Am I reading this right?

Perks · May 23, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/23/bus.boy.ap/index.html

Boy, 8, faces homicide charge in bus accident

NEW YORK (AP) -- An 8-year-old boy was arrested on a homicide charge after he sneaked onto a school bus and released its parking brake, causing it to roll forward and kill a second-grader, police said Tuesday.
The boy was to be charged with criminally negligent homicide, police Officer Doris Garcia said. Police were withholding his name because of his age.

As far as tragedies go, this is monumental, but charging an eight year old with murder? Somebody set me straight here.

dahmnait · May 23, 2006

Perks said:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/23/bus.boy.ap/index.html

As far as tragedies go, this is monumental, but charging an eight year old with murder? Somebody set me straight here.

If his intent was to run the bus over anyone (whether it was the girl or someone else), then the charge is right. However, I don't see anything about intent in the article. This is a reflection of the way society deals with tragedy now. There has to be someone to blame in every situation. The bus driver, the school, the school district, and the bus manufacturer will be next. The boy's parents on the other hand, will have suffered terrible pain over what their son did, and no one will touch them.

Perks · May 23, 2006

I guess my question is, can an eight-year-old who presumably isn't the spawn of Satan, actually comprehend intent to kill? An eight-year-old thinks Christmas is never gonna get here. Their concept of the permanence of death cannot be developed.

It's going to take some convincing that an eight-year-old could comprehend this. And I have a very canny seven-and-a-half-year-old.

rich · May 23, 2006

Politics come first; after that, some semblance of sanity and truth.

Perks · May 23, 2006

Rich, what does that mean? Someone must've switched mine to decaf without my authority.

William Haskins · May 23, 2006

typically, DAs will go for a more severe charge that can be mitigated in a plea bargain, a reduction of charges, a total dropping of charges, etc.

my guess is that this will eventually be deemed a horrible accident and, hopefully, the kid will get some counseling, along with the parent(s) - i have an 8 year old and there's no way he'd have the unsupervised freedom of movement to get behind the wheel of a bus.

the kid did something horribly scarring, and i feel for him, but let's not forget there's also a dead child and a grieving family.

Jcomp · May 23, 2006

William Haskins said:
typically, DAs will go for a more severe charge that can be mitigated in a plea bargain, a reduction of charges, a total dropping of charges, etc.

my guess is that this will eventually be deemed a horrible accident and, hopefully, the kid will get some counseling, along with the parent(s) - i have an 8 year old and there's no way he'd have the unsupervised freedom of movement to get behind the wheel of a bus.

the kid did something horribly scarring, and i feel for him, but let's not forget there's also a dead child and a grieving family.

what Will said...

dahmnait · May 23, 2006

Perks said:
I guess my question is, can an eight-year-old who presumably isn't the spawn of Satan, actually comprehend intent to kill? An eight-year-old thinks Christmas is never gonna get here. Their concept of the permanence of death cannot be developed.

It's going to take some convincing that an eight-year-old could comprehend this. And I have a very canny seven-and-a-half-year-old.

But they can comprehend the intent to hurt. I have a problem with proving his culpability myself, but I can understand where the DA is coming from if, and only if, the intent was there. To be culpable, he only has to be aware of the potential risk of harm.

It is a hard one because of his age.

Perks · May 23, 2006

That's so horrible. The parents of the lost child, I don't even know what to say. To even let my mind go there makes me ill and I know I can't cover a sliver of common ground with my imagination.

And the horror of the parents of the boy who let the bus go. Disaster. To even make a show of murder charges against an eight-year-old, to me, is such a strange thing to do, though.

maestrowork · May 23, 2006

Some eight years old know exactly what they are doing. I think we assume too much when we say, "but they're just children, and it's just an accident."

Children kill children all the time, sometimes extremely cruelly.

William Haskins · May 23, 2006

maestrowork said:
Children kill children all the time, sometimes extremely cruelly.

as opposed to lovingly?

Shadow_Ferret · May 23, 2006

8-year-olds generally know right from wrong. Mine did when he was that age. They generally know that certain things can kill. A bus running over a child is an easy concept to understand. Ask them. Death will be the result.

However, I wonder about cause and effect. I wonder whether or not this 8-year-old actually understood the relationship between his action -- releasing the brake -- and the consequence -- a child dying.

I'm thinking he didn't. I'm thinking he was playing with the brake. I'm thinking he didn't realize it would roll forward and harm anyone.

But then again, who knows? Maybe he is Satan spawn. Is his name Damien?

Perks · May 23, 2006

Children are the cruelest little monsters, no doubt. I've often said it's a good thing toddlers are small and weak - otherwise there would be no end to the carnage.

But it's an issue of conceptualizing the result of their actions. They can't. Their comprehension of time is underdeveloped. Take a benign thing - like summer break. Take yourself back to this time of year when you were eight or nine and facing three months of leisure.

As far as you could envision, you were free. You'd always be free. The horizon is the end of the world and it's three months.

Now, if someone told you at your present age that all your hopes and dreams would be realized in three months time, you'd know it was the blink of an eye and you'd wait with a sh!t-eating grin on your face.

