Youth Pleads To Killing Gay Classmate

[Kanastrous]

Mm hmm. More of the 'tough guy' business. See above.

In other words, you're an internet tough guy, and you think that rape is an acceptable form of compensation for the commission of a crime. And when called on it, you backpedal.

Where did I backpedal?

[Broomstick]

Of course I know that prison rape is just as illegal as rape in any other context. I was under the impression that it was endemic in the US prison system; if that is a misapprehension and there are serious efforts to prevent prison rape, then I withdraw that comment.

Convicts of certain vulnerable groups - the effeminate, elderly, transsexual, and so forth - are frequently housed separately from the younger "general population", the group mostly likely to engage in crime and violence while still in prison. It is rare in minimum and medium security prisons for the simple reason that criminals housed in minimum and medium security prisons tend to be less inclined to violence and assault than those in maximum security.

A prison doctor of my acquaintance also pointed out that there is a significant amount of consensual sex going on between prison inmates, but that inmates have an incentive to never admit to such consent. A certain percentage of men isolated for long periods from women do engage in homosexual acts, though frequently they will not see themselves as homosexual or bisexual. While admitting to any penetrative sex can impair the perception of "manliness" in certain groups of people, saying "I was raped" is frequently better than saying "I had ass-sex because I was so goddamned horny" in a homophobic society, particularly when such a society believes prison rape to be near-ubiquitous and impossible to avoid.

Said doctor also pointed out in many cases the "consent" is a bit iffy - is it really consent if Mike allows Pete to stick his dick up his ass every so often in return for protection from other inmates? Is exchanging blow jobs in return for being allowed to run the toilet booze and cigarette concession unmolested consent? Well, these aren't nice people, should we be surprised if they drive bargains of questionable morality?

Aside from conjugal visits, though (and those are far from common) sex inside prisons is supposed to be against the rules. If inmates are caught they can and have been prosecuted, but it's not like sex has to take hours, has to make a lot of noise, or has to be particularly noticeable. The prison doc I mentioned finds out about it when convicts are sent to him with things like rectal bleeding (it's not like there's a lot of sex lube available in the prison commissary, not to mention a lot of convicts are as uneducated about safe sex or techniques as they are about anything else, that is to say, not very). Of course, that's not always from either consensual butt-sex or prison rape, a fair amount comes from things like shoving contraband up the ass, or just plain old bleeding hemorrhoids or piles that anyone can get, even an ass virgin.

[evilsoup]

Where did I backpedal?

Well, you went from:

To the degree there is a positive side, he'll have an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding and appreciation of male-male relations, over the course of his incarceration.

and

It's no joke. Where the court failed, the prison system will add a dimension of tailor-made extra-legal justice.

to

where this particular individual is concerned experiences it, well, I certainly would not arrange for it to happen, but I wouldn't shed a tear, either.

At first you were almost cheering 'prison-rape lol', and when challenged on it you changed your position to 'well I just don't care one way or the other about this guy' - but if you genuinely didn't care whether he got raped then you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

It's toughguyism because you're clearly (or this is how it comes across to me anyway) hoping to show what a stone-cold harsh bastard you are. You know, a hard man - a tough guy.

--
As for my position being faith-based - well, yes to an extent in that it's not ultimately falsifiable; but that's why I have the 'necessity' caveat. If you could show that rehabilitating someone would take a disproportionate amount of resources, then I would accept that (albeit I would be uncomfortable with the situation).

[Kanastrous]

-shrug- I'm hard where I'm hard and squishy where I'm squishy. I don't find that supporting a harsh penalty (legal or extra-legal, which you may find morally conscionable, or not) in a particular matter suggests that I'm tough. At least, not by any standard of 'toughness' worthy of the word.

I find it odd, though, that anyone would think that adopting a position on an internet chat board is any kind of way to paint one's self as tough. Really? Try out the possibility that I simply happen to hold an opinion that you very much dislike.

[evilsoup]

You seem to be denying the toughguyism is a thing at all. Of course it's ridiculous to try and big oneself up on an internet message board - that's the exact reason why 'toughguy' is an insult.

