i'm going to avoid any proper real talk about this because really, what i think one way or another is ill-informed in every Important way and I honestly have no idea how to deal with something like this
but holy hell how does a 12 year old get stabbed that many times and not die
that is something, wow.
Stab wound is a really broad term, if you're using a small knife you can make a lot of shallow wounds but not do enough damage. Especially if you have no idea what you're doing.
I have a problem charging an 17 yr old as an adult. I don't believe they should get off scott free, but there really should be a middleground between jail and a short term slap on the wrist- with a priority on salvaging that kid's future.
Virgil_Leads_You on
+3
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I am also entirely aware that I am not qualified whatsoever to diagnose anybody as mentally ill and am operating from the standpoint of mostly complete ignorance about such things, and am readily accepting of being proven wrong or taught how my current perception of events or situations are entirely incorrect.
It doesn't have to be mental illness as Children don't have the same perception or concept of the world that an adult does. Especially children raised without the supervision of their parents and who don't have a full grasp on reality/what they did is wrong. There is a reason that someone like me, who has played video games (even violent ones) from a young age doesn't go stabbing people compared to someone like these girls. My parents explained to me what fiction was and how it wasn't reality. They also didn't let me play hours of violent games or see violent media without their consent or approval (where they would explain to me what was bad/wrong etc).
Parental responsibility is again one of the core points here and it's where everyone, the victim and the two girls now being charged for murder were genuinely failed.
People don't have to be mentally ill to perform evil acts, they can be misguided or believe it was the right thing to do: In the case of children by not having it explained to them why it was wrong. That is what has happened here and I am sick to death of seeing every single case of evil being "Mental Illness", like people who are mentally ill need to be stigmatized and marginalized even more than they already are. Especially given that a huge array of people have some kind of mental illness, including undiagnosed disorders, but function mostly fine (the incidence of depression for example is very high).
Although reading a different site that describes the damage in more detail she got super lucky as one of the wounds was like a millimeter away from her heart.
i'm going to avoid any proper real talk about this because really, what i think one way or another is ill-informed in every Important way and I honestly have no idea how to deal with something like this
but holy hell how does a 12 year old get stabbed that many times and not die
that is something, wow.
Stab wound is a really broad term, if you're using a small knife you can make a lot of shallow wounds but not do enough damage. Especially if you have no idea what you're doing.
yeah thats true, i think horror movies have just taught me to be naturally terrified of young children wielding giant butcher knives
+1
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Its like the shit lottery, just lucky enough to not be dead, but not lucky enough to not be stabbed a bunch of times in the first place. poor girl
I just don't understand what the parents of the two girls were doing and honestly, if Slenderman didn't exist you just know they would have picked something else from the description. Anything from H.P. Lovecraft probably would have substituted equally as well.
Edit: and charging them as adults is just knee-jerk reacting to the way the media are turning it into a circus to show they are doing something.
Although reading a different site that describes the damage in more detail she got super lucky as one of the wounds was like a millimeter away from her heart.
Dang. Yeah that's like the one sure way to kill someone with a knife. I've seen dudes stabbed in the neck survive. You're pretty much fine as long as they miss a major artery/heart.
I don't really see value in blaming the folks or the kid, unless more is known. This sounds like a tragedy more than an evil.
It's hard to imagine your kid is going to discover a meme on the internet and apply it in stabby ways.
I grew up with the birth of the modern internet, and regardless of my folks intentions, I secretly discovered all kinds of unapproved stuff. These kids have way more internet access, and memes like Slenderman are on the most innocent parts of it.
In the end, we don't know if the parents taught against violence or not, but even that won't deter a kid if there's other stuff at play. Only blame I could see, is if the folks reinforced the dumb meme violence, in which case, justice would be better found in trying the parents, not the child.
as awful as this is, can we as a society choose to reform these, fucking literal, children?
instead of throwing them a boiling pit of acid that makes them completely unsociable for the entire rest of their lives?
like sheesh
The problem is that when you're dealing with a type of crime like this- unprovoked and extremely violent, there's little hope of rehabilitating the perpetrators. And even just trying to rehabilitate somebody like that is dangerous. You run the risk of them tricking everybody into thinking they're "cured" only to go off and do something worse because now they think they're smarter than the police and above the law, like what happened with Edward Kemper and John Wayne Gacy.
