Morally wrong and/or legally wrong to charge a child with murder?

[Taker Sucks]

I am looking for bothMORAL and LEGAL thoughts on this subject. I am planing to partake in a internship under Dallas DA Craig Watkins with the intention on becoming a future prosecutor for our Dallas PD ,and our whole county. As such I have always been a fan of "Law and Order:SVU" the only show in the franchise to have the 2 ADA's as main characters has always brought controversy. Dick Wolfe's style of taking stories off the headlines has been both praised and criticized for its role in society and in the show itself. One headline in particular they changed was the shooting of Kayla Rolland. The only true things that are similar about this episode and the case is that a 6 year old boy shot a 7 year old girl.

In the episode "Baby Killer" a 7 year old hispanic boy shoots a lil black girl in recess. Here is a summary:

Spoiler

During the morning, the kids are playing at their school. An African American female worker hears a gunshot. A 6- year-old African-American girl, Carly Jackson is killed. The shooter is near the garbage can. The shooter’s a 7-year-old Hispanic boy, Elias Barrera. At the station, Cragen informs the detectives that a 6 year old girl died. The officers bring Elias to the station.

When Elias’s parents come to the station, Benson tells them that Elias shot Carly. Elias’s parents don’t own a gun. Elias’s parents don’t know how Elias got the gun. Elias goes to school, home, and his babysitter, Mrs. Strada’s residence. Elias, Stabler, Benson, Elias’s parents, and an African-American officer are in the interrogation room. Stabler talks to Elias.

Elias doesn’t like Carly because she kisses and chases him. Elias asks if Carly’s going to be okay, but nobody answers Elias’s question. Elias says that he shot Carly. Elias will get a lawyer soon, but he can’t go home right now. Cragen wants Munch and Fin to find out how Elias got the gun. Munch and Fin are at the school. Munch talks to the lady, Mrs. Pivik, who found Carly. Munch asks if Carly and Elias fought a lot, but Mrs. Pivik says no. She saw Elias putting the gun in the garbage can. Munch says, “Elias said that Carly picked on him.” Mrs. Pivik says that Carly was a sweet girl and Elias wasn’t a troublemaker.

Benson and Stabler go to Mrs. Strada’s residence where Mrs. Strada babysits a lot of kids. Mrs. Strada doesn’t own a gun and none of the kids brought a gun to Mrs. Strada’s residence. There’s a list of people, who drop their kids off at Strada’s residence. Stabler asks if Strada’s responsible for every kid around here. Strada says, “Yes.” Fin talks to a kid, named Sammy at the school. Sammy doesn’t know where Elias got the gun from. Sammy didn’t know that Elias had a gun. When Elias shot Carly, it was Sammy’s first time to see the gun. Munch’s also talking to 1 of the kids. Munch asks, “Why did Elias shoot Carly?” The kid says, “I don’t know.” Munch asks if Carly picked on Elias a lot.

The kid says that Carly kissed Elias all the time, but Elias’s face got wet. Munch asks if Carly tried to kiss Elias before she died. The kid says, “She was walking over.” At the station, Benson and Stabler meet Elias’s teacher, Mrs. Paredes. Mrs. Par says that Elias drew a picture in his class before Carly’s death.

In the drawing, there are 2 evil people and 1 good person. After the shooter shoots a pillow, the bullet enters the good person who has a pony tail. When Carly died, she had a pony tail. Charlie’s the CADA (Chief Assistant District Attorney). Charlie, Alexandra, and other people are in the hallway. Charlie wants Alexandra to charge Elias with murder, but Alexandra doesn’t want to do it because Elias’s 7. Charlie says that Elias’s old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

Alexandra says that Elias wasn’t able to understand the consequences of his actions. Since Elias brought a gun to school, Charlie feels that Elias knew what he was doing. Due to Elias’s drawing, Charlie feels that Elias planned to kill Carly. They go to the courtroom. Before the jury writes the verdict, Alexandra wants Elias to get removed from his house. Elias’s parents and lawyer are sad because the judge’s sending Elias to Wagner Detention Facility. Elias’s also sad. Carly’s family’s obviously mad because Carly’s dead.

At the station, Munch and Benson read an article that shows Elias. Alexandra had no other choice to do it. Elias didn’t talk about why he pulled the trigger. Elias didn’t talk about where he got the gun from. Reyna drops her son off at Strada’s residence. Reyna owns a gun. Fin and Munch go to Reyna’s residence. Reyna never gave her gun to her son. When Reyna pulls out her gun, Fin and Munch get scared because Reyna might pull the trigger by mistake.

Benson and Stabler find out that somebody used the murder weapon to kill a 23 year old man before Carly’s death. At the station, they find out that the 23 year old victim’s Shorty. Shorty died the night before Carly’s death. Shorty’s dead body got dumped in an alley. Shorty used to be in jail. There’s no list of suspects. They want to arrest Shorty’s killer, but they have to look for people who know Shorty. In the picture of Shorty’s dead body, Shorty’s pants are similar to the victim’s pants from Elias’s drawing.

