369
Boy, 15, who fatally stabbed teenager he did not know in Birmingham is jailed for life
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
369 points (97.9% liked)
World News
38977 readers
2830 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not attacking your person, I'm attacking whatever backwater government you're living under for having such inane laws.
He has been found to have the capacity necessary to stand trial in juvenile court. Those standards are different than for adults because, and I'll say this again: Juveniles are not fully developed. They don't have the same mental capacity.
If, at the ripe age of 90, he's still messed up then I'd agree with you. But there's quite a couple of decades until then.
As said: You're out for blood, plain and simple. You know nothing of understanding, of forgiveness, or you would be more lenient, you know nothing about justice or you would take into account that he's a kid, and you certainly know nothing about developmental psychology.
You should be kept as far away from the justice system as possible. I don't consider you unredeemable, but by the way you dig in your heels and refuse to listen to arguments it's going to be a while before that restriction can be lifted.
You just "othered" me. You just called for me to be undemocratically removed from the political process, entirely because you don't agree with my opinions. I have not been tried or convicted in any crime, or otherwise been the subject of any sort of due process that would strip me of any rights or privileges.
Your position is therefore undemocratic.
I do, indeed, understand that children slowly bear more and more responsibility for their own actions as their cognition and experience increases. What you don't seem to understand is that the cognitive abilities and experiences necessary to comprehend the rightness and wrongness of murder are typically developed well before age 10. You further fail to understand that this kid possessed them. He knew what he was doing. This wasn't some youthful indiscretion, or a simple failure to control his impulses. This was a deliberate act. He specifically went looking to kill someone, and succeeded.
You asked me several comments up to consider my own behavior at age 15. I never murdered anyone, and I knew that murdering people was wrong before 15. Long before 15. The overwhelming majority of kids are sufficiently responsible to use deadly weapons for hunting and sport before reaching their teens.
Murder stops being tolerable as soon as the individual is capable of deliberately causing it. This kid was capable of such deliberation. He is irredeemable.
If your position was to kill all people of a particular skin color then my position would be the same. Democracy cannot work if fundamental rights are not protected from onslaught by people who, ultimately, would abolish democracy itself. Because that's where your path leads: Towards a failure to regard other people as people.
You still fail to acknowledge that that's not what it's about. It's about executive control. If an adult has an intrusive thought they have a very good grasp on blocking it, youth doesn't. If everything works well then they're simply exploration happy, like stupid bands, invent new makeup styles and re-invent the shopping cart race. If society messed them up at a fundamental level then things like murder can bubble up, and might not be stopped by the weak frontal cortex. That does not mean that they'll regret it, though: They're already perfectly capable of rationalising, and will do so to maintain a consistent self-image of themselves.
Did you understand anything of what I just wrote. Please rephrase it in your own words ("So you're saying that...") so I know we won't continue to talk past each other, there.
More generally speaking, there's an African saying: If a kid does not feel the warmth of the village they will find the warmth they deserve by setting it ablaze.
No. Life, liberty, rights, and privileges can - and should - be deprived upon conviction of a crime. The appropriate deprivation of rights and privileges as a sentence for murder is life imprisonment. Nothing of my opinion disregards any person as a person.
Your position, however, disregards the victim's rights as a person. Further, you have advocated for stripping me of my rights to participate in governance based solely on your dislike for my opinion.
You have justified fascism.
I summarily reject your suggestion that a 15-year-old is so lacking in their capacity for executive control that they can be excused of murder.
This wasn't an intrusive thought. This was a deliberate act.
By all means, be warm to the kid. Until he starts setting people on fire.
Life can and should be deprived? That's barbaric. Every civilised country has abolished the death penalty. Heck even parts of the US managed to abolish it.
So you reject reality. Which explains a lot.
And what if noone was warm to him, who is at fault when the village burns? I'd say the adults are. Punishing the kid is just them trying to cover up their own failures. A convenient scapegoat for their own failure to foster wholesome interactions.
Him.
It's a pretty simple concept. He is the one who performed the act. He is responsible.
Unless you can show the adults deliberately taught him to murder, I'd say no. If you can show they did that, they can join him in prison forever. But he doesn't get a pass.
I'm perfectly happy to blame the adults for a kid becoming a little shithead asshole. Not so much when the kid deliberately decides to murder someone.
You argued that 4-year-olds don't need supervision. Now you're arguing that 15-year-olds are incapable of being responsible for their own, deliberate actions; that their parents, guardians, or other individuals charged with supervising their behavior are responsible.
