Thank you
sit-rep's wife
I swiped you all from my husbands ping list.
I don't believe that the adult should serve time for what the child had done. Even in the best of families can give birth to a mass murderer. This is a case where the parent(s) are innocent victim of what their child has done.
However, I do believe that if the court can prove the parent wast negligent in the child's moral upbringing, they should do time with the child simultaneously.
(((ping)))
(((ping)))
Probably the ACLU. They think kids should have all the rights of an adult, but bear none of the consequences of being an adult.
Also, Geoff Feiger, who defended the 12 year old Pontiac boy charged with murder back in 2000.
Also, do you know who is it that determines the case be tried in adult or juvinile court?
Usually, the juvenile court judge decides whether to waive jurisdiction if all the statutory requirements are met (and I have no idea what they are in Michigan).
English Composition, huh? When I first saw the post, I thought "About time sit-rep graduated 8th grade." Don't tell him I said that.
I am following a case right now in California that qualifies for what you are studying.
A 16-year-old is charged with murder, with an enhancement of using a deadly weapon - a bludgeon.
He is being tried as an adult, according to a decision by the deputy DA who will be prosecuting the case. He consulted with others in his office after the arrest to make the decision. Here's a brief media snippet:
" ... {Harold) Jewett, two other chief prosecutors and several investigators met Friday afternoon to discuss whether to charge Dyleski as an adult. "The brutal and callous nature of the act, it was a horrendous act," said Daniel Cabral, deputy district attorney who heads the juvenile unit. "There was a unanimous opinion that there was a sense of repulsion, horror and outrage at the seriousness of this act."
The young man turned 17 within 11 days of his arrest. He had allegedly been involved with stealing credit cards from the neighbors in an isolated area where he lived and using the info to order equipment online for growing marijuana.
He allegedly went to a neighbor's home on a Saturday morning, possibly to check on a shipment that was supposed to go to his home but had been refused by the supplier as questionable. The wrong neighbor's address had been used for the billing (not shipping) address for the credit card, 1901 Any Street, instead of 2001 Any Street, thus he may have thought the package went to 1901. He was unaware of the refusal to ship, which had been communicated to the real credit card holder.
The 52-year-old woman, who was alone at home at 1901 Any Street, was found murdered that evening when her husband (TV legal consultant Daniel Horowitz) arrived back at their house.
She had been beaten on the head at least 30 times, and had multiple other injuries, as well. Face bashed into the carpet, broken cheekbone, jawbone, nose, teeth knocked out, broken wrist and fingers, bruises and contustions everywhere. Then she was stabbed in the stomach when she was near death, spilling her intestines out. Last was a carving of a symbol of some type (alleged) on her back with a knife.
It was a bloody crime scene. The defendant's DNA has been found along with the victim's on an item of clothing he had hidden. So far, there has only been a preliminary hearing, so all the evidence won't be presented until the full trial. A gag order has been in place on the case for several months and has been incredibly adhered to.
An excerpt of the charging document:
"...
The undersigned states, on information and belief, that XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX, Defendant, did commit a felony, a violation of PENAL CODE SECION 187 (MURDER), committed as follows:
On or about October 15, 2005, at Lafayette, in Contra Costa County, the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX, did unlawfully and with malice aforethought murder Pamela Vitale, a human being.
CHARGE ENHANCEMENT
USE OF DEADLY/DANGEROUS WEAPON
It is further alleged, pursuant to Penal Code section 12022(b)(1), that in the commission and attempted commission of the above offense the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX, personally used a Bludgeon, a deadly and dangerous weapon.
CHARGE SPECIAL ALLEGATION
16 YEAR OLD MINOR - 707(b) CRIME
It is further alleged, pursuant to subdivision (d)(1) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, that the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX, was a minor who was at least 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the above offense.
COMPLAINANT REQUESTS THAT DEFENDANT(S) BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
[Signatures of an officer of the Sheriff's Department as Complainant, and District Attorney Jewett, who will prosecute]
..."
Bail was set at $1 million.