Teens Plead Not Guilty in Homeless Attacks

..."He's got the weight of the world on his shoulders," said Daugherty's attorney, Michael Gottlieb. "He definitely feels bad."...

Yeah, sure...

I bet when this all said and done the most these fuckers will get is probation and a serious "tongue wagging" and "finger pointing" from the judge telling them "You better not do that again."

naughty boys

[Gentle Giant]

At least they can't be charged with breaking and entering.

Sick fuckers.

[patricia]

What always astounds me in these cases, and there are much more of them than we ever hear about, is that the sympathy seems to be with the young sadists. That, coupled with the frequent attitude that kids in their mid-teens somehow aren't responisible for the violence in which they seem to revel is incomprehensible.
Psychologists whom I've seen interviewed about this case are busy blaming violent video games and films, without blaming the attackers for their actions.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Sure it's a shame that these yahoos have put their future in jeopardy. But, the idea that they should be given a stern warning, or whatever punishment usually given clearly doesn't send much of a message to other young people, or indeed anyone else.
The lives and well-being of the victims seem to fall off the radar, in favour of concern for the violent attackers.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Yeah, sure...

I bet when this all said and done the most these fuckers will get is probation and a serious "tongue wagging" and "finger pointing" from the judge telling them "You better not do that again."

naughty boys

They're being tried for homicide. I doubt they'll get anything of the sort, although I understand your cynicism. Patricia, there is (as I understand it) substantial evidence that the neurological connections which let humans see the long-term consequences of their actions don't finish forming until the early to mid-20s. But that's not really relevant, since our judicial system treats individuals above a certain chronological age as "adults," meaning that they are considered to have full awareness of the potential consequences of their actions (JMJ, leap in and correct me if I'm offbase), and I have no issue with that per se as long as it's applied consistently (e.g. don't let white kids from the suburbs get off for shit that would have some kid from the ghetto locked up for 20 to life). Having said that, there's no way these kids deserve much in the way of sympathy (assuming they're actually guilty - there is, after all, a trial *yet* to be conducted, apart from that taking place in the minds of the maddened and media-driven herd) for what seems to me to be about as stupid and sadistic a crime as one could imagine.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Tanager

But that's not really relevant, since our judicial system treats individuals above a certain chronological age as "adults," meaning that they are considered to have full awareness of the potential consequences of their actions (JMJ, leap in and correct me if I'm offbase).

No, you're not off base. Most states have a juvenile system to deal with offenders below a certain age, so as not to stigmatize them by branding them as "criminals" when they're young. The cutoff age here is 16; after that, if you commit a criminal act, you're charged as an adult. We also have a statutory scheme which has created an "in between" category for major felonies (like murder), in which the offenders are indicted as "youthful offenders" and the judge, after conviction, may impose adult prison sentences if deemed proper.