posted on January 26, 2001 11:34:31 AM new
Another question that can be asked -- is rehabilitation even a factor in punishment for crimes commited? That's certainly debatable.
Personally I'd be surprised if this verdict remains. He was offered a plea of 3 years plus 10 years probation. I can't imagine it would be very hard for another lawyer to prove that he had inadequate legal counsel.
In any case my supply of sympathy seems to be used up on the poor little girl and there simply isn't any left for this killer.
No, I do not believe he was born a killer. However, I have done extensive research on the criminal mind and the fact is your conscious is fully developed by the age of 3. This boy will be very hard to rehabilitate. But should we try? Absolutely!!
The same reason so many adoptive couples that have rescued children from orphanages are so disppointed that their love and therapy cannot help these kids.
The sad part about our society IMHO - is that we require tests to be taken for everything except the most important job - parenting. Because if we ignore bad parents -we end up with children who turn into this type of adult. Then we are involved as they will be the ones raping, robbing and murdering.
posted on January 26, 2001 12:02:06 PM new
What is most disturbing to me is the pitilessness of what he did. He beat this child to death. It must have taken some time. He must have seen what was happening to her...heard her cries...and continued until she was dead.
How do you create mercy, pity, empathy...whatever you want to call it...where none exists at the age of 13? It's beyond me.
posted on January 26, 2001 12:09:56 PM newboysmommy3
I agree! And so many children fall through the cracks at school.
Jamesoblivion
I have sympathy for everybody in this disaster.
The little girl
her mother
the boy
his mother
the state of Florida
the prosecutor for his ignorance
the lawyers for their incompetence
the jury for their wrong verdict
codassarus
I am especially interested in your answer to my question,
because you were so clearly against the possibility of rehabilitation.
posted on January 26, 2001 12:28:58 PM new
I just saw a pic of this 13 year old "boy". He was huge...and taller than the cop holding his handcuffed arm. Sickeningly, I can imagine this very LARGE "boy", "accidently" throwing the little girl against the stairwell, the wall, the table, over and over again "instead of the sofa where he was aiming", and the child wimpering, bloody, moaning, gasping for air, and in excrusiating pain only to be picked up again, with bones sawing against each other, not able to scream and being thrown again and again and again...then pummeled like wrestlers do, until there is nothing left of life. Sorry for the description I just gave in words, but thats what I see in my head and it nauseates me. And, I hope this "kid" gets the same dam treatment wherever he goes in lockup.
posted on January 26, 2001 12:56:52 PM new
Children his age have been found very effective as soldiers especially in Asia and Africa. Many of the Khermer Rouge killers were childred this age. They seem to be able to be converted into murderers without mercy. There have been some unsucessful attempts to try and outlaw child soldiers. Today still, in Angola, the Unita organization kidnaps these children to form the basis of their Armies.
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
[ edited by savoyking on Jan 26, 2001 12:57 PM ]
[ edited by savoyking on Jan 26, 2001 12:58 PM ]
posted on January 26, 2001 12:59:53 PM new
From what I understand in the cases of the child soldiers, they are fed a lot of drugs and a lot of cruelty (beatings, rapes, etc). Apparently that is one way to turn a child into a ruthless killer.
posted on January 26, 2001 01:22:03 PM new
Hello Helen,
I began my post with... If this boy has no hope of rehabilitation...
I am not qualified to make a judgement on whether or not the boy is beyond rehabilitation. I'm a mathematician and software developer by education and career, not a social scientist.
As to whether I believe anyone is born a killer, my answer is no, absoultely not.
I believe that we are all born with the same basic instincts. To feed our hunger, to rest our body, to protect ourselves from danger, to exist as comfortably as is possible and when we mature to become parents and pass on in turn the gift of life that we were given.
I don't believe that killing is necessary to achieve any of our basic goals in life. And in that killing interferes with others achieving those goals then I believe that pity is not warranted towards such miscreants.
edited for UBB error
[ edited by codasaurus on Jan 26, 2001 01:23 PM ]
posted on January 26, 2001 01:43:04 PM new
codasaurus
This is what you posted before......
