Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

It isn't said that he can't be put back in psych ward after being released. He just can't be convicted to it for this crime. If after his release, child protective services, or his psychiatrist deem him a threat to society, they can ask a judge to put him back in psych ward again (as they can do to any child, regardless of prior convictions).

[Sheb]

But only until he's 18?

[ChairmanPoo]

I mistake you two because your avatars look similar

Anyway, dealing with juvenile delimquents is a problem everywhere. Its hard to draw the line between too mild and too harsh

[martinuzz]

But only until he's 18?

Well, any person, regardless of age, can be forcibly admitted, if a psychiatric evaluation deems the person a threat to himself or others. At 18 though, his criminal record is deleted.

So imagine, when he is 17, and his psychiatrists asks a judge to have him admitted to a psych ward, he can include the argument 'he raped and killed a girl when he was 14' in the court hearing that will decide if he needs to be admitted.

But when he's 18, it's illegal to use that argument any longer, and any request for admission will need to be weighed only against his behaviour since he turned 18.

[ChairmanPoo]

That doesnt make much sense.  Arguably psych admission is a medical issue, not a penal one, and that record ought to stay

[martinuzz]

It's a legally complex issue. Forced admission in a closed institution is a restriction on the Freedom of Movement, and thus needs to be weighed by a judge.
The decision to take things to court though is made by the medical professional, and I am sure the medical professional will use the client's pre-18 history in his decision making process. The judge that needs to rule over it though, is not allowed to take pre-18 convictions into account, yet he only needs to weigh the advice of a medical professional against the civil rights of the client. It does make sense. The pre-18 history is still present, just not in the court, but only in the realisation of the medical professional's advise.

So what does it mean in practice. This kid will probably see closed institutions, or half open institutions for quite a bit longer than 1 year. However, if he can convince psychiatrists that he is unlikely to repeat his behaviour within the timeframe of his sentencing, yes, it is technically possible that he will indeed do no longer than 1 year.
The 'retribution' aspect of crime and punishment is near absent in juvenile law, because Child Rights.

[inteuniso]

My point still stands that we need improved technology to better evaluate & heal people.

[Silverthrone]

Let him be branded for life by what he has done; let it be part of who he is. Let it stain his soul from this day that is until the day that he enters his grave. After a deed such as this, no man deserve to live a life that is not shadowed by it.

There is a lot of merit to the idea that a former criminal should be allowed a fresh start. That, however, is an agreement with limits. After a certain threshold, one does not deserve such a favour. If someone is cruel, heartless and inhuman enough to carry out the deed, then they ought to bear the shame for the rest of their time on Earth. It is not impossible that such people reform, and might then be treated accordingly. However, being given the gift of freedom from one's past without a comparable reform in character preceeding it is simply not right.

Further, it must be noted that the treatment of his case is a horrific and quite revolting insult upon the character on the average fourteen-year-old.

[Sheb]

What is the point of making his entire life crap though, if he can be reformed?

[Silverthrone]

Because a crime of particular cruelty is not something one ought to be allowed and encouraged to live without, as if it has never happened. It must carry a severe cost.

If he were a burglar or robber, or perhaps a murdered by misadventure, as it were (let us say that he botched a robbery and shot down a petrol station clerk), it should be judged differently, and his right to live free of his crimes one day is greatly increased. But his crime is one of deliberate cruelty, seemingly for its own sake, and thus fundamentally different.
As for reform, that is, of course, the ideal solution. If he is willing to reform, and more to the point, go through the difficult path to do so, then it is a different matter. However, it depends on the subject's true willingness to reform, and to burden what they have done and make as good as they can to mend it. It is not something that should simply be gifted to him unconditionally.

Further, it must be noted that the person that carries the greatest responsibility for thus making his own life into crap is himself.

That all said, I do understand your point. And where he a failed burglar or robber, there would be no point, not when compared to the gain of reform.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not saying his youth should not be taken into consideration, but most of us here have experienced what it's like to be 14 and it is clear to me that he cannot be cleared of even a majority of responsibility for this rape and murder because of youth. His victim's punishment is permanent, and while that doesn't mean we should enact eye for an eye, this is an absurd reduction that is based not upon justice but the overly permissive administrative rules of the Netherlands.

Something like Brevik getting a stupid low sentence for mass murder is acceptable enough because he also can be retained indefinitely under psychiatric concerns - justice in this sense has been badly divided between the criminal justice system and psychiatric health, but it still functionally exists.

This, however, is as I said a willful ignorance. Not allowing judges to see serious crimes committed in youth is not an elimination of bias. Bias against a known murderer is appropriate. I could see an argument for putting record limitations on lots of things, even for adults a system that sunsets non-felonies if the individual stays clean long enough would be a decent idea. Murder is not on that list. Rape is not on that list.

There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, that the retributive aspect of law should be ignored in this case. For most crimes, maybe even almost all crimes, a 14 year old can find some ground to stand on being an undeveloped idiot, but not this one.

[Sheb]

Well, I'm 100% against the retributive aspect of justice myself. In this case, I'm more concerned that the guy could be let loose while still dangerous. In that aspect, saying a judge couldn't take into account his crime in a psych case 4 years from now seems indeed absurd.

[Helgoland]

After a deed such as this, no man deserve to live a life that is not shadowed by it.

He's not a man, he's 14.


Sheb: As martinuzz wrote above, what he did will factor into future evaluations - just not as part of his criminal record, but as part of his medical one.

[smjjames]

Macrons En Marche! party is about to go from 0 to over 400 members of Parliament.

If only it were that easy for third parties to get started in the US. Obviously the Democrats and Republicans have far larger party machines, but still, with the amount of dissatisfaction in the US with both parties, you'd think that third parties would be blossoming.

[da_nang]

UK: 37% votes for Conservatives giving 51% of the seats in parliament
France: 32% votes for En Marche! giving at least 71% of the seats

I hope anyone lambasting the UK election system will do so for the French election system as well.