The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: CG6468 on May 17, 2012, 12:20:13 PM
-
Why are some felons not named because they "...are minors"? A murderer is a murderer, regardless of his/her age.
-
I'm not familiar with murdering minors not being named. IIRC I've seen quite a few of them named. Is there a particualr case you have in mind?
Other felonies may be felonies but the minor is still a minor and unless they're charged as adults it seems inappropriate to name them.
-
Most minors who are arrested/accused of criminal activity are not named in media due to state statutes. Those statutes are in place to "protect" the young criminal from the "stigma" of being arrested.
I think that most of these young criminals could stand to be shamed a little. Otherwise, the only people who know about their exploits are their thug friends, who egg them on to greater exploits.
-
I'm not familiar with murdering minors not being named. IIRC I've seen quite a few of them named. Is there a particualr case you have in mind?
Other felonies may be felonies but the minor is still a minor and unless they're charged as adults it seems inappropriate to name them.
Personally, I'd like to know if the little punk is running loose in my neighborhood. Even if it were my own son. Maybe it would embarrass me into whipping his ass...again....and again....and again.
-
I guess we as a society believe that a minor who murders still deserves some protection, inasmuch as they are still children and don't reason like adults.
We don't allow them to enter contracts based on the same reasoning; we assume they don't have the reasoning capacity necessary to make rational decisions. Similarly they can't vote. They are prevented from taking high risk jobs, can't make their own medical decisions, and so forth.
Now if they are "charged as an adult" I think the adult rules come into play. I guess the D.A. makes that determination.
-
I guess we as a society believe that a minor who murders still deserves some protection, inasmuch as they are still children and don't reason like adults.
We don't allow them to enter contracts based on the same reasoning; we assume they don't have the reasoning capacity necessary to make rational decisions. Similarly they can't vote. They are prevented from taking high risk jobs, can't make their own medical decisions, and so forth.
Now if they are "charged as an adult" I think the adult rules come into play. I guess the D.A. makes that determination.
They can reason who and when to kill someone. Their medical decisions are made for them by blammo nd his crew. If they do the adult crime, then they need to be named. They are chosen to do many crimes by the leaders of their gangs. They can and do intimidate voters to vote for the people they choose.
Name 'em and fry 'em. Period.
-
Why are some felons not named because they "...are minors"? A murderer is a murderer, regardless of his/her age.
Before or after conviction or guilty plea?
If they have merely been charged, but not convicted, they are considered innocent under our system. Under such circumstances, I can see were naming them in public might be frowned upon.
-
Somebody didn't get his prune juice this morning.
-
I'm not familiar with murdering minors not being named. IIRC I've seen quite a few of them named. Is there a particualr case you have in mind?
Other felonies may be felonies but the minor is still a minor and unless they're charged as adults it seems inappropriate to name them.
It depends on the case and age even with felonies. I know some have been named, especially when there is murder or other things.
-
I think it's bullshit that an accused rapist is publically identified before he/she is convicted. Then when they are proven innocent their picture is still out there. There is no big retraction in the media.
Woman accuses man of rape (her identity is hidden)
man accused of rape (his picture and name is all over the news)
I am fine with it being all over the news AFTER his conviction. But if it's like so many in the past where the woman falsly accuses and remains in the dark and the man's life is ruined. She should be shown imo.
-
I think it's bullshit that an accused rapist is publically identified before he/she is convicted. Then when they are proven innocent their picture is still out there. There is no big retraction in the media.
Woman accuses man of rape (her identity is hidden)
man accused of rape (his picture and name is all over the news)
I am fine with it being all over the news AFTER his conviction. But if it's like so many in the past where the woman falsly accuses and remains in the dark and the man's life is ruined. She should be shown imo.
To make it worse, if a woman has falsely accused someone of rape, even multiple times, they will often hide that at another trial if she makes another claim.
-
Just today a guy was released after being falsely imprisoned for 6 years on rape charges. The plaintiff recanted.