""If this boy has no hope of rehabilitation then he needs to stay under lock and key, like the dangerous animal he is, for his entire life. And not "life" in any court defined legal sense. Or, failing that he should be euthanized, executed, killed. Call it what you will and heap me with your scorn but those are the only two solutions I see for a problem individual who has failed to understand and abide by the most common and obvious forms of decency... the respect for an individual human life over whom you have such power. ""
posted on January 26, 2001 01:44:58 PM new
"If the mother of the boy is to be punished then I say punish the father as well and more severely"
Codasaurus (sp?)
Unfortunately, she was a single mother and the father was not a part of this boy's life.
Should he have been there for him - yes. Is he responsible here no. When the mother knew he wasn't going to be there and she is the primary caretaker - she is ultimately responsible for his behavior.
You cannot tell me that this 13 year old never tried a wrestling move before, if he thought the moves were okay to do. IMHO - the mother is extremely negligent in watching the child she was supposed to be caretaking and she should be punished. The little girl should never have been left alone with her son while she slept.
Interesting and a further explanation of his behavior. The mother was not in court to see him charged - she said per her attorney. Whatever for?? My children are my life and I will be there every step of the way. How could you not be there? Only IMHO if that bond never existed.
posted on January 26, 2001 01:52:36 PM new
I agree, Jules...
It's hard to believe the killing was premeditated. What is horrifying me is the cruelty involved...
Even if he didn't know he was killing her...he surely knew she was suffering. And he didn't care enough to stop beating her. That is almost beyond my comprehension.
posted on January 26, 2001 01:57:59 PM new
"I have a difficult time believing a 12 year old child could form the intent necessary to be convicted of first degree murder."
Julesy,
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. My son is 10 years old and I guarantee you he knows what is right and wrong. I would say he has had a clear understanding of right and wrong since probably 7ish.
I also used to live in Southern California and many little gang bangers were under 15 and fully knew what they were doing when they were the triggermen for hits.
I do believe the intent was there. He continually beat on this child. How could he not know she was hurt? I do not believe it was pre-meditated, but intent was definitely there.
What I do believe he does not understand is that this little girl is now gone forever and that he will spend the majority of his life in jail for the beating.
The problem with these children is the lack of placing VALUE on the human life. They grow up without discipline, caring and seeing real families. If he lived in a gang infested area he sees death daily and it is part of his life.
There are so many people out there having children that they care nothing for. What do you expect them to turn out like? The most imporant thing for the human psyche is acceptance and love by someone - usually a parent.
It floors me - how can you not bond and fiercely protect and love this gift that you made? Little babies are like sponges - soaking in everything you teach it. How parents can ignore these children and then not understand why they turn out like they do is beyond me.
Hugs from my kids is the best part of the day. Unfortunately, there are thousands of little children out there that never receive them.
posted on January 26, 2001 02:03:12 PM new
Heya Tokie --
I guess I have a hard time with this because there were no witnesses, though that isn't so unusual anyway.
To me, there is a slim possibility that this kid didn't know his own strength, and maybe he took her crying and/or protests to be part of some wrestling role-playing game. I guess I just don't know how a jury could be so positive. Did this kid have a history of violence or being a bully towards this girl?
posted on January 26, 2001 02:10:29 PM newWhat I do believe he does not understand is that this little girl is now gone forever and that he will spend the majority of his life in jail for the beating.
Hi boysmommy --
So you think he formed intent, yet he didn't understand that his actions would result in her being dead and gone forever? Then what was his intent? Further, how could he know what he was doing was wrong, if he didn't understand he would end up in jail?
posted on January 26, 2001 02:14:40 PM new
I don't know his history with the girl. I did raise a son, though. No way my boy could have done something like this, even at an earlier age, not without knowing what misery he was inflicting.
If this boy were mentally ill, or functionally retarded in some way...maybe I could see some kind of mitigation of his guilt and responsibility.