So if someone calls up an assassin to murder another person, the one who ordered the kill gets off scott-free?
Adults have a duty to raise kids well, just as they have a duty to file their taxes. If they cannot do so on their own, they have the right to be helped along by the rest of society. And, really, even if not there's that other (more famous) African saying: It takes a village to raise a kid.
Consider the alternative, or, rather, that really seems to be what you're implying: That children are responsible for their own upbringing. Next up: Babies are expected to grow their own food. Your potted petunia is responsible for its own watering.
If they have shown signs of being violent to their peers, yes of course they need supervision. And so does our 15yold. But that doesn't mean that we pre-emptively supervise every kid that way they'd never learn independence, and thus never truly become adults, they'd just spinelessly bow to the next random person who passes as an authority figure.
His upbringing isn't relevant to the issue. His deliberate actions are. He is generally responsible for his deliberate actions, regardless of how shitty a hand he was dealt.
We can give him some leniency on issues like contract law: He might not have the cognitive ability to understand an important legal document. He might not understand the value of money. He might not have the capacity for complex abstract thought, and should be protected from those who would exploit that and defraud him.
But Murder isn't an abstract concept. It's pretty simple. He isn't owed any societal protections for deciding to kill someone.
Why? Because it would put blame on the adults? Because you want to, at all cost, deflect responsibility from the ones in the position to provide warmth without there being a burning village?
I call that spineless.
Why, then, are the adults owed social protections for deciding to turn him into the kid he became? And yes I used "decided" deliberately here: If he decided to become a murderer, then the adults can't claim that "it was an accident", "we didn't mean to" when it comes up to turning him into a murderer.
I have no problem throwing the adults in prison with him, if you can reasonably show they are responsible. Go ahead and blame them all you want. But understand that the blame they carry does not in any way excuse him from responsibility for his actions, nor the consequences of those actions. They can be blamed also, not instead.
Murder is too simple an idea to suggest that a 15-year-old can't be held responsible for committing it.
Please, again, read up on developmental psychology, and what the prefrontal cortex does. The alternative, for you, is to effectively have zero empathy for anyone younger than the early 20s. Whether they murdered or stole a cookie or broke a toy.
I'm out of here lest sounding like a broken clock.
I have near-zero empathy for any competent person who chooses murder. The idea that a 15-year-old murderer should be excused for his actions strips every responsible teenager of their own agency. Your arguments are degrading and insulting to this kid's victim and to every responsible teenager.
"Choose". There it is again. Read up on what the frontal cortex does. You're ignorant and unwilling to rectify it.
If I were mean I could now claim that's a choice on your part. But, no: You simply lack the self-control necessary to do your research before you form an opinion and post it online. That little step back, saying "wait, is this right", that "should I consider this impulse more closely before acting on it". You're lacking it, and by golly our 15yold is lacking it. He has an excuse, you, presumably, are old enough to have a fully developed frontal cortex.
I readily concede the fact that a 15-year-old's frontal cortex is not completely developed.
I reject the idea that only a fully mature frontal cortex is capable of restraining someone from murdering a teenager. Even a radically undeveloped frontal cortex is more than capable.
This kid went out that day with a deadly weapon, seeking out the person or people who had previously attacked his friend, intending to commit violence against that individual. He found this teenager. Based on this teen's race, he believed this teen was complicit in his friend's attack. He spent 4 minutes arguing with this teenager, then stabbed him.
This wasn't a crime of passion. This was premeditated. He left his home that day intending to use his knife on someone. He knew his actions and intent were criminal and immoral, and he chose to act anyway.
Everything else in your last comment is an ad hominem, and doesn't need a response.
And I suppose you're a neuroscientist, behavioural psychologist, and generally smarter than literally every single person working in juvenile justice.
No. I was describing your character as I inferred from your behaviour, I was not making arguments based on it. Learn your fallacies: "You are a numpty, therefore, you are wrong" is ad hominem. "You are wrong, therefore, you are a numpty" is not.
This is another ad hominem, disguised as an appeal to authority.
Correct. You were describing me, rather than discussing the issue. That is, by definition. An "argumentum ad hominem". It is an "argument against the man" rather than an argument regarding the issue under discussion.
I have been discussing the issue. You failed, repeatedly, to acknowledge developmental psychology 101, that is, you didn't discuss the issue. Thus, to work towards the possibility of a discussion about the original issue, I expanded the discussion to your person.
Because unless and until you realise that you're doing your darndest to not look at relevant factors there can be no progress. And with this I'm actually out.