And it's pretty funny that you ignore the much more serious accusation of backpeddling. Not that I particularly care; to me actively cheering rape and 'just' turning a blind eye to it are both reprehensible positions.

[Rahvin]

You seem to be denying the toughguyism is a thing at all. Of course it's ridiculous to try and big oneself up on an internet message board - that's the exact reason why 'toughguy' is an insult.

And it's pretty funny that you ignore the much more serious accusation of backpeddling. Not that I particularly care; to me actively cheering rape and 'just' turning a blind eye to it are both reprehensible positions.

I think the far, far more important fact is that he maintains his position that rape can ever, in any circumstance, ever be considered morally acceptable. He may have backpeddled from "I hope he gets raped, that'll teach him" to "If rape is going to happen to someone, I'll care less if it's this guy," but he still takes the position that rape is in any way morally acceptable.

I don't care what the circumstances are. There are no mitigating factors to coerced sex. There is no such thing as "deserving it." If rape is morally reprehensible (and it is), then it's reprehensible for anyone under any circumstance to be raped.

[Kanastrous]

I don't see much to do with the accusation, as you have laid it out.

All of the above was posted specifically in reference to the murderer we're discussing in this specific thread. If you can quote me where I offered a general endorsement of sexual assault...well, you can't. As demonstrated by your own "almost cheering prison rape lol." Well, either I was or I wasn't; the necessity of adding "almost" indicates that you understand perfectly well that that's not what I was suggesting.

And I did not indicate 'don't care one way or the other' (had that been my intended meaning I would have used those words to convey it); I indicated that I would neither endorse going out of the way to arrange it, nor mourn if it were to happen to happen.

I think that you heap a little too much honor on this site, or perhaps on the web in general, if you think this is an arena in which to demonstrate one's toughness. Again, you see an opinion of which you disapprove, and your response is to assume that the only reason one could air such an opinion, is to impress you with their toughness. Who are you, anyway? Do you really believe that your estimate of my toughness is of interest to me, one way or the other? I'll make it easy for you to handle: I'm the very least-tough individual in the world. Scratch that, in the universe. There's invertebrate slime creatures squidging about in the ooze of Omega Perseid III, tougher than me. There you have it. So, let's dispense with the stupid 'tough guy' bullshit, and talk about what we're actually talking about.

[Kanastrous]

He may have backpeddled from "I hope he gets raped, that'll teach him"

Of course, the fact that I did not write that makes you a liar, for posting this. But I'm sure that your own self-righteousness makes the odd lie okay, for you.

*edit* I'll leave you fellows to it. When people start lying about what I've said, in order to feed their own self-righteousness, it's kind of a waste of time to try and have an honest conversation about the difference of opinion.

[Rahvin]

He may have backpeddled from "I hope he gets raped, that'll teach him"

Of course, the fact that I did not write that makes you a liar, for posting this. But I'm sure that your own self-righteousness makes the odd lie okay, for you.

No, to be more precise, you wrote this:

To the degree there is a positive side, he'll have an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding and appreciation of male-male relations, over the course of his incarceration.

How does that not translate to "I hope he gets raped, that'll teach him?"

[evilsoup]

All of the above was posted specifically in reference to the murderer we're discussing in this specific thread. If you can quote me where I offered a general endorsement of sexual assault...well, you can't. As demonstrated by your own "almost cheering prison rape lol." Well, either I was or I wasn't; the necessity of adding "almost" indicates that you understand perfectly well that that's not what I was suggesting.

And I did not indicate 'don't care one way or the other' (had that been my intended meaning I would have used those words to convey it); I indicated that I would neither endorse going out of the way to arrange it, nor mourn if it were to happen to happen.

Dude, anyone can read the thread and see that you're just trying to obfuscate with this semantic wrangling bullshit.

Again, you see an opinion of which you disapprove, and your response is to assume that the only reason one could air such an opinion, is to impress you with their toughness.