I thought the same about intent, but according to the New York Times,
The prosecutor, Paddowitz stresed that intent to kill was not required for a guilty verdict. He said, "He didn't have to wake up that morning and say "I'm going to kill Tiffany Eunick, All that is required is that he intended to act, not that he intended the result."
That means, that if you have a big boy(for his age) on a playground in a fight,
for example, and he whallops a little fellow who hits his head on
the jungle jim and dies, he could be convicted of murder. (in Florida)
toke
"If this boy were mentally ill, or functionally retarded in some way...maybe I could see some kind of mitigation of his guilt and responsibility."
That is exactly what I am concerned about. And the vicious nature of
this attack would certainly support that conclusion.
posted on January 26, 2001 02:24:51 PM newI have a difficult time believing a 12 year old child could form the intent necessary to be convicted of first degree murder.
Not only that, but I wonder if a 12 year old child is really able to undstand the reprecussions of each and every action, both good and bad.
Julesy,
Age is not the defining factor. some 25 y.o.'s may not be able to form the intent, or understand the repercussions.....but give me a large enough sample and I could probably find you an 8 y.o. who could.
In many cases bad parenting contributes to such behaviors,in many cases abusive parenting breeds monsters; but why do you all refuse to accept the fact that some children/adults would turn out this way no matter how good or bad the parent. You can't blame every crime, every murder, every sick, twisted or evil mind on the parents.
Not charging these cases and expecting it all to be taken care of by intervention by Mental Health experts is perpetuating the problems and putting more innocents at risk.
cariad
....and some 50+ year olds will never understand the repercussions of ubb.
posted on January 26, 2001 02:32:37 PM new
"So you think he formed intent, yet he didn't understand that his actions would result in her being dead and gone forever? Then what was his intent? Further, how could he know what he was doing was wrong, if he didn't understand he would end up in jail?"
Julesy,
Hard to explain in words what I mean but here goes - basing this on my 10 year old.
I believe when the girl was being thrown - that the continual beating, she was not just thrown - she was kicked and pummeled as well. I believe he intended to hurt her. I guess I do not believe he intended to kill her but I think legally if the result of an intended act is death - they can get you for 1st degree. So maybe the intent that was proven was hurting her and he was charged because she died? (Like if someone dies during a robbery you can still be charged with 1st degree b/cuz your intended act - the robbery resulted in the death)
My son would know that this type of behavior was wrong but he would not understand that it would mean he could spend the rest of his existence in jail. He would also not understand that it would mean this little girl was gone forever.
I see his intent as trying to hurt her or not carrying (sp?) that he was hurting her. Do I believe he understood the consequences of his intended act - I would say no. But that does not lesson his liability.
posted on January 26, 2001 02:54:52 PM new
There are a lot of good comments here...
[b]That means, that if you have a big boy(for his age) on a playground in a fight,
for example, and he whallops a little fellow who hits his head on
the jungle jim and dies, he could be convicted of murder. (in Florida)[/b]
I don't get this (nothing against you Helen, just the article you mentioned). If one kid punches another kid on a playground, and the result is that the kid falls back and dies as a result of hitting his head on the jungle jim, then isn't that manslaughter? The kid only intended to punch the other kid, not kill him. Manslaughter would come into play because the kid should've foreseen the end result. Then again, Florida is such a wacky state, a law like this wouldn't surprise me...
Jada, I pretty much agree with you, and I'm not making any excuses for this boy, I just wish it were more clear to me, that he intended to murder her. Not even second degree murder, but first degree.
Boysmommy --
Thanks for your response.
I don't know if felony murder (the robbery scenario you mentioned) applies here...it would make more sense if that were the case.
I agree that the boy is liable, but in this case, I think the jury went waaaaaaaay overboard.
I also read somewhere that certain psychiatrists weren't allowed to testify on the boy's behalf because of one of the judge's rulings...anyone know what that was about?
posted on January 26, 2001 03:03:10 PM new
I think we all need to know more about what the jury heard in this case. If anyone hears anything else I want to know this boy's history and all that the jury heard to come up with this charge.
