"Rich" kid kills 4, gets probation.

[KitterCat]

Surely I'm not the only one here thats thought the kids symptoms sound like he's a sociopath? Personally I'm all for locking him up in a mental facility untill these symptoms he's displayed stop, and I dont think that facility needs to be some 5 star resort. Whether the symptoms stop in a year or 20 would depend on how long he should stay in. Maybe throw him in one of the facilities that this judge seems to be so against in her own state, after all if there good for everyone else they should be good for him.

[Jester]

In the case in question though, the judge doesn't like the juvenile rehab programs offered by her own state. So she tries to ship kids off to fancy places in other states on the parent's dime.

Which at initial glance makes it seem like she's a very compassionate judge. Until you remember that last part...fancy out-of-state places at the parents' expense. Which is all well and good if you're a kid from a wealthy family. Kind of sucks balls if you're not.

Kind of throws that whole "equal justice for all" thing right on its ear. This judge, and others like her, are making more and more people question or even downright laugh at the so-called American ideals of "justice is blind" and "all men are created equal."

My suggestion to all of you is to not end up in this judge's courtroom if your bank account isn't pretty hefty.

His entire defense was that he's a remorseless maladjusted asshole. So either he is a remorseless maladjusted asshole, or his entire legal team and their witnesses lied their asses off in court.

Are we taking bets on this one? Because I know how I'd be wagering.

[Gravekeeper]

Are we sure that's true?

I just can't see this kid asking for permission for anything. It wouldn't surprise me if his father said that to lessen his charges, despite the fact that this opens him up to more liability.

Its true. Its mentioned in the court documents for the lawsuits against the company. It's also mentioned in a number of news stories.

Neither, actually; I read it, just didn't perceive it as the point you were trying to make. I added the two sentences I cut off (emphasis mine):

That still does not say what you said I said.

Though I will apologize for being snippy with my original response. Was having a rough night.

My problem with this is, I agree with Andara: in my eyes, there is no point in throwing stupid teenagers into jail for 10-20 years, which is *guaranteed* to turn them into hardened criminals. So, I believe that the other examples stated - that show poor kids being punished much harder than this one - are examples of the justice system being too strict.

I wasn't debating that. Though there should be a happy middle ground between the two extremes.

However, in fairness, we're not talking about these kids ending up in the general prison population. They're ending up in juvenile detention centers which do have rehabilitation programs. Its not great, but its not the hardened criminal machine you're talking about that is some federal penitentiaries.

In the case in question though, the judge doesn't like the juvenile rehab programs offered by her own state. So she tries to ship kids off to fancy places in other states on the parent's dime.

Sorry, but you can't properly judge a person's mental state by glancing at an internet article.

He expressed no remorse in the courtroom and at no point did he address the court to expression remorse, condolences or apologies. He has not done so in private to the victims or the surviving family members of victims.

Family members were permitted to address him and the judge before sentencing. He would not answer them. Even when asked direct questions.

His entire defense was that he's a remorseless maladjusted asshole. So either he is a remorseless maladjusted asshole, or his entire legal team and their witnesses lied their asses off in court.

[Kheldarson]

As we all know, how you are at age 13 or 16 is how you will be for the rest of your life. So why not give life sentences to all 16-year-olds that do bad thing?

Come on, you can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of making reasonable life choices than, say, a 30-year-old man.

As Jester put it, if the crime's serious enough, we can. And why?

Because at 16-17 years of age, there's, on average, little difference between the competency of a 16-17 year old in Criminal Court vs. 18-24 year olds. So if we can try an 18 year old as an adult and expect them to understand their crime for the rest of their life, we can certainly expect it of a 16 year old.

The major difference is that, yes, we do want to try to help the child actually be productive and not held back by his mistakes, so Juvenile Court exists. And most cases should be sent there. However. This youth didn't just get caught underage drinking again, he didn't even get caught just DWI. Hell, he didn't get caught having just crashed his car while DWI.

He got caught having done all of these and KILLING innocent people because he felt he was above the law. And given that his underage drinking had already been addressed by the courts, we can't say that he wasn't aware that his behavior could get him in trouble. IT ALREADY HAD. And he'd been given the opportunity to correct the behavior.

So why are we giving him another opportunity to basically "prove himself" when he's already shown what he does with such an opportunity? I mean, fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me. And in this case, we'll probably see his body count rise because he's been taught again that his actions don't have any real consequence.

[Jester]

Come on, you can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of making reasonable life choices than, say, a 30-year-old man.

The courts have found that we can, actually, for more serious crimes. Which is why teenagers are sometimes tried as adults.

Remember, this was not some kid who went joyriding and smashed into a mailbox.

People are DEAD. Others are seriously injured. All because of this nitwit's terrible choices.

Does he have the same reasoning power of a 30 year old? Hard to say. I've met some teenagers with excellent reasoning power, and some 30 year olds with virtually none.

But he's old enough where the law has decided he can, if the situation is serious enough, to be treated on the same footing as an adult.

Four dead innocents say this situation is serious enough.

[ebonyknight]

Which is the exact reason why juries are selected to be as objective as possible, and not being emotionally involved in a case.

If you rear-end someone, would you find it fair if that someone decides over what kind of punishment you get?

While true, in theory, the defense's lawyers opted for a bench trial to avoid that. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[ebonyknight]

And that he isn't sorry to have killed his friends - you're basing this on...what his highly-paid lawyer told him to tell to a judge? That we don't have a photo of him weeping while putting flowers on his victims' graves? That he hasn't tried to kill himself yet?