You know what, you're actually right on this. I did assume that there was some degree of posturing to look like a tough guy with your pro-prison-rape comments. But since you are so vehemently denying that this is the case, I apologise: it seems that you are actually just a fuckhead.

Of course, the fact that I did not write that makes you a liar, for posting this. But I'm sure that your own self-righteousness makes the odd lie okay, for you.

More semantic wrangling (you didn't use those exact words, but that was the meaning of what you wrote), and this time it's coupled with self-righteous sanctimony.

Have a nice day, Kanastrous.

[JCady]

We don't give 14 year olds legal rights and privileges because they are not fully cognitively developed. Why is 2nd degree murder inappropriate? I would say that it should be unlawful to charge minors with 1st degree murder in an adult court, because that implies an adult level of cognition in planning the crime. Remember this guy was 14 when he committed the crime. The 2nd degree murder charge is an adult charge. Only in the US do we go around trying children in adult court. Frankly this is the only fair result in an adult court, as it acknowledges that he is not mentally capable enough to have truly premeditated the murder. This was a hate crime, but it was also a hate crime by a 14 year old, and we shouldn't forget that. 14 year olds are inherently reformable and the idea that he should get more than this is IMO rather obscene. He will spend a total of 25 years in prison as he does not get credit for time served under the deal. Since when did locking children away for life becoming morally acceptable in the US? It's a sickening thing to do, as sickening as the murder itself was.

It is important to note that had the killer not been charged as an adult, he would have gotten away scot-free. He was 14 when the crime was committed, but already 17 when the trial was held -- had he not been tried as an adult, his lawyer would have been able to simply run out the clock until his 18th birthday, at which point the authority of the juvenile court system expires and the trial is rendered moot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

1. There's no statute of limitations for murder. His lawyer would have been a moron to delay the trial like that if he had been charged in juvenile court, because then new charges in adult court could just be tried when he was 18, which was in nobody's best interest.
2. I would rather have a juvenile murderer go free than be imprisoned for life. This is a pretty fundamental ethical position.

[Ryan Thunder]

Where the hell did he get the gun?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Where the hell did he get the gun?

It was a small .22 revolver stolen outright from a relative's house, of a type which would have been legal in even Canada, and which he certainly did not possess--nor was it legally in the house he lived in, as it was a federal felony for his--guilty of domestic violence, same proscription applied under federal law--father to be around guns. So, the gun was obtained despite it being a felony offence for the adult he lived with to possess firearms.

(edited)

[ComradeClaus]

2. I would rather have a juvenile murderer go free than be imprisoned for life. This is a pretty fundamental ethical position.

Really?! You do realize a white-supremacist like him, if spared, would've ran off to the hatesites like Stormfront, bragging about how he put two caps in the back of the head of an innocent kid & got away w/ it. Those Neo-Nazis would cheer him. Plus he'd be likely to murder again.

Would you tell that kid's (the victim's) parents, or the loved ones of others murdered by juveniles about your moral view?

Even if revenge is reprehensible, preventing further acts of murder, protecting the innocent is not.

Despite your claim that 20+ years in prison is excessive. One guy who spent that long in prison for rape murdered a woman the day he was released.

The reason people like me believe in the death penalty/ life w/out parole is a dead criminal/ locked in a cage for good, can never hurt anyone again...which is GOOD.

And what about all those octagenarian nazi war criminals who get locked away even when evidence of their crimes is iffy at best? Where's their rehabilitation?

[ComradeClaus]

EDIT: doublepost, sorry

[Rahvin]

2. I would rather have a juvenile murderer go free than be imprisoned for life. This is a pretty fundamental ethical position.

Really?! You do realize a white-supremacist like him, if spared, would've ran off to the hatesites like Stormfront, bragging about how he put two caps in the back of the head of an innocent kid & got away w/ it. Those Neo-Nazis would cheer him. Plus he'd be likely to murder again.

Would you tell that kid's (the victim's) parents, or the loved ones of others murdered by juveniles about your moral view?

Even if revenge is reprehensible, preventing further acts of murder, protecting the innocent is not.