If anyone hears anymore - please share.
Even if this jury is wrong - the bottom line is the judge as well as prosecution had the basis for this charge. I would like to know what that was.
I think there is too much that we do not know about the boy.
posted on January 26, 2001 03:45:39 PM new
13 years corresponds to 8th grade - almost high school and old enough to get baby sitting jobs. How can one think this is too young to understand that it is wrong to beat a small child to death?
I don't know many of the details but one I did hear is that the boy initially attempted to explain the girl's injuries as due falling and hitting a coffee table. Clearly he knew what he did was wrong.
About the hypothetical fight. You are absolutely right. There would be no intent to murder. I don't think that there was an
intent to murder in this boy's case either.
I was just making a comparison...If this
child could be charged with first degree
murder, under similar circumstances any other
child might be charged with first degree
murder.
I read that he intended to throw her on the
sofa and she hit the stair rail.
I read that the psychiatrists were not
allowed to testify about the effects of
watching so much wrestling on his behavior.
According to his mother he regularly
wrestled with his friends.
He will be sentenced March 2 and Jebb Bush has the power to commute the sentence after consulting with the prosecutor.
posted on January 26, 2001 04:25:08 PM new
figmente
He was 12 when this happened. In our schools
I think that would be 7th grade.
Gee that put's it in better perspective
for me. I would like to know if he was
tested by psychiatrists for IQ and mental
status. Superman and Batman were among his
favorite characters. Wouldn't they be
more appropriate for younger children?
posted on January 26, 2001 04:35:36 PM newHJW: I'm 45 (well, 46 in a couple of weeks) & *I* like Superman & Batman, so that means little. Now, if his favorite character was Barney or The Little Engine That Could, that would be another matter...
I doubt that this is the first time this kid has done something violent or aggressive. Things like this just don't come out of the blue. But in all likelihood whatever he did (be it hurting animals, punching other kids, whatever) he was excused on the grounds that "he's just a child" or "he didn't know any better." And that's a big problem in our society, IMO. Kids who never have to face any consequences to their actions due to excuses like this will *continue* to exhibit like behavior and even escalate it.
posted on January 26, 2001 05:37:03 PM new
In my area, Junior High students have no
interest in superman and batman. I do know
some 4 and 5 year old children who do.
Eventually, I hope that this child will get
the help that he needs. And I'll be watching
Jebb to see if he has more sense than his
brother.
posted on January 26, 2001 06:18:35 PM new
There are several news stories about this case in the Miami Herald,
http://www.herald.com/
Especially interesting is a story by Fred Grimm: Hard Time makes hard cases of kids.
couple of quotes from the story,
``So, at 13, that's it for him. He'll be warehoused for life. It's just unseemly,'' said Jason Ziedenberg, a senior policy analyst for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in Washington, D.C. Ziedenberg said Florida was already infamous for housing children with adult offenders, where they're particularly vulnerable to assault, rape and suicide.
It was Broward County, of course, that consigned 15-year-old Michael Myers to Florida's adult penal system. The boy was strangled by his adult cellmate, a career criminal in 1997. The cellmate, by the way, was convicted of second-degree murder for murdering the kid.
posted on January 26, 2001 06:25:45 PM new
Just a couple of weeks ago we were talking about those boys in England - 10 years old when they led that little boy away and beat and tortured him to death. They have spent eight years in whatever facility they put them in, and now are being released with new identities, and many of us were aghast at that.
How is this child any different? He is three years older than those boys were, and he beat her to death all by himself.
My son just turned nine, and he damn sure would know the difference between playing a game and beating someone enough to even make them bleed, not to mention kill them.
Insane? Maybe he's insane. But he was sure sane enough to come up with a couple of different stories as to how that little girl got the injuries she got. That in and of itself casts doubt on the insanity thing to my mind.
And yes - his mother should have some accountability in this.
edit because I don't think those boys were exactly in a prison, and that is what flowed from my keyboard. Sorry.
[ edited by maddienicks on Jan 26, 2001 06:27 PM ]