When Benson and Stabler go to the streets, they meet a paper man who saw Shorty leaving Nicky Crow’s store more than 1 time. They go to Nicky’s store. They tell Nicky that Shorty’s dead. They don’t ask if Nicky killed Shorty. When they leave Nicky’s store, they see a group of men standing next to a fence. Jamal’s a kid. Jamal yells 911 and runs. They decide to chase Jamal, but Kwon catches Jamal. Jamal knows Elias, but Jamal doesn’t know Shorty.

Benson and Kwon look at the men, who are standing next to the fence. Kwon says that 1 of the men is Bobby. Kwon owns a candy store. Kwon never saw Elias with Shorty. Elias and a male teenager, Sweetness went to Kwon’s candy store more than one time. At the station, they find out that Sweetness’s real name’s Antonio. Antonio used to be in jail. Antonio’s great grandmother’s Strada. Benson and Stabler talk to Strada. Strada says that Antonio became a good person. Antonio takes some of the kids to the park, candy store, etc. Antonio and Shorty were in the same prison. Benson and Stabler feel that Antonio murdered Shorty. Strada doesn’t want the detectives to hurt Antonio. Benson and Stabler go to Antonio’s apartment. There’s blood in Antonio’s apartment and outside of the apartment building. Antonio’s outside. Somebody cut Antonio’s throat. Antonio’s still bleeding. Antonio says that his attacker’s Machate, but Antonio dies.

At the station, they look at the picture of Shorty’s dead body and Elias’s drawing again. They believe that Elias saw Shorty getting murdered. Elias didn’t say anything about Shorty’s murder because Elias’s afraid. Elias went back to his house, but the case’s not over. Benson and Stabler go to Elias’s residence. They show Elias’s drawing to Elias’s parents and lawyer. Stabler talks to Elias.

Before Shorty got murdered, Sweetness told Elias to hide in the room. Machate killed Shorty. Elias doesn’t know Machate’s address. Elias also doesn’t know Machate’s location. After Machate killed Shorty, Elias heard sirens and Machate escaped. Sweetness put the gun on the couch. Sweetness got a suitcase and left too. Elias took the gun because Elias didn’t want to die. Shorty got killed at Strada’s residence. They go to Strada’s residence. When Shorty got killed, Strada was sleeping at her residence.

At Strada's residence, 1 of the pillows is missing. Sweetness put Shorty’s dead body in the suitcase. Sweetness dumped Shorty’s dead body in the alley. At the station, an officer gives them a list of suspects because they’re still looking for Machate. Benson, Stabler, and Munch talk to Cragen. Last 3 suspects are Bobby, Nicky, and Kwon. Stabler, Benson, Elias, and Elias’s lawyer go to Nicky’s store. Before they enter Nicky's store, Elias has to wear a mask because Nicky might be Machate. When they enter the store, Elias sees Nicky.

Elias grabs Stabler’s hand because Nicky's Machate. Stabler and Benson arrest Nicky/Machate. Elias’s in Dr. Olivet’s office. Before Carly died, Elias was scared because Machate was near the school. Machate wanted to attack Elias too. Elias wanted to shoot Machate, but Elias accidentally shot Carly. Elias asks, “What’s going to happen to me?” Dr. Olivet asks, “What do you think should happen to you?” Elias thinks that he’s going to burn in hell for what he did.

Alexandra goes to Charlie’s office. Charlie still wants Elias to get punished because people want justice. When they leave Charlie’s office, Charlie says that Alexandra can charge Elias with manslaughter. Alexandra still doesn’t want to prosecute Elias. Charlie and Alexandra enter the elevator.

When they get out of the elevator, Charlie and Alexandra talk to the reporters. Cragen and the detectives are watching TV because Charlie and Alexandra are talking to the reporters. Stabler was told that Elias got expelled from school. Alexandra goes to talk to Dr. Olivet. They go to the courtroom. Dr. Olivet talks to Elias’s lawyer. When Elias pulled the trigger, Elias didn’t know that it was wrong. Alexandra talks to Dr. Olivet. Carly’s mother realizes that Elias wanted to shoot someone else.

Carly’s mother also realizes that Elias accidentally killed Carly. Dr. Olivet believes that Elias lacked the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. Alexandra doesn't want Elias to get punished. Carly’s mother’s not mad at Elias anymore. Carly’s mother’s also not mad at Alexandra. Elias can go back to his house. There’s a group of African Americans outside because they’re mad at Alexandra. Alexandra talks to the angry mob. When Carly’s mother talks to the angry mob, Carly’s mother says, “Go home. Take care of your children.”