Why do you assume that imprisonment is the only way to protect the innocent? Is it impossible that a child who commits a heinous crime could become a different person as an adult? I'm certainly not the same person I was at 14, or 18, or even 20. Are you? We don;t usually try children as adults because their brains are not fully developed yet, they are physically incapable of the same level of impulse control as an adult. Isn't it possible that, as an adult, this individual might be able to actually suppress violent impulses?

Most racists and homophobes, while convinced of reprehensible beliefs, don't commit murder.

Despite your claim that 20+ years in prison is excessive. One guy who spent that long in prison for rape murdered a woman the day he was released.

Because individual anecdotes are totally evidence, right?

Wait, no they're not...

The reason people like me believe in the death penalty/ life w/out parole is a dead criminal/ locked in a cage for good, can never hurt anyone again...which is GOOD.

This isn't about the death penalty, it's about trying a child as an adult. The death penalty isn;t even on the table for this case!

We don't permit children to make adult decisions because they are physically incapable of the responsibility required to make those decisions. We don't let 14-year-olds drive, or vote, or drink, or even have sex because they aren't cognitively capable of handling those responsibilities - and you can't have it both ways. Either kids are just as responsible for their actions as adults and should have full adult rights and consequences, or they do not.

He committed a heinous crime when he was 14. I can't hold any 14-year-old to the same level of responsibility as an adult. Can you? Why?

And what about all those octagenarian nazi war criminals who get locked away even when evidence of their crimes is iffy at best? Where's their rehabilitation?

They committed their crimes as adults, simple as that. This isn't about racism or homophobia except tangentially, because it made the killing a hate crime. This is about whether a 14-year-old child can and should be held to the same level of responsibility and thus suffer the same consequences as an adult.

Is it impossible for a 14-year-old who committed a crime of passion to become a productive member of society and not be a danger to others?

It's a good thing to lock up a person who would be a danger to society...but is it a good thing to treat children as adults? Is it a good thing to lock up someone who could be a productive member of society?

[JPaganel]

Is it impossible for a 14-year-old who committed a crime of passion to become a productive member of society and not be a danger to others?

Where is there a crime of passion here? Stealing a gun and shooting someone in the back of the head some time after the supposed offense is pretty clearly premeditated.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

He was under constant harassment by his peers because King was sexually flirting with him and saying he was King's boyfriend.

That said, yes, Claus, I would gladly tell his parents. Because the law is more powerful than vengeance, and should be, and if we don't have a law separate from vengeance, then why doesn't everyone just murder anyone who offends them? The whole point of the law is to, so to speak, Keep the King's Peace--i.e., to enforce the norms of civil society. It should be dispassionate and all goals in the legal system should be crafted around maximizing social utility for the most number of people. There is no evidence that anyone else would ever drive this boy to murder, and boys of 14 are not fully mentally developed and thus fully able to be reformed.

I am a "person like you", and I in fact support the death penalty--an attitude which has gotten me a lot of heat around here--in cases like, for instance, someone who murders while in prison. I simply do not find it appropriate in any circumstance, however, to lock up for so long a 14 year old child. You are using examples of adults--Nazi war criminals--and "one guy" who spent that long in prison for rape, etc, who are adults. These are strawmen, and hilariously so against someone who is personally quite tough on crime on SD.net.

I simply do not believe, however, that children should ever be punished in adult court, and IF FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ONE AND THE OTHER in JCady's implausible and retarded "oh, at 18 he'll just be let go then" scenario, I would choose to let him go after 5 years in prison waiting for trial, rather than see him locked up for life in an adult court. Fortunately, our justice system is indeed focused on social outcomes and is not insane, and this fellow is going away for an appropriate period of time.

[ComradeClaus]

That said, yes, Claus, I would gladly tell his parents. Because the law is more powerful than vengeance, and should be, and if we don't have a law separate from vengeance, then why doesn't everyone just murder anyone who offends them? The whole point of the law is to, so to speak, Keep the King's Peace--i.e., to enforce the norms of civil society. It should be dispassionate and all goals in the legal system should be crafted around maximizing social utility for the most number of people. There is no evidence that anyone else would ever drive this boy to murder, and boys of 14 are not fully mentally developed and thus fully able to be reformed.