They can't know as an adult would know. A child can kill, but only an adult can murder.

rich · May 23, 2006

"...comprehend the intent of hurt." "...aware of the potential risk of harm."

Easy, dahmnait. Right now it's still politics, and nothing of probative value is on the table.

maestrowork · May 23, 2006

Perks said:
They can't know as an adult would know. A child can kill, but only an adult can murder.

What is your definition of "murder"? I think if someone intends to kill another and succeeds, that's murder, regardless of age. Whether the person has the mental capacity to understand the cause and consequences or right from wrong, it's up to the court. But first, you must charge the person of murder, then you have a case. Otherwise, do you just let the person go and say, "Well, we speculate..."

When I was eight I knew what killing was, what murder was, what stealing was, what hurting someone was -- and that people died. The only thing I didn't know much about was adultery or rape -- I had absolutely no concept what sex was.

I think in our society we give children too much leeway. We let them get away with too much, all in the name of "they're just children." Some of these "children" know more about death and torture and pain and suffering than you and I do.

dahmnait · May 23, 2006

rich said:
"...comprehend the intent of hurt." "...aware of the potential risk of harm."

Easy, dahmnait. Right now it's still politics, and nothing of probative value is on the table.

That would be why I also said, "but I can understand where the DA is coming from if, and only if, the intent was there." If he didn't realize what would happen when the parking brake was released then they can't prove intent and it is nothing more than a horrible accident.

Perks · May 23, 2006

To me, the difference between killing and murder, albeit semantic, is the ability to reasonably grasp of the far-reaching ramifications of the action: the permanence of death, the devastation wrought on the family of the victim, etc.

In the case of impaired adults, I agree that a court and experts must convene to make a judgement on that person's level of culpability.

The lack of developmental time in an eight-year-old brain speaks for itself.

aadams73 · May 23, 2006

I think this was a dreadful accident, not a calculated murder.

However, some children are evil. For example, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson and their murder of Jamie Bulger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bulger

Children are just as capable of terrible things as adults.

rich · May 23, 2006

But we're doing so much supposition on this, dahmait. We're doing more "what-ifs" than a crazed poet. If the topic went from this particular case to a general discussion of the responsibility of eight year olds--where it now appears to be going--than all is well. If we continue to talk about this particular case than it's futile.

maestrowork · May 23, 2006

Perks said:
The lack of developmental time in an eight-year-old brain speaks for itself.

I still say it's for the court to decide. Thus the DA has the right to charge the kid for negligent homicide, which, by the way, is different from "murder," I believe.

Homicide = to kill another person

As you already said: a child could kill... so in this case, it is the right charge. The child did kill.

Perks · May 23, 2006

I guess that does force the question where the line of accountability is marked. <sigh> I don't know. It's miserable.

maestrowork · May 23, 2006

It's a tragedy for all concerned, that's for sure.

dahmnait · May 23, 2006

rich said:
But we're doing so much supposition on this, dahmait. We're doing more "what-ifs" than a crazed poet. If the topic went from this particular case to a general discussion of the responsibility of eight year olds--where it now appears to be going--than all is well. If we continue to talk about this particular case than it's futile.

Given the amount of information publicized on this particular case, isn't it all speculation at this point? Does this mean that we shouldn't speculate why this child is being charged?

I admit, what I mentioned in my previous post regarding eight-year-olds having the comprehension of intent to harm was a generalization. However, what I was doing was specifying the part of the law that they could be using to justify the charge. I can't do anything more than that given the information we currently have available. Until there is more information, I can't give a concrete opinion on whether or not I think that this child should be charged.

HeyBooBoo · May 23, 2006

maestrowork said:
When I was eight I knew what killing was, what murder was, what stealing was, what hurting someone was -- and that people died. The only thing I didn't know much about was adultery or rape -- I had absolutely no concept what sex was.

I knew of all of the above when I was eight, but I didn't know jack about driving a car. The road rager that honked his horn at me after I accidently cut him off might even say that I still don't. Eight year olds do know about death and murder, but I tend to think their knowledge stems from whatever gruesome horror movie is popular at the moment. Unless the kid had just watched a movie that showed a death by bus scene I have a hard time believing that he knew what he was doing. He probably jumped on the bus, saw a chance to have some fun, and an accident happened. It's sad for all of them, but I don't think charging the kid with murder is the answer.

rtilryarms · May 23, 2006

Perks said:
I guess my question is, can an eight-year-old who presumably isn't the spawn of Satan, actually comprehend intent to kill? An eight-year-old thinks Christmas is never gonna get here. Their concept of the permanence of death cannot be developed.

It's going to take some convincing that an eight-year-old could comprehend this. And I have a very canny seven-and-a-half-year-old.

Lionel Tate.

Another South Florida first.

Am I reading this right?

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Just a figment…

delicate #!&@*#! flower

rich

delicate #!&@*#! flower

poet

Just a figment…

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Fear the Death Ray

poet

Court Jester

delicate #!&@*#! flower

rich

Fear the Death Ray

Just a figment…

delicate #!&@*#! flower

A Work in Progress

rich

Fear the Death Ray

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Fear the Death Ray

Just a figment…

Crossbows and Handgonnes