[citation required]
in a less snarky form: i call bullshit on this
I don't know if you'll be able to read these- I'm getting them through my student access to Jstor. But here:
"Corrections and the Violent Offender" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 381, The Future
of Corrections (Jan., 1969), pp. 119-124 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1038238 describing our failure to account for there being degrees to which violent offenders are violent, leading to inflated ideas about the success of rehabilitating "violent" offenders.
"Changing Violent Minds: Discursive Correction and Resistance in the Cognitive Treatment of Violent Offenders in Prison," : Kathryn J. Fox
Social Problems, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 88-103 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3097163 . True to the title- outlining the problems with getting violent offenders to participate in treatment, to the extent that among the inmates there is "resistance to the (disciplining) portrayals of their violence and criminality in the language of CSC." And how for a significant population of seriously violent offenders, rehabilitation proves ineffective.
I should also add that in more "normal" instances of criminal behavior, I'm all for rehabilitation and firmly believe that it works better than the prison systems. It's just for extreme crimes of serious depravity, such as this stabbing, or what happened in California, that I don't think there's any hope for the perpetrator.
1969 and 1999 aren't exactly cutting edge research papers, and neither of those are relevant considering the especially young age of the girls in question
i can't even begin to fathom how these kids ended up "worshipping" slenderman. i have to believe there's elements of media sensationalism and yellow journalism going on here.
I have a problem charging an 17 yr old as an adult. I don't believe they should get off scott free, but there really should be a middleground between jail and a short term slap on the wrist- with a priority on salvaging that kid's future.
It really depends on the severity and intent crime to me.
Putting aside that megans law and the state sex offender registry are unconstitutional I think a major sex crime is grounds for being tried as an adult. And stabbing someone with an accomplice is as well.
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
Existing evidence indicates a moderate association between measures of psychopathy and various forms of aggression, suggesting that this construct may be relevant for purposes of short-term risk appraisal and management among juveniles. However, due to the enormous developmental changes that occur during adolescence and the absence of longitudinal research on the stability of this construct (and its association with violence), we conclude that reliance on psychopathy measures to make decisions regarding long-term placements for juveniles is contraindicated at this time.
There should be something done in cases where people try to invent false fear and superstition within reality. There are a lot of late night radioshows that pray on the mentally ill. I don't think it should be censorship, but folks broadcasting entertainment should be responsible about it. I've witnessed my disabled sister latch on to all sorts of stuff she heard on a nightly, 1 AM radio broadcast.
Something along the lines of "yo stories discussed may not be fact, but we are happy to entertain" should be included with creepypasta and the like.
The "your parents will die tomorrow if you don't share this chain letter" nonsense found everywhere on the internet should be more discouraged. I don't think people realize how gulible some folk are, and the real harm that can come from it.
MST participants had 54% fewer arrests and 57% fewer days of confinement in adult detention facilities. This investigation represents the longest follow-up to date of a MST clinical trial and suggests that MST is relatively effective in reducing criminal activity among serious and violent juvenile offenders.
...but somehow i don't think a judge trying them 'as adults' is going to opt for the holistic, family-focused approach developed specifically as a method for rehabilitating violent juveniles
i can't even begin to fathom how these kids ended up "worshipping" slenderman. i have to believe there's elements of media sensationalism and yellow journalism going on here.
I don't believe you've met internet fandoms. The part about "worshipping", I wholly believe that happened. Go look up snape-wives, or the supernatural shipping wars and wonder how one of them hasn't snapped and become a deranged murderer considering their psychotic level of devotion to fictional characters.
The idea of hanging this around the neck of the website is fucking dumb though. It's like saying the movie Taxi Driver shot Reagan. Like if someone went on a stabbing spree because they worshipped Picasso, would we have to close the Prado and ask for a ban on Cubism? How can one explain away the actions of a sociopath?
