything about motivations, intent, psychological expertise…
I think this whole thing goes with the whole drinking, enlisting in the army, voting… You guys have a legal definition of childhood that’s way fuzzier that I’m used to. In my head, a motivation isn’t mature or not intrinsically, it’s mature or not depending on who has it : if it’s a child it’s not, if it’s an adult it should be so it’s considered as such.
I guess having a hard limit on the eighteenth birthday is weird in its own right… Maybe it’s because I’m old but in my head it should be fuzzy in the other direction: 18 year olds are definitely still kids in most aspects and should get a chance to be tried as children.
As abbotsbury said, it needs nuance. I am not good at that but I want to discuss, so I’ll write it below.
Mainly your point that 18+ year olds don’t have mature thinking patterns in some cases if not many: I’ve read that 25 years of age is when our brains basically start solidifying (I’m forgetting the actual term) and is why alcohol is recommended against until that age, but even that’s actually supposed to be fuzzy because aging isn’t a clear cut thing and brains and bodies age entirely differently so maybe if some kind of regulations should be set it should be between 16-27 for trial as adults if the need is felt with the cut-off for such judgements being less lenient as their age gets closer to the limit ^((or more lenient, I’ve confused myself in how this should be worded)^)
Then again this is for a justice system which is not focused on reparations through punishing the preparator instead of corrective measures and trying to create a society where crimes are less likely (equitable society, or a healthier outlook for mental and physical health, etc)