The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Juvenile offenders - adult defendants

gsdx

gsdx

Festina lente
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Posts
57,249
Reaction score
1,603
Points
113
Location
Peterborough Ontario
I was watching Cold Case Files yesterday and saw an episode on a murder which had taken 30-odd years to solve. A young girl (in her very early teens, I believe), had been brutally murdered by a 17-year-old young man when she apparently refused to give in to his sexual advances.

The guy was almost in his 50s when the case was finally cracked and he was brought to justice. He was tried in 'adult' court and convicted of murder. However, having been a juvenile at the time of the murder, the judge had no choice but to sentence the man as a juvenile. He got what amounted to a 'naughty boy' sentence.

So, what do you think? If he had been tried as an adult and convicted as an adult, should he not have been sentenced as an adult as well?

I think so.
 
It depends on the prosecutor. but at 17, they can choose to make the charges as either an adult or a juvenile. In a case like murder, I would think that they should have tried him as an adult. But they may have done it at a juvenile for shock value and to remind people that it can happen.
 
austexfeet said:
In a case like murder, I would think that they should have tried him as an adult.
Click to expand...

He was tried and convicted as an adult. However, because the guy was a juvenile at the time of the murder, the judge's hands were tied as far as sentencing goes. He could only sentence the guy as a juvey which, in this case, was a slap on the wrist. The parents finally had some justice for their daughter, but the guy had spent 3 decades on the lam and living free and ended up doing so little time in prison. I believe his sentence was 9 years.
 
Well I'm not so sure 9 years is a slap on the wrist. That's a long time dude!

I believe the general rule is that the sentence you get is the one in effect at the time the crime was committed, not when you are sentenced. I suppose the reasoning is, "Hey no fair! I wouldn't have killed her if I'd known I was going to be tried as an adult!"

But I really don't know that much about it. We must have some lawyers here -- hmmm?
 
slobone said:
Well I'm not so sure 9 years is a slap on the wrist. That's a long time dude!
Click to expand...

joeslifeyork said:
Yeah, 9 years when you're 17 is a naugthy boy sentance.. you've got your whole life ahead of you.

But at 50... 9 years makes you almost 60. Its A LONG time.
Click to expand...

Nine years may be a long time, but, as an adult, his sentence would have been several times longer.

Sure, if he had been caught and tried and convicted as a juvey even if he was still in his teens, he still would have been 30 when he got out and would have had the rest of his life to live. But he lied and evaded capture for 3 decades. He lived the rest of his life already. Had he committed the murder when he was 47, he would have died in prison with the sentence he received.

With the sentence he actually got, he can do his time and walk out of prison and continue with the rest of his life.

The point I was making, though, is that he committed murder and got away with it until it finally caught up to him 30 years later. He was and adult and was treated as an adult until the moment of his sentencing. Suddenly, he was 17 years old again. It doesn't seem like justice to me.
 
What was he officially convicted of: murder one, manslaughter, murder two? Just out of curiosity.
 
^^ I don't recall, but I know it wasn't 'manslaughter'. He was convicted of murder, but I can't remember if it was murder 1 or 2, although I tend to think it was 1. It was his intention to kill her so his attempted rape wouldn't be discovered. It may have been 2, though. I'm not certain.
 
It's still a sick shame that he got off so easy. 9 years may seem like a long time, but for the family of the dead girl 30+ years not knowing is worse. He should have been sentenced to at least the amount of time he lived as a free man after he killed her.
 
Also don't forget many laws take into account when a crime took place. So if, at the time of the murder, the law in that state didn't allow for a juvenile offender to be tried as an adult - then he couldn't be tried as an adult even thirty years later.

It's the same right now in regards to the death penalty... if a juvenile offender killed someone in 1985 when he was 17 years old in Texas (where they execute the most people in the US each for capitol crimes), he could be tried as an adult in 2006 but not receive the death penalty because he was under 18 when the crime occured... and last year the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty only applies to those over the age of 18.

While it might not be fair for the victim's family... the could have sued the guy in a wrongful death lawsuit for monetary compensation. Not saying that would bring back their daughter, but it would continue to haunt him long after he was out of prison (unless your initials are O.J.S.).

And what did going to prison at age 50 do for this guy? Probably ruined his life: his relationship with his wife and his kids, his job, his social friends... they might all want less to do with a convicted felon.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Um...are we talking about a case on a fictional TV show?

That aside, this topic infuriates me. Why try someone as an adult when the law says that under 18 is a juvenile. Doesn't seem right to me on any level.
 
^^ Cold Case Files is a programme on A&E and cover actual crimes which became 'cold' and were ultimately solved. The case above is real.
 
Ah...I thought it was that CBS (?) show called Cold Case. Regardless, if you are under the age of 18 by even a second, you should be tried as a juvenile IMHO.
 
pills said:
Regardless, if you are under the age of 18 by even a second, you should be tried as a juvenile IMHO.
Click to expand...

That is not in dispute. The man was a juvenile when he committed the crime. He was an adult when he was captured, he was tried in adult court and convicted of murder by adults, yet he was sentenced as a 17-year-old boy when he was almost 50 years old. I think he should have been sentenced as an adult if only for the fact that he eluded capture and accepted no responsibitily for his actions for over 30 years.
 
Ah...I am a little thick sometimes. If he did the crime as a juvenile, he should be tried as a juvenile I think. Did they not give him additional punishment for all the time that he was an adult and on the lam? Seems like they could have found something there to charge him with.
 
no.

if the crime is committed as a juvenile, then the sentence should be a juvenile sentence.

Sucks, but that's really the only thing to do.
 
joeslifeyork said:
Yeah, 9 years when you're 17 is a naugthy boy sentance.. you've got your whole life ahead of you.

But at 50... 9 years makes you almost 60. Its A LONG time.
Click to expand...

I actually think it's the opposite. Imagine the quality and importance lost in the years of 17-26 rather than 51-60!
 
Soilwork said:
no.

if the crime is committed as a juvenile, then the sentence should be a juvenile sentence.

Sucks, but that's really the only thing to do.
Click to expand...


agree.

I thinks its sick wanting to punish children like they are adults.

NameTaken said:
I actually think it's the opposite. Imagine the quality and importance lost in the years of 17-26 rather than 51-60!
Click to expand...

agree too. 17-26 you are learning how to be cope with being an adult and everything.
 
If he was a juvenile when the crime was committed he should be tried as a juvenile. If your law says 18 years is adult but 17 years 364 days is juvenile then so be it. If there has to be a distinction between adult and juvenile then you have to live with a cut off point.

I appreciate that a 17 year old can be seen as adult in most people's eyes but what if he had been 13 when he committed the crime but 50 before he was caught and convicted?

Are you punishing the kid who commited the crime or the man he grew up to be?
 
I think it depends on the state. Michael Skakel (the Kennedy relative convicted of killing his neighbor when he was 15) was arraigned as a juvenile (he was 40 when charged) but ultimately tried as an adult. It makes some sense to try someone as a juvenile because that was their mental state at the time of the crime although nowadays juveniles routinely get tried as adults for serious crimes so there is not a lot of sympathy for adult defendants who committed serious crimes when they were kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top