Sorry, but you can't properly judge a person's mental state by glancing at an internet article.

I don't know...the fact that despite the case being over that he hasn't SAID he is sorry?????

Without that, rehab is useless.

[Canarr]

Of course not. Try actually reading what I posted, please. Seeing as you cut off the last sentence in your quote that summarized my problem. So you either didn't read it or you're willfully ignoring it to be inflammatory. I'm hoping its just the former.

Neither, actually; I read it, just didn't perceive it as the point you were trying to make. I added the two sentences I cut off (emphasis mine):

But my point is there are lots of kids in the same position of being raised by terrible parenting where the only difference between them and this kid is money. Those kids go straight to jail. Those kids sometimes have even worse parents than this kid. They still go straight to jail because no money is involved. So ultimately this case just proves what this kid was raised to believe.

Its also an unsettling precedent for other rich dicks and their children.

My problem with this is, I agree with Andara: in my eyes, there is no point in throwing stupid teenagers into jail for 10-20 years, which is *guaranteed* to turn them into hardened criminals. So, I believe that the other examples stated - that show poor kids being punished much harder than this one - are examples of the justice system being too strict.

[Kelmon]

Sad thing is, if any of these people were directly affected, I am sure we would be hearing a different tune and it wouldn't be academic, anymore.

Which is the exact reason why juries are selected to be as objective as possible, and not being emotionally involved in a case.

If you rear-end someone, would you find it fair if that someone decides over what kind of punishment you get?

Because most young people (involved in this type of crime) are sorry for what they did when presented with the consequences......and they sure don't base their defense on "I couldn't know any better".

And that he isn't sorry to have killed his friends - you're basing this on...what his highly-paid lawyer told him to tell to a judge? That we don't have a photo of him weeping while putting flowers on his victims' graves? That he hasn't tried to kill himself yet?

Sorry, but you can't properly judge a person's mental state by glancing at an internet article.

[ebonyknight]

As we all know, how you are at age 13 or 16 is how you will be for the rest of your life. So why not give life sentences to all 16-year-olds that do bad thing?

Because most young people (involved in this type of crime) are sorry for what they did when presented with the consequences......and they sure don't base their defense on "I couldn't know any better".

[ebonyknight]

And to those who push the lighter side of the justice system I say this ------ What about the next set of victims this guy produces who either are dead, severlly injured, or at the very least put in the hospital for a day or two?????? What do you say to the NEW set of victims and/or their families??????

Asked twice and no answer....

And your not going to get an answer to that. What are they realistically going to say?

Again, it's not like this is some typical DUI accident where someone made a bad choice and is sorry for what they did. He stole merchandise, stole a vehicle (I don't think this kid asks for anything), drove at near twice the speed limit, drove drunk and killed or maimed 11 people. Any ONE of which could land you in hotel grey bars.

Rehab, in order to be successful, requires that the person acknowledge that they have a problem and they want to get better. Without both of those things, it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and annoy the pig. The only difference is that more people could die on this kid's "mulligan". Come on, their defense, was based on the fact that he doesn't get it!

Sad thing is, if any of these people were directly affected, I am sure we would be hearing a different tune and it wouldn't be academic, anymore.

[ebonyknight]

I'm not endorsing it, I'm just saying business isn't good so to speak. Dad giving him a company truck of all things is the second stupidest thing in this whole scenario. As its going to drag the business under along with everything else.

Are we sure that's true?

I just can't see this kid asking for permission for anything. It wouldn't surprise me if his father said that to lessen his charges, despite the fact that this opens him up to more liability.

[Kelmon]

- (Double posting)

[Kelmon]

As we all know, how you are at age 13 or 16 is how you will be for the rest of your life. So why not give life sentences to all 16-year-olds that do bad thing?

Come on, you can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of making reasonable life choices than, say, a 30-year-old man.

And @Fire_on_High: You might not have noticed, but what i was saying was not my personal opinion (though it is, too), but that of my country on the stance of punishment vs. rehabilitation. If we have, on the one hand, an imprisonment rate of <10% that of the US, but at the same time you have 200% the murders, 200% the assaults and 300% the rapes (all corrected for the difference in population), i think we must be doing something right. Even if that happens to be a total coincidence, it at least shows that this approach certainly doesn't make the situation worse.

Also, keep in mind that a criminal in prison might hurt your society far more than he or she would on the outside. It costs you around ~$50.000 a year to keep someone in prison, money that could be spend for other things. If you had our incarcerations rate (so, 240.000 instead of 2.400.000 prisoners), you would save ~100 billlion dollars each year, or ~$320/US citizen.

[Racket_Man]

I don't want to wait for him to kill more people! What part of that isn't sinking in? Considering he doesn't think he did anything wrong, why are you so optimistic, he will straighten out?

He's already committed enough crimes in this one incident for several people. He wasn't just jaywalking.....

And to those who push the lighter side of the justice system I say this ------ What about the next set of victims this guy produces who either are dead, severlly injured, or at the very least put in the hospital for a day or two?????? What do you say to the NEW set of victims and/or their families?????? "OOOOOPPPPPPPSSSSSSSS sorry we made a mistake. I guess we take a Mulligan on this one."

Yeah the guy WILL then get jail time but this time MORE persons are effected that SHOULD NOT have been in the first place.

This dumbass IS a habitual offender with a EW attitude to beat all and is being enabled by his family/parents. HE JUST DOES NOT CARE. Sounds like a Socio-path to me.