At the station, Alexandra talks to the police. Alexandra’s boss said that Alexandra can take Sunday off. Cragen receives a phone call because a terrible incident took place. Benson and Stabler go to the crime scene. They find out that Carly’s brother, T.J. killed Elias for revenge and TJ said, "You can't kill a sister and just walk." Stabler worries about the cycle of violence continuing.

Do you think it was right to prosecute the 7 year old with murder?

What should be done with the 12 year old TJ who killed the 7 year old?

Is the race and revenge fueled rage enough to give TJ no jail time?

 

[Sheamus' Suntan]

Do you think it was right to prosecute the 7 year old with murder?


This is VERY difficult...but yes. It is right. In the end - I see it like this. EVERYONE is accountable for their own actions and at the age of 7, a child should know what is right and wrong. Parents should have drummed it into this child that 'because you see something on television, it doesn't make it right.' A child, even at the age of 7 must be admonished for bad behaviour. At the age of 7, if I stole even so much as a small sweet from a store, I would be told off, sent to my room and I would go without dinner. Seems hard at the time, but that told me that I should never do this again.

I know Jail time is a different case, but in the end, this child KILLED another child. Took the life of the younger girl and that deserves more dire consequences. A child will learn that 'they can get away with things' if the wrong level of punishment is given.

So yeah. Jail time is appropriate.

What should be done with the 12 year old TJ who killed the 7 year old?


If the 7 year old above got arrested and charged with murder, why would a 12 year old that killed a 7 year old not face the same?

Is the race and revenge fueled rage enough to give TJ no jail time?
Is race and revenge fueled rage enough to get ANYONE off the hook with no jail time? NO! Anyone else would face it so he should too.

 

[Mustang Sally]

If anyone murders another person, they should be charged with murder, regardless of age. What the courts do with the person who commits murder is subject to interpretation, but I don't know what good it does to call the crime something else just because a child was involved.

Some will argue that if the kid wasn't capable of understanding the consequences of what he did, he shouldn't be labeled a murderer. But if he killed someone, why label him as anything else? Because it will damage his psyche? Because it will hurt the child's prospects in the future? In the case cited, ask the parents of the murdered daughter how they feel about the psyche and future prospects of the child who killed her.

One problem inherent in society today is the modern practice of wanting to blame a child for nothing.

He's blameless.....he didn't understand the implications of his actions..... he's not capable of grasping right from wrong.

Well, even keeping in mind that there's a huge difference between a 7-year-old and a 14-year-old, kids are a lot more sophisticated than their defenders portray them. Yet, if the 14-year-old gets a gun and holds up a convenience store, society doesn't want to blame him; instead, they go looking to find and prosecute the person who left the gun unattended so the kid could get a hold of it. Or the fact his parents haven't given him a stable home life. Or his teachers didn't notice he was an unhappy child.

The 14-year-old? Well, his defense team paints him as "a good kid who made bad choices." (that line infuriates me whenever I come across it, btw).

Sure, charge a kid with murder if he murders someone, but base the actual punishment on his age, the results of his psychological profile, and the facts of the individual case.

But in the case described by the OP, if a judge decides the kid was too young to understand what he did and gives him a pat on the head and sends him home...... maybe the judge should be responsible for what happens if the kid comes back to kill again.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

If a kid murders someone else I think it should be handled differently than if lets say an adult commits a crime.

The big difference is depending on whether a child knows how wrong it is to kill a person, if the kid has messed up parents something that seems like common sense to the rest may not be to a kid.

Instead of jail I would put him somewhere that he can't hurt anyone, maybe a private school for dangerous minds so he can learn and be taught the wrongdoings of murder.

It also depends on the kids age I think if someone commits murder at the age of lets say 14-15 jail is not a bad idea because the truth is their minds are much more developed at that age than people give them credit for. If a 7 year old doesn't his mind isn't really developed so in his case put some extra time into the 7 year old so he understands what he did was wrong and develop his mind to a point where he can function with the rest of us.

The 14 year old you can also do the same but since the 14 year old is much more developed and understands a lot more put him in jail (not anywhere he/she will get harmed) but confined and also spend some time and see if they can get their mind developed. If they try and the kid is still psycho then keep them in there but giving up on a kid is just as wrong as the kid murdering someone at their young age, in both cases they are taking the kids life away. If a kid murders they need to be taught not prosecuted.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It depends on whether the child had the intention of murdering someone. If they killed someone but the resulting death was not their full intention, then they should not convict the child of murder. However if they kill someone with the full intent of murdering them, then they deserve the same penalties as an adult because they knew better yet still chose to kill. Then threre is the revenge issue. Killing for revenge is still killing even if it is done to try to right the wrong. Granted I have never been in a situation like that so it is tough to say how I would act. The race should never be part of the equation for deciding if there will be jail time or not. If a child kills with complete intentions of doing so, no matter if they are doing it for evil or revenge, they are still killing and should be convicted regardless of their age and race.