Will the fact that there were two girls involved impact the final decision of this case w/r/t premeditated murder/mental illness/tried as an adult?
Coran Attack!
0
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
Before today I had somehow managed not to hear about slender man, and I was happy with that
Why, internet?
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Just thinking of the case of the two girls who killed one of their mothers. They went to jail, were forbidden from associating with each other, and now days are mostly normal members of society. They aren't actually normal, if you know about their past then you'd notice, but they are well enough that they are not harming anyone.
Another thing is the difference between being sane and insane. If you are found sane and guilty, you go to jail for x amount of years. If you are found insane and guilty then you go into rehabilitation and therapy for as long as it takes, if you don't get better then you aren't released. Both have their variations though.
the communities are the question, here, i think. i see it like this:
i am a teacher. when i have kids in my room, i am legally liable for what goes on. i need to keep them safe. i can't show them 15+ rated movies unless i've got permission slips from every kid's parent. i can't not report abusive language, bullying, or anything sexual that comes up; i'd be legally negligent. i also have an ethical responsibility to ensure that anything i am providing to them is justifiable as part of the educational scope or their development as rounded citizens.
i am a website administrator. i have a webforum full of more kids than could ever pack into one classroom. i have no legal responsibility to temper their discussion, even if it's directly based on what i have produced or published. it's 'too hard for me' and i don't have the training anyway. that's their parents jobs, and even if their parents are totally digitally illiterate - which most of them are - because they are in the closest physical proximity to the kid, everything falls on them. unless they're in the classroom, in which it's their teacher's responsibility.
is that right? we are at a crossroads of social development. more vulnerable people are less guided and less supervised than ever before, and the legal system has a gaping chasm where it should be enacting protections. the notion of the 'private individual', private computer and other and adult-based protections for digital freedoms are grating up against the truth that children cannot socialize themselves. what we've seen in this case is an extreme manifestation of that.
If I've learnt anything from The Dark Knight Returns is that you shoudlnt try to rehabilitate the Joker. Also swastika nipple tassels. Wait what was the question again?
Also my friend was a cop in Australia and worked on a case where two teenager sisters fought over a hair straightener. One ended up decapitating the other.
Im not sure what the moral of this is, its extremely case by case for me whether I think rehabilitation is plausable. However I think it should at least be tried and should be the focus over punishment
Prohass on
0
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
This brings to mind the Bulger case here in the UK. James Bulger was a two-year-old boy who, in 1993, was abducted and killed by two ten-year-olds. They were tried as adults.
Nobody blamed the internet, obviously, though the media tried blaming films, in particular Child's Play. There were questions about one possibly being an undiagnosed psychopath, though the other's mental health wasn't considered an issue. They were in prison until they turned 18, then released with new identities. One (the possible psychopath) has since been back into prison for possessing child porn, but both are now free again.
0
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
Just thinking of the case of the two girls who killed one of their mothers. They went to jail, were forbidden from associating with each other, and now days are mostly normal members of society. They aren't actually normal, if you know about their past then you'd notice, but they are well enough that they are not harming anyone.
Another thing is the difference between being sane and insane. If you are found sane and guilty, you go to jail for x amount of years. If you are found insane and guilty then you go into rehabilitation and therapy for as long as it takes, if you don't get better then you aren't released. Both have their variations though.
There is a Kate Winslet movie based on this called Heavenly Creatures. It is fine until it takes a turn for creepy as fuck.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
Yeah my best friend got me to watch it. She did not really tell me what it was about.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
In Australia, we've got a legal principle called doli incapax, where under the age of 10, you are incapable of wrongdoing (at least from a legal standpoint), so you can't be punished for things under the criminal system (although I think that that's when child support tends to get involved). Between 10-14, you can be held criminally responsible, but it is presumed that you are incapable of wrongdoing, so the prosecution would have to rebut this whole principle, normally by proving that the child knew that the act was seriously wrong "as distinct from an act of mere naughtiness or childish mischief" (that's the one that normally gets quoted).