Your faith in that (that a 'not fully formed' mind is redeemable) is impressive. I lost such faith years ago.

I am a "person like you", and I in fact support the death penalty--an attitude which has gotten me a lot of heat around here--in cases like, for instance, someone who murders while in prison. I simply do not find it appropriate in any circumstance, however, to lock up for so long a 14 year old child. You are using examples of adults--Nazi war criminals--and "one guy" who spent that long in prison for rape, etc, who are adults. These are strawmen, and hilariously so against someone who is personally quite tough on crime on SD.net.

I'm surprised to find another dp supporter. Do you think it's carried out too rarely to be an effective deterrent? (as i feel) or to much? For the straw cases, I feel it's needless to imprison the old nazi since it fails to actually deter war crimes & he's already punished by seing his life's work utterly destroyed & his people renounce all he stood for. (& trial, imprisonment is a waste of money in this case) NEO 'nazis' on the other hand...
For the repeat sex offender, i feel if they are guilty beyond doubt, DNA & such, they should be terminated w/ extreme prejudice, I loathe rapists above all others

I simply do not believe, however, that children should ever be punished in adult court, and IF FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ONE AND THE OTHER in JCady's implausible and retarded "oh, at 18 he'll just be let go then" scenario, I would choose to let him go after 5 years in prison waiting for trial, rather than see him locked up for life in an adult court. Fortunately, our justice system is indeed focused on social outcomes and is not insane, and this fellow is going away for an appropriate period of time.

Even a young child can understand the concept of the 10 commandments (though a few are iffy, graven image? [fake god, basiclly 2 commandments cover it] adultery?[betray spouse] covet?[greed] false witness?[lie] What idiot thought it a good idea to put such big words for a children's book?!) but 'Though Shalt not Kill!' is something any sane child can understand & having a child fear punishment for misdeeds is also simple. Santa? Be bad & it's coal [& switches!] for you! Easter Bunny? no chocolate! Tooth Fairy? pain of losing a tooth not relieved by coin under pillow! God? turns you to salt if you turn around when he says not to! Once one outgrows such silly boogeymen (as I did, I was raised mildly christian, became an atheist around 9/10 years old), one is instilled w/ basic morality & a simple cause/effect (crime/punishment) (good deed/reward) view of justice... unless one has serious mental problems & as such should get immediate treatment.

My sister is an elementary school teacher, I'll ask her opinion on the matter & get back w/ it.

Alas, this is the fourth time I had to type this since it logged out once & crashed the other 3 times. I doubt it was as good as the others. Of course Carrot/Stick (Greed/Fear) is a concept even a primitive animal (wolves, horses) can understand & worked for thousands of years.

[Surlethe]

How old are you, Claus? Do you realize what you're advocating when you say a 15-year-old should be locked up for the rest of his life?

[ComradeClaus]

How old are you, Claus? Do you realize what you're advocating when you say a 15-year-old should be locked up for the rest of his life?

You sound as if i'm advocating infanticide. The level of sympathy for a criminal i keep seeing shocks me. would you feel this way towards kleebold & harris, had they survived?

I'm a believer in prisoners being made to work (just sitting in a cell isn't helping taxpayers) so, having him in prison working (how about fixing roads? prisoners get fresh air, people get repaired infrastructure) for his whole productive adult life might achive something.

Now, if half of all his earnings post-release were given to gay rights organizations, then i'd be amenable toward forgivness. His life paying back (~weregild) has to equal the life he took had his victim lived. more or less. that would satisfy my eye/eye, tooth/tooth values.

[evilsoup]

The level of sympathy for a criminal i keep seeing shocks me.

It's empathy, rather than sympathy. For me at least, it comes from trying to see everyone as a human first, and the belief that anyone can be rehabilitated (given sufficient resources - of course we don't have infinite resources, so sometimes rehabilitation can be a practical impossibility).

I'm a believer in prisoners being made to work (just sitting in a cell isn't helping taxpayers) so, having him in prison working (how about fixing roads? prisoners get fresh air, people get repaired infrastructure) for his whole productive adult life might achive something.

I'm not opposed to prisoners working, indeed a part of my vision on how the prison system should work would be prisoners working and learning useful skills. Road resurfacing doesn't fit my criteria (it won't gain them employment when they're out of prison, as all road repairs will be carried out with prisoner-slaves), and it would crowd free workers out of the market (unless you're going to pay the prisoners a fair wage for their work).

Also, we are talking in the context of America, and I would hope that you (assuming you're an American) would have some knowledge of the ugly context of chain-gangs in the US prison system.

Now, if half of all his earnings post-release were given to gay rights organizations, then i'd be amenable toward forgivness. His life paying back (~weregild) has to equal the life he took had his victim lived. more or less. that would satisfy my eye/eye, tooth/tooth values.

what value do you put on a person's life, then? By this logic, a rich and educated guy who kills someone should be more readily forgiven than a poor and illiterate guy, because he'll be able to contribute more to the 'weregild' (seriously, 'weregild', are you fifteen and you've just read a bunch of cool new books?).

[Rahvin]

How old are you, Claus? Do you realize what you're advocating when you say a 15-year-old should be locked up for the rest of his life?

You sound as if i'm advocating infanticide. The level of sympathy for a criminal i keep seeing shocks me. would you feel this way towards kleebold & harris, had they survived?

What shocks me is the degree of dehumanization you and others have applied to "criminals" as a block, even inclusive of children.

Have you ever even heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Or do you just completely lack any degree of empathy for other human beings? Is there a magic switch that turns off your ability to conceive of a person as truly human the moment they commit a crime?

I'm a believer in prisoners being made to work (just sitting in a cell isn't helping taxpayers) so, having him in prison working (how about fixing roads? prisoners get fresh air, people get repaired infrastructure) for his whole productive adult life might achive something.

...you clearly have no idea how much it costs to imprison someone, or how much it costs to provide sufficient security for prisoners outside of prison walls. There's a reason prisons are large buildings with walls and cells rather than a fenced yard with a bunch of guards, let alone an open stretch of road.

Not to mention the fact that you seem to think that slavery is okay, as long as we're talking about a "criminal." I mean, they deserve to be treated like cattle, right? It's not like they're really people or anything.

Now, if half of all his earnings post-release were given to gay rights organizations, then i'd be amenable toward forgivness. His life paying back (~weregild) has to equal the life he took had his victim lived. more or less. that would satisfy my eye/eye, tooth/tooth values.

Since when is justice about forgiveness or vengeance?

Your entire goal when it comes to crime seems to boil down to punishment. You couldn't care less about what happens when a "criminal" gets out, whether they have an incentive to become productive members of society or to commit more crime. You're just playing into the "tough on crime" meme, as if being "tougher" on criminals will somehow provide a better deterrent and prevent crime, and thus a better society. The statistics tell a completely different story - harsher treatment and longer sentences just cost more taxpayer money and create more net suffering with fewer (legal, productive) options for former prisoners after they're released.

And let's not forget for even a moment that in this particular case we're talking about a child. A kid. A minor. A teenager who, simply on the basis of his physiological stage of development, would be considered incapable of the responsibility to even drive a car or vote or drink or make his own medical decisions at the time of the actual crime. How can he possibly be held as responsible as an adult for his actions if we know that he cannot possibly have been as responsible as an adult for any other choice in his life?

As it is, he'll be in prison for 25 years (including time served) for a crime he committed when he was 14.

He'll be in prison for almost double the length of his entire pre-prison lifetime.

What are the chances, do you think, that he'll be able to become a productive member of society when he gets let out at 39 years old, with a felony conviction and having spent the vast majority of his life behind bars surrounded by other felons? What choices and opportunities, do you think, will be open to him? Left with those choices...what do you think he'll be most likely to do?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Just out of curiousity, was there ever any reason given for the USA not to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

The same line as always: AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM