15 Year Old Guilty Of Murder

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Merlin, from what age do you feel that murderers that are legally classified as minors should be executed. I'm intrigued.

10? 12? 14? younger?
 
Originally posted by Bar the Bull@Oct 16 2006, 09:04 PM
Merlin, do you honestly think that we should have the death penalty for minors?
Under 16s?
BAR no not necessarily, but I feel very strong about this case for taking an eye for a eye, the victim was already a partial paraplegic and the poor kid suffered further at the hands of this 14yr old, if you look at his photo he seems a mature 15 yr old to me?
 
1457692.jpg
I think being candid he looks a mature 15yr old as I stated...........





yes 3 times they were all guilty I convinced the rest of the jury..........
 
Originally posted by Merlin the Magician@Oct 16 2006, 08:02 PM
never mind the max sentence 12yrs
Your opinions are your own but get the facts right - it is not a maximum sentence of twelve years, it is quite the opposite, a minimum sentence of twelve years.
 
Hamer was given a life sentence and told he must spend at least 12 years behind bars.

That means, he must spend a minimum of twelve years, not a maximum of twelve years.
 
But a life sentence is 10 yrs normally????? they have stated 12 yrs here........ so that exceeds a life sentence and becomes a max if all things are equal and he don't play up inside... he gets releast after 12 yrs thats what I am stating ....
 
I mean the part about the length of time a life sentence is etc.
 
Ian Huntley got 24 years. He'll never be released. Work that one out.
 
Of course children have killed children. Very few, but occasionally it happens. What's so shocking about that? What's far more appalling is that once we've learned action and reaction, cause and effect, consequences, etc. as adults, that as ADULTS we kill children as well as other adults!

You can be a very forward, precocious 13 y.o. with a mental age far ahead of your peers. You can also be a slow-witted, dull 19 y.o. with a mental age permanently set at perhaps 8 or 9, which psychologists agree is before full mental reasoning kicks in. If you are going through the usual anxieties of the teenaged years (issues of your own sexuality, your status in your peer group, your standing within the family, parental support - emotional and material) and you're feeling, as the report says, 'isolated', then you probably spend hours fantasising about what it's like to have a soulmate, someone to love, or someone to love you - especially if those feelings are lacking from the parent base. It's supposed to be an age when you begin tentatively exploring such feelings. But if you're described as a loner (presumably feeling an outsider, or unworthy, or something like this) you don't have a group of friends with whom to discuss these issues. And, presumably, there wasn't a feeling of the ability to do so at home, either. I have no idea, but perhaps Hamer's Mum had switched off emotionally after the death of his sibling?

Hamer has committed a dreadful act, there's no doubt. However, a teenage boy killing a peer is not a lot different to the thousands of teenaged boys who kill THEMSELVES every year (in the civilized, Western world). These kids (and it's usually boys) are striking out at some malady in their lives - even those who've done well at school and are in line for Uni, sports captainships, etc. are not exempt from the roll of suicidal youngsters. They've burst into schools in the USA and shot down their classmates. They've murdered single children from time to time, largely in the heat of the moment. They kill themselves far more often. There is something going on which makes it impossible for them to pursue another day, which is a huge and largely unreported and undiscussed tragedy.

Merlin, you're incapable of even wanting to try to understand any human misfunctioning. Your answer is Neanderthal.
 
You read this then ...... I will go along with you only if the guy behaves himself will he serve the term of the given sentence.....But if he starts playing up he wont get out............
This is taken from LIFE SENTENCES GENERALLY ......................

You should have had a tariff set by the Home Secretary following recommendations by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. Providing the tariff period has not already expired, you are entitled to apply to the High Court to have your tariff re-set by a High Court judge. This will be done purely on the judge reading the papers - representations from the prisoner and materials concerning the offence submitted by the Home Office. The tariff cannot be increased over the level previously set. There is some debate as to whether Article 6 should allow for oral hearings to be allowed for this process.
 
Wrong - the Parole Board must assess at the end of the tariff period whether he is a risk - if he is assessed as a risk he stays in - if not he may be allowed out on licence .
 
Merlin, you're incapable of even wanting to try to understand any human misfunctioning. Your answer is Neanderthal.

Jon I would rate my knowledge of the human race on a par with yours on any day of the week you wish to choose.

Just think, on the life that I have lead! Mixing with most kinds of people, gives me a grounding that possibly you have never had or met, as you have never ever been in the firing line to see anger and danger!!I am very aware of peoples capabilties...either physical or in the oral mode having debated at local council level among other areas in my life ......

Your post was understandable and fair comment, up to the last two lines! but aint this a given trait of yours! you then turn on the person who opposes your views, and post made by his or her views because you fail to agree with them? I don't mean just this post but on regular threads/basis? ..

You can post an opinion the same as I post, but I don't make mine personal! Have you ever noticed........I would also prefer if you never made yours personal either... ta
 
Originally posted by Merlin the Magician@Oct 16 2006, 08:22 PM
Just stop and think for a moment, those that have posted. They have defended the aggressor like most people now do, (looking for excuses as to why he should have done it, how can you condone such treachery and murderous acts)
No-one is condoning the act or defending the boy. It's not a question of looking for excuses. Causes and reasons have nothing to do with excuses.

In a just society, we're trying to work out why and how it happened in order to mete out a punishment appropriate to the crime. The boy was sentenced to life imprisonment. That's hardly a soft option. It should also reassure the victim's parents that the killer has been removed from society for a very long time. It will never bring the kid back but neither will executing his killer.
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Oct 17 2006, 12:11 AM
Wrong - the Parole Board must assess at the end of the tariff period whether he is a risk - if he is assessed as a risk he stays in - if not he may be allowed out on licence .
how can this be wrong if its taken from a LAW book????????????? on line, go on say its out of date now?
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid+Oct 17 2006, 12:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Desert Orchid @ Oct 17 2006, 12:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Merlin the Magician@Oct 16 2006, 08:22 PM
Just stop and think for a moment, those that have posted. They have defended the aggressor like most people now do, (looking for excuses as to why he should have done it, how can you condone such treachery and murderous acts)
No-one is condoning the act or defending the boy. It's not a question of looking for excuses. Causes and reasons have nothing to do with excuses.

In a just society, we're trying to work out why and how it happened in order to mete out a punishment appropriate to the crime. The boy was sentenced to life imprisonment. That's hardly a soft option. It should also reassure the victim's parents that the killer has been removed from society for a very long time. It will never bring the kid back but neither will executing his killer. [/b][/quote]
D-O I wonder if the boys parents were given an option/choice, which option they would take....... but thats pure conjecture on my part and we will ever never know that......

Will time heal the parents wounds or will they bare malice after the 12 yrs is up and he is released?
 
Originally posted by Merlin the Magician@Oct 16 2006, 11:16 PM
I think you'll find that I am right read the whole item below........

Merlin, are you pissed? This is from the Sky News link that you posted:
"Hamer has been given a life sentence and told he must spend at least 12 years behind bars."

Do you see the words at least? That means a minimum of twelve years, certainly not a maximum. Which is precisely what everyone else has been trying to explain to you, gently or otherwise.
 
Merlin, your attitude is not only lacking in any psychological understanding, it's ignorant of history; all of which makes your pronouncements irrational.

In the past, many offences [inc poaching a rabbit or stealing a loaf of bread] were punishable by hanging, let alone killing anyone, whether by intention or accident. The crime rate - including for murder - was nevertheless at least as high as in recent times.

Disturbed children should not be executed, they should be locked away, and treated. I find the demonisation of the Bulger killers in the tabloid press, and their hounding so the mob can find and destroy them, just as repugnant as the original murders. This is still nominally a Christian country, in which the rule of law presupposes the possibility of redemtion. This does NOT imply the condoning of the original violent act.
 
Merlin: you have NO idea about the life I've led, the people I've met, or the situations I've been in, yet you've seen fit to judge your own experiences as far superior. Even if that were true (and I have NO idea about your life, apart from you being overweight, Welsh, proud of your penis, divorced, and once driving long-distance lorries), it's irrelevant to your calling for a 15 y.o. boy to be killed in revenge for murdering another boy.

I don't 'attack' people, although that's always your favourite comeback to me when I disagree strongly with your views - I said your ANSWER was Neanderthal, not you. Of course, if you think I implied that you were Neanderthal, that's your problem. You didn't even read the report correctly before you charged in with yet another of your instant rushes to judgment - you have people correcting you, but instead of saying 'oops' you just barge on trying to justify your error.

Every time there's a headline murder, it seems you have to put the article on here and start bawling for the blood of the murderer. Enough forumites have wondered why you keep doing this, and I can only think it's because you enjoy sensationalism, rather than a reasoned discussion on the subject. You just plonk the article and your judgment down and since you really hate to have anyone disagree with you, why keep doing it?
 
Originally posted by The Pro+Oct 16 2006, 09:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Pro @ Oct 16 2006, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PDJ@Oct 16 2006, 06:30 PM
So serving a minimum of 12 years (may well be more) is not a punishment?

I would like to see Life meaning just that but while the law stands as it does at the moment, the sentence is just.
:lol: :lol: You do make me laugh. [/b][/quote]
What is funny about this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top