Not just that the child knows that it's unlawful or sort of wrong, but that it's seriously wrong as a matter of morality, or a matter of "the ordinary principles of reasonable persons".
Haven't really got to children's court yet, so I'm not so sure about sentencing and being tried.
The UK actually abolished the idea that young people are incapable of understanding their actions, and are thus incapable of being held criminally responsible, back in 1998.
Edit: read that completely wrong. The UK just abolished the rebuttable presumption between the ages 10-14.
GrobianWhat's on sale?Pliers!Registered Userregular
Germany has kids up to 13 as completely incapable of criminal behavior.
14-17 has a special youth law. This can also be applied to people up to 21 on a case by case basis. Note that 90% of convictions for the more serious crimes in this age group use youth law so it's pretty rare to be convicted as an adult before 21.
My wife and I were just talking about this before the Slenderman things happened. There really needs to be a better system in place for juveniles in the US. Obviously just sending them to a juvenile facility until they're 18 or so doesn't seem like enough of a punishment to many people or enough time to really help fix whatever is broken.
I'd love a system where we put them in a facility until they're 22ish - letting them out only after helping them get the equivalent of 2 year program in a community college style program. It would give their brains more time to mature and help make sure you're not setting them on a path for failure.
There's been a bunch of stuff in the Australian system about keeping kids, mostly teenagers, out of the criminal justice system. Once they get in, it just generally keeps them in as repeat offenders. The criminal justice system just is not designed for rehabilitation. Means kids often go through children's court, and have a bunch of 'solutions' that don't go near incarceration.
'course there's a bunch of systematic abuse of young people by the justice system and police as well, including bail conditions that involve curfews, and the right for police to get entry into whatever building you are supposed to be in to come and check to see if you are there. Buncha cases of police demanding to be let into a parents' or grandparents' house several times a night to go and shine a torch in some sleeping kids face, all in the name of making sure they're not violating their parole. Then, when the parents/grandparents/owner of the house gets fed up and tells the kid that they seriously cannot handle getting woken up several times a night by police and the kid has got to go somewhere else, the kid gets busted for parole violation. There can also be a bunch of really shitty magistrates and judges, but the childrens' court is generally designed to ameliorate that. Don't know enough about it to know how well it works.
Doesn't happen all the time, but there are enough cases just like this to maintain the argument that police have a culture of abusing their powers in order to "get" kids, and make sure they get incarcerated for a while. Which often means that the kids get into the system, get stuck in shitty institutions with no support network, and end up as repeat offenders.
Australia doesn't quite have the utterly fucked prison-industrial complex as the US, but it's still shit as hell, and trying to get more people into that system isn't doing much for preventing crime.
Posts
Stab wound is a really broad term, if you're using a small knife you can make a lot of shallow wounds but not do enough damage. Especially if you have no idea what you're doing.
It doesn't have to be mental illness as Children don't have the same perception or concept of the world that an adult does. Especially children raised without the supervision of their parents and who don't have a full grasp on reality/what they did is wrong. There is a reason that someone like me, who has played video games (even violent ones) from a young age doesn't go stabbing people compared to someone like these girls. My parents explained to me what fiction was and how it wasn't reality. They also didn't let me play hours of violent games or see violent media without their consent or approval (where they would explain to me what was bad/wrong etc).
Parental responsibility is again one of the core points here and it's where everyone, the victim and the two girls now being charged for murder were genuinely failed.
The answer of "They're mentally ill" is as offensive, overly simplistic and misses the point as badly as the idiot media having conniptions about "Awful internet memes" driving people to kill. Meanwhile just the other day, due to religious bastardry in Ireland, a mass grave of 800 children is dug up due to the terrible neglect and conditions they were placed under killing them off (and I would add, more than likely abuse as well). The bodies were then thrown into a septic tank as an impromptu mass grave. That is worth being outraged and shocked over.
People don't have to be mentally ill to perform evil acts, they can be misguided or believe it was the right thing to do: In the case of children by not having it explained to them why it was wrong. That is what has happened here and I am sick to death of seeing every single case of evil being "Mental Illness", like people who are mentally ill need to be stigmatized and marginalized even more than they already are. Especially given that a huge array of people have some kind of mental illness, including undiagnosed disorders, but function mostly fine (the incidence of depression for example is very high).
yeah thats true, i think horror movies have just taught me to be naturally terrified of young children wielding giant butcher knives
I just don't understand what the parents of the two girls were doing and honestly, if Slenderman didn't exist you just know they would have picked something else from the description. Anything from H.P. Lovecraft probably would have substituted equally as well.
Edit: and charging them as adults is just knee-jerk reacting to the way the media are turning it into a circus to show they are doing something.
Dang. Yeah that's like the one sure way to kill someone with a knife. I've seen dudes stabbed in the neck survive. You're pretty much fine as long as they miss a major artery/heart.
It's hard to imagine your kid is going to discover a meme on the internet and apply it in stabby ways.
I grew up with the birth of the modern internet, and regardless of my folks intentions, I secretly discovered all kinds of unapproved stuff. These kids have way more internet access, and memes like Slenderman are on the most innocent parts of it.
In the end, we don't know if the parents taught against violence or not, but even that won't deter a kid if there's other stuff at play. Only blame I could see, is if the folks reinforced the dumb meme violence, in which case, justice would be better found in trying the parents, not the child.
I don't know if you'll be able to read these- I'm getting them through my student access to Jstor. But here:
"Corrections and the Violent Offender" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 381, The Future
of Corrections (Jan., 1969), pp. 119-124 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1038238 describing our failure to account for there being degrees to which violent offenders are violent, leading to inflated ideas about the success of rehabilitating "violent" offenders.
"Changing Violent Minds: Discursive Correction and Resistance in the Cognitive Treatment of Violent Offenders in Prison," : Kathryn J. Fox
Social Problems, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 88-103 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3097163 . True to the title- outlining the problems with getting violent offenders to participate in treatment, to the extent that among the inmates there is "resistance to the (disciplining) portrayals of their violence and criminality in the language of CSC." And how for a significant population of seriously violent offenders, rehabilitation proves ineffective.
I should also add that in more "normal" instances of criminal behavior, I'm all for rehabilitation and firmly believe that it works better than the prison systems. It's just for extreme crimes of serious depravity, such as this stabbing, or what happened in California, that I don't think there's any hope for the perpetrator.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
It really depends on the severity and intent crime to me.
Putting aside that megans law and the state sex offender registry are unconstitutional I think a major sex crime is grounds for being tried as an adult. And stabbing someone with an accomplice is as well.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.425/abstract
Something along the lines of "yo stories discussed may not be fact, but we are happy to entertain" should be included with creepypasta and the like.
The "your parents will die tomorrow if you don't share this chain letter" nonsense found everywhere on the internet should be more discouraged. I don't think people realize how gulible some folk are, and the real harm that can come from it.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/73/3/445/
...but somehow i don't think a judge trying them 'as adults' is going to opt for the holistic, family-focused approach developed specifically as a method for rehabilitating violent juveniles
I don't believe you've met internet fandoms. The part about "worshipping", I wholly believe that happened. Go look up snape-wives, or the supernatural shipping wars and wonder how one of them hasn't snapped and become a deranged murderer considering their psychotic level of devotion to fictional characters.
The idea of hanging this around the neck of the website is fucking dumb though. It's like saying the movie Taxi Driver shot Reagan. Like if someone went on a stabbing spree because they worshipped Picasso, would we have to close the Prado and ask for a ban on Cubism? How can one explain away the actions of a sociopath?
Coran Attack!
Why, internet?
Another thing is the difference between being sane and insane. If you are found sane and guilty, you go to jail for x amount of years. If you are found insane and guilty then you go into rehabilitation and therapy for as long as it takes, if you don't get better then you aren't released. Both have their variations though.
i am a teacher. when i have kids in my room, i am legally liable for what goes on. i need to keep them safe. i can't show them 15+ rated movies unless i've got permission slips from every kid's parent. i can't not report abusive language, bullying, or anything sexual that comes up; i'd be legally negligent. i also have an ethical responsibility to ensure that anything i am providing to them is justifiable as part of the educational scope or their development as rounded citizens.
i am a website administrator. i have a webforum full of more kids than could ever pack into one classroom. i have no legal responsibility to temper their discussion, even if it's directly based on what i have produced or published. it's 'too hard for me' and i don't have the training anyway. that's their parents jobs, and even if their parents are totally digitally illiterate - which most of them are - because they are in the closest physical proximity to the kid, everything falls on them. unless they're in the classroom, in which it's their teacher's responsibility.
is that right? we are at a crossroads of social development. more vulnerable people are less guided and less supervised than ever before, and the legal system has a gaping chasm where it should be enacting protections. the notion of the 'private individual', private computer and other and adult-based protections for digital freedoms are grating up against the truth that children cannot socialize themselves. what we've seen in this case is an extreme manifestation of that.
Also my friend was a cop in Australia and worked on a case where two teenager sisters fought over a hair straightener. One ended up decapitating the other.
Im not sure what the moral of this is, its extremely case by case for me whether I think rehabilitation is plausable. However I think it should at least be tried and should be the focus over punishment
Nobody blamed the internet, obviously, though the media tried blaming films, in particular Child's Play. There were questions about one possibly being an undiagnosed psychopath, though the other's mental health wasn't considered an issue. They were in prison until they turned 18, then released with new identities. One (the possible psychopath) has since been back into prison for possessing child porn, but both are now free again.
There is a Kate Winslet movie based on this called Heavenly Creatures. It is fine until it takes a turn for creepy as fuck.
No, no, we can get to the bottom of this
Just need a couple more spurious assumptions, maybe a sweeping generalization or two, and we'll nail it.
Not just that the child knows that it's unlawful or sort of wrong, but that it's seriously wrong as a matter of morality, or a matter of "the ordinary principles of reasonable persons".
Haven't really got to children's court yet, so I'm not so sure about sentencing and being tried.
The UK actually abolished the idea that young people are incapable of understanding their actions, and are thus incapable of being held criminally responsible, back in 1998.
Edit: read that completely wrong. The UK just abolished the rebuttable presumption between the ages 10-14.
Steam // Secret Satan
Actually, I read that completely wrong. They just abolished the presumption of doli incapax between 10-14.
Steam // Secret Satan
14-17 has a special youth law. This can also be applied to people up to 21 on a case by case basis. Note that 90% of convictions for the more serious crimes in this age group use youth law so it's pretty rare to be convicted as an adult before 21.
I'd love a system where we put them in a facility until they're 22ish - letting them out only after helping them get the equivalent of 2 year program in a community college style program. It would give their brains more time to mature and help make sure you're not setting them on a path for failure.
'course there's a bunch of systematic abuse of young people by the justice system and police as well, including bail conditions that involve curfews, and the right for police to get entry into whatever building you are supposed to be in to come and check to see if you are there. Buncha cases of police demanding to be let into a parents' or grandparents' house several times a night to go and shine a torch in some sleeping kids face, all in the name of making sure they're not violating their parole. Then, when the parents/grandparents/owner of the house gets fed up and tells the kid that they seriously cannot handle getting woken up several times a night by police and the kid has got to go somewhere else, the kid gets busted for parole violation. There can also be a bunch of really shitty magistrates and judges, but the childrens' court is generally designed to ameliorate that. Don't know enough about it to know how well it works.
Doesn't happen all the time, but there are enough cases just like this to maintain the argument that police have a culture of abusing their powers in order to "get" kids, and make sure they get incarcerated for a while. Which often means that the kids get into the system, get stuck in shitty institutions with no support network, and end up as repeat offenders.
Australia doesn't quite have the utterly fucked prison-industrial complex as the US, but it's still shit as hell, and trying to get more people into that system isn't doing much for preventing crime.
Steam // Secret Satan
I'm waiting for "Who is Goatse" or "Why do two girls only have one cup".
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Steam // Secret Satan
Steam